Explore the vast range of titles available.

The dependence of the adaptive immune system on circadian rhythm is an emerging field of study with potential therapeutic implications. We aimed to determine whether specific time-of-day patterns of immune checkpoint inhibitor infusions might alter melanoma treatment efficacy. Melanoma Outcomes Following Immunotherapy (MEMOIR) is a longitudinal study of all patients with melanoma who received ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, or a combination of these at a single tertiary cancer centre (Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA). For this analysis, we collected deidentified participant-level data from the MEMOIR database for adults (age ≥18 years) diagnosed with stage IV melanoma between 2012 and 2020. Those who received fewer than four infusions were excluded. Standard of care doses were used, with modifications at the treating physicians' discretion. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as death from any cause and indexed from date of first infusion of immune checkpoint inhibitor. We calculated the association between overall survival and proportion of infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors received after 1630 h (a composite time cutoff derived from seminal studies of the immune-circadian rhythm to represent onset of evening) using Cox regression and propensity score-matching on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and receipt of corticosteroids and radiotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events that led to change or discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors were also assessed. Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2020, 481 patients with melanoma received treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors at the study centre, of whom 299 had stage IV disease and were included in this study; median follow-up was 27 months (IQR 14 to 47). In the complete unmatched sample, 102 (34%) patients were female and 197 (66%) were male, with a median age of 61 years (IQR 51 to 72). Every additional 20% of infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors received after 1630 h (among all infusions received by a patient) conferred an overall survival hazard ratio (HR) of 1·31 (95% CI 1·00 to 1·71; p=0·046). A propensity score-matched analysis of patients who did (n=73) and did not (n=73) receive at least 20% of their infusions of immune checkpoint inhibitors after 1630 h (54 [37%] of 146 patients were women and 92 [63%] were men, with a median age of 58 years [IQR 48 to 68]) showed that having at least 20% of infusions in the evening was associated with shorter overall survival (median 4·8 years [95% CI 3·9 to not estimable] vs not reached; HR 2·04 [1·04 to 4·00; p=0·038]). This result remained robust to multivariable proportional hazards adjustment with (HR 1·80 [1·08 to 2·98; p=0·023]) and without (2·16 [1·10 to 4·25; p=0·025]) inclusion of the complete unmatched study sample. The most common adverse events were colitis (54 [18%] of 299 patients), hepatitis (27 [9%]), and hypophysitis (15 [5%]), and there were no treatment-related deaths. Our findings are in line with an increasing body of evidence that adaptive immune responses are less robust when initially stimulated in the evening than if stimulated in the daytime. Although prospective studies of the timing of immune checkpoint inhibitor infusions are warranted, efforts towards scheduling infusions before mid-afternoon could be considered in the multidisciplinary management of advanced melanoma. National Institutes of Health, American Society for Radiation Oncology and Melanoma Research Alliance, and Winship Cancer Institute.

Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least one prior therapy. Ixazomib is a selective, potent, and reversible inhibitor of the 20S proteasome, and preferentially binds to and inhibits the β5 chymotrypsin-like proteolytic site. Ixazomib absorption is rapid, with a median time to reach maximum plasma concentration of approximately 1 h post-dose. Ixazomib pharmacokinetics (PK) are adequately described by a three-compartment model (terminal half-life of 9.5 days) with first-order linear absorption (oral bioavailability of 58%). Plasma exposures of ixazomib increase in a dose-proportional manner. A high-fat meal decreases both the rate and extent of ixazomib absorption, supporting administration on an empty stomach. Population PK analyses demonstrated that no dose adjustment is required based on age, body size/weight, race, sex, mild-to-moderate renal impairment, or mild hepatic impairment. Results from dedicated studies indicate that a reduced starting dose (from 4 to 3 mg) is appropriate for patients with severe renal impairment, end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, or moderate-to-severe hepatic impairment. Non-cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated metabolism appears to be the major clearance mechanism for ixazomib. Drug–drug interaction studies have shown no meaningful effects of strong inhibitors of CYP3A on ixazomib PK; however, the strong inducer rifampin caused a clinically relevant reduction in ixazomib exposure, supporting the recommendation to avoid concomitant administration of ixazomib with strong CYP3A inducers. Exposure–response analyses of data from the phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 registrational study demonstrate a favorable benefit–risk profile for the approved dose and regimen of weekly ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle.

PurposeVeliparib is an oral inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 and -2. PARP-1 expression may be increased in cancer, and this increase confers resistance to cytotoxic agents. We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of veliparib combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin.MethodsEligibility criteria included patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ≤ 3 prior regimens. Paclitaxel and carboplatin were administered on day 3 of a 21-day cycle. Veliparib was given PO BID days 1–7, except for cycle 1 in the first 46 patients to serve as control for toxicity and PK. A standard “3 + 3” design started veliparib at 10 mg BID, paclitaxel at 150 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6. The pharmacokinetic (PK) disposition of veliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin was determined by LC–MS/MS and AAS during cycles 1 and 2.ResultsSeventy-three patients were enrolled. Toxicities were as expected with carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy. DLTs were seen in two of seven evaluable patients at the maximum administered dose (MAD): veliparib 120 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6 (febrile neutropenia, hyponatremia). The MTD and RP2D were determined to be veliparib 100 mg BID, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and carboplatin AUC 6. Median number of cycles of the three-agent combination was 4 (1–16). We observed 22 partial and 5 complete responses. Veliparib did not affect paclitaxel or carboplatin PK disposition.ConclusionVeliparib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin were well tolerated and demonstrated promising antitumor activity.

Background Selecting the appropriate patients to receive immunotherapy (IO) remains a challenge due to the lack of optimal biomarkers. The presence of liver metastases has been implicated as a poor prognostic factor in patients with metastatic cancer. We investigated the association between sites of metastatic disease and clinical outcomes in patients receiving IO. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of 90 patients treated on IO-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University between 2009 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the first dose of IO to date of death or hospice referral and clinical or radiographic progression, respectively. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as a best response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). Univariate analysis (UVA) and Multivariate analysis (MVA) were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, whether IO is indicated for the patient’s histology, ECOG performance status, Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group, number of metastatic sites, and histology. Results The median age was 63 years and 53% of patients were men. The most common histologies were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal cancers (22%). Most patients (73.3%) had more than one site of distant metastasis. Sites of metastasis collected were lymph node ( n  =  58 ), liver ( n  =  40 ), lung ( n  =  37 ), bone ( n  =  24 ), and brain ( n  =  8 ). Most patients (80.7%) were RMH good risk. Most patients ( n = 62 ) had received 2+ prior lines of systemic treatment before receiving IO on trial; 27 patients (30.0%) received prior ICB. Liver metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS (HR: 0.38, CI: 0.17–0.84, p  = 0.017). Patients with liver metastasis also trended towards having shorter PFS (HR: 0.70, CI: 0.41–1.19, p  = 0.188). The median OS was substantially longer for patients without liver metastases (21.9 vs. 8.1 months, p  = 0.0048). Conclusions Liver metastases may be a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving IO on phase 1 clinical trials. The presence of liver metastases may warrant consideration in updated prognostic models if these findings are validated in a larger prospective cohort.

Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.

SummaryBackground Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) promote tumor growth, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance via colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), acting through CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) signaling. This phase 1 study determined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the anti–CSF-1R antibody LY3022855 in solid tumors. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were enrolled and treated in 2 dosing cohorts: weight-based (part A) and non–weight-based (part B). Part A patients were assigned to intravenous (IV) dose-escalation cohorts: 2.5 mg/kg once per week (QW), 0.3 mg/kg QW, 0.6 mg/kg QW, 1.25 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) and 1.25 mg/kg QW doses of LY3022855. Non–weight-based doses in part B were 100 mg and 150 mg IV QW. Results Fifty-two patients (mean age 58.6 ± 10.4 years) were treated with ≥1 dose of LY3022855 (range: 4–6). Five dose-limiting toxicities (left ventricular dysfunction, anemia, pancreatitis, rhabdomyolysis, and acute kidney injury) occurred in 4 patients. The non–weight-based 100 mg QW dose was established as the RP2D. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were increase in liver function variables, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, pyrexia, increased lipase, amylase, and lactate dehydrogenase. Clearance decreased with increasing dose and weight-based dosing had minimal effect on pharmacokinetics. Serum CSF-1, and IL-34 levels increased at higher doses and more frequent dosing, whereas TAMs and CD14dimCD16bright levels decreased. Three patients achieved stable disease. No responses were seen. Conclusions LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed dose-dependent pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics and limited clinical activity in a heterogenous solid tumor population. ClinicalTrials.gov IDNCT01346358 (Registration Date: May 3, 2011).

BackgroundTo determine the safety and efficacy of the anti-colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (anti-CSF1R) monoclonal antibody AMG 820 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with select solid tumors.Patients and methodsPatients had advanced, refractory mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with low (<50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and were naïve to anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 or had relapsed/refractory NSCLC after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment with low or high (≥50%) PD-L1 expression; all were anti-CSF1/CSF1R naïve. Patients received 1100 mg or 1400 mg AMG 820 plus 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs) and objective response rate per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours at the recommended combination dose.ResultsOverall, 116 patients received ≥1 dose of AMG 820 plus pembrolizumab (18 at 1400 mg AMG 820; 98 at 1100 mg AMG 820). Most patients (64%) were male; the median age was 64 (range 30–86) years. Seven patients had DLTs (1 at 1400 mg AMG 820; 6 at 1100 mg AMG 820). Almost all patients (99.1%) had AEs, 87.9% with grade ≥3 AEs. The most common AEs were increased aspartate aminotransferase (59.5%), fatigue (48.3%), periorbital/face edema (48.3%), and rash/maculopapular rash (37.1%). The best response was immune-related partial response in 3 patients (3%; duration of response 9.2, 10.0, 12.5 months) and immune-related stable disease in 39 patients (34%). None of the completed phase II cohorts met the predefined threshold for efficacy. Post-treatment there was accumulation of serum colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) and interleukin-34, reduction in CSF1-dependent CD16-expressing monocytes, and increased PD-L1 expression and CD4 and CD8 cell numbers in tumor biopsies.ConclusionsThe recommended combination dose of 1100 mg AMG 820 plus 200 mg pembrolizumab had an acceptable safety profile. Although pharmacodynamic effects were observed, antitumor activity was insufficient for further evaluation of this combination in selected patient populations.Trial registration number NCT02713529

Background: With increasing numbers of oncology biosimilars in the approval pipeline, it is important to investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need prior to adoption. Methods: Between January and May 2018, 77 oncology clinicians (52 physicians, 16 pharmacists, and 9 advanced practice providers) completed a survey covering three domains: clinician understanding, prescription preferences, and patient involvement. An in-depth interview was designed based on themes identified in the first 50 surveys: cost, safety and efficacy, patient preference, and disease stage. Participants were chosen to participate in the interview based on outlying responses to survey questions. Results: When asked to define a biosimilar, 74% (57/77) of respondents could not give a satisfactory definition, and 40.3% (31/77) considered a biosimilar the same as a generic drug. The most important factor in biosimilar prescription was safety and efficacy (4.51 out of 5) followed closely by cost differences (4.34 out of 5). A 40% increase (53.2–94.8%) in clinicians’ prescribing likelihood was seen after a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable. Participants in this study were split regarding the importance of shared decision-making with patients [50.7% (39/77) important or extremely important, 39.0% (30/77) somewhat or not at all important]. Clinicians were also split concerning the role that pharmacists should play in the decision to prescribe or substitute biosimilars. Conclusion: Understanding of biosimilars is low, and educational needs are high. The information that clinicians deem important to assess, such as safety, efficacy and cost, will need to be provided before they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars.

The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib is indicated as maintenance treatment in patients with certain subtypes of advanced ovarian cancer, and is being investigated in patients with other solid tumors. Niraparib is available in 100-mg capsules with a starting dosage of 200 or 300 mg/d. This study assessed the relative bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence (BE) between a 1 × 300-mg tablet relative to 3 × 100-mg niraparib capsules. In addition, the food effect (FE) of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of tablet-formulated niraparib was investigated. This was a US-based, 3-stage, open-label, multicenter, single-crossover, randomized-sequence study. Enrolled patients were 18 years and older, with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced solid tumors (metastatic or local) and disease progression despite standard therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib 1 × 300-mg tablet or 3 × 100-mg capsules in the BA and BE stages or 1 × 300-mg tablet in a fasted or fed (high-fat meal) state in the FE stage. Across all study stages, PK parameters were assessed for 7 days after each dose (tablet or capsule) or prandial state (fasted or fed). In the BA stage, patients crossed over to the other treatment after a 7-day washout period, which was extended to 14 days in the BE and FE stages. Tolerability was assessed for patients who received any amount of niraparib. The BA-, BE-, and FE-evaluable populations comprised 23, 108, and 19 patients, respectively, who completed both treatment periods in each study stage, had sufficient concentration data to accurately estimate PK parameters without niraparib carryover, and did not experience disqualifying events. PK parameters were similar after dosing with tablet or capsule formulations; the 90% CIs of the geometric least square means for Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ were within the 0.80 to 1.25 BE limits. In the FE stage, Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ were 11%, 32%, and 28% higher, respectively, in the fed versus fasted state. The safety population included 29, 168, and 28 patients in the BA, BE, and FE stages, respectively, who received niraparib. No new safety signals were identified. Niraparib tablets were found to be bioequivalent to capsules. A modest (≤32%) FE was observed with a high-fat meal, but was not considered to be clinically meaningful, given niraparib's PK variability. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03329001. (Clin Ther. 2024;46:XXX–XXX) © 2024 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.