Explore the vast range of titles available.

Treatment with doxorubicin is a present standard of care for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma and median overall survival for those treated is 12–16 months, but few, if any, novel treatments or chemotherapy combinations have been able to improve these poor outcomes. Olaratumab is a human antiplatelet-derived growth factor receptor α monoclonal antibody that has antitumour activity in human sarcoma xenografts. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaratumab plus doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. We did an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 study of doxorubicin plus olaratumab treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma at 16 clinical sites in the USA. For both the phase 1b and phase 2 parts of the study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma not previously treated with an anthracycline, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, and available tumour tissue to determine PDGFRα expression by immunohistochemistry. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either olaratumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously on day 1 and day 8 plus doxorubicin (75 mg/m2) or doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to eight cycles. Randomisation was dynamic and used the minimisation randomisation technique. The phase 1b primary endpoint was safety and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a two-sided α level of 0·2 and statistical power of 0·8. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01185964. 15 patients were enrolled and treated with olaratumab plus doxorubicin in the phase 1b study, and 133 patients were randomised (66 to olaratumab plus doxorubicin; 67 to doxorubicin alone) in the phase 2 trial, 129 (97%) of whom received at least one dose of study treatment (64 received olaratumab plus doxorubicin, 65 received doxorubicin). Median progression-free survival in phase 2 was 6·6 months (95% CI 4·1–8·3) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 4·1 months (2·8–5·4) with doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·67; 0·44–1·02, p=0·0615). Median overall survival was 26·5 months (20·9–31·7) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 14·7 months (9·2–17·1) with doxorubicin (stratified HR 0·46, 0·30–0·71, p=0·0003). The objective response rate was 18·2% (9·8–29·6) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 11·9% (5·3–22·2) with doxorubicin (p=0·3421). Steady state olaratumab serum concentrations were reached during cycle 3 with mean maximum and trough concentrations ranging from 419 μg/mL (geometric coefficient of variation in percentage [CV%] 26·2) to 487 μg/mL (CV% 33·0) and from 123 μg/mL (CV% 31·2) to 156 μg/mL (CV% 38·0), respectively. Adverse events that were more frequent with olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone included neutropenia (37 [58%] vs 23 [35%]), mucositis (34 [53%] vs 23 [35%]), nausea (47 [73%] vs 34 [52%]), vomiting (29 [45%] vs 12 [18%]), and diarrhoea (22 [34%] vs 15 [23%]). Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in both groups (olaratumab plus doxorubicin: eight [13%] of 64 patients vs doxorubicin: nine [14%] of 65 patients). This study of olaratumab with doxorubicin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma met its predefined primary endpoint for progression-free survival and achieved a highly significant improvement of 11·8 months in median overall survival, suggesting a potential shift in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma. Eli Lilly and Company.

Background and Objectives Olaratumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that binds to platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα). In a randomized phase II study, olaratumab plus doxorubicin met its predefined primary endpoint for progression-free survival and achieved a highly significant improvement in overall survival versus doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). In this study, we characterize the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of olaratumab in a cancer patient population. Methods Olaratumab was tested at 15 or 20 mg/kg in four phase II studies (in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, STS, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors) as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. PK sampling was performed to measure olaratumab serum levels. PK data were analyzed by nonlinear mixed-effect modeling techniques using NONMEM ® . Results The PKs of olaratumab were best described by a two-compartment PK model with linear clearance (CL). Patient body weight was found to have a significant effect on both CL and central volume of distribution ( V 1 ), whereas tumor size significantly affected CL. A small subset of patients developed treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies (TE-ADAs); however, TE-ADAs did not have any effect on CL or PK time course of olaratumab. There was no difference in the PKs of olaratumab between patients who received olaratumab as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Conclusion The PKs of olaratumab were best described by a model with linear disposition. Patient body weight and tumor size were found to be significant covariates. The PKs of olaratumab were not affected by immunogenicity or chemotherapeutic agents.

BackgroundTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with a poor prognosis particularly in the metastatic setting. Treatments with anti-programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in combination with chemotherapies have demonstrated promising clinical benefit in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) but there is still an unmet need, particularly for patients with PD-L1 negative tumors. Mechanisms of resistance to ICIs in mTNBC include the presence of immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Eganelisib is a potent and selective, small molecule PI3K-γ inhibitor that was shown in preclinical studies to reshape the TME by reducing myeloid cell recruitment to tumors and reprogramming TAMs from an immune-suppressive to an immune-activating phenotype and enhancing activity of ICIs. These studies provided rationale for the clinical evaluation of eganelisib in combination with the anti-PD-L1 atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in firstline mTNBC in the phase 2 clinical trial MAcrophage Reprogramming in Immuno-Oncology-3 (MARIO-3, NCT03961698). We present here for the first time, in-depth translational analyses from the MARIO-3 study and supplemental data from eganelisib monotherapy Ph1/b study in solid tumors (MARIO-1, NCT02637531).MethodsPaired pre-treatment and post-treatment tumor biopsies were analyzed for immunophenotyping by multiplex immunofluorescence (n=11), spatial transcriptomics using GeoMx digital spatial profiling (n=12), and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, (n=18). Peripheral blood samples were analyzed using flow cytometry and multiplex cytokine analysis.ResultsResults from paired tumor biopsies from MARIO-3 revealed gene signatures of TAM reprogramming, immune activation and extracellular matrix (ECM) reorganization. Analysis of PD-L1 negative tumors revealed elevated ECM gene signatures at baseline that decreased after treatment. Gene signatures of immune activation were observed regardless of baseline PD-L1 status and occurred in patients having longer progression-free survival. Peripheral blood analyses revealed systemic immune activation.ConclusionsThis is the first report of translational analyses including paired tumor biopsies from a phase 2 clinical study of the first-in-class PI3K-γ inhibitor eganelisib in combination with atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in frontline mTNBC. These results support the mechanism of action of eganelisib as a TAM-reprogramming immunotherapy and support the rationale for combining eganelisib with ICI and chemotherapy in indications with TAM-driven resistance to ICI.

Background Olaratumab is a platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα)-targeting monoclonal antibody blocking PDGFRα signaling. PDGFRα expression is associated with a more aggressive phenotype and poor ovarian cancer outcomes. This randomized, open label phase II study evaluated olaratumab plus liposomal doxorubicin compared with liposomal doxorubicin alone in advanced ovarian cancer patients. Methods Patients with platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant advanced ovarian cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m 2 , intravenous infusion) administered every 4 weeks with or without olaratumab (20 mg/kg, IV infusion) every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified based on prior response to platinum therapy (refractory vs resistant). The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. Results A total of 123 patients were treated (62 olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin; 61 liposomal doxorubicin). Median PFS was 4.2 months for olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and 4.0 months for liposomal doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 1.043; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.698–1.558; p  = 0.837). Median OS was 16.6 months and 16.2 months in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and liposomal doxorubicin arms, respectively (HR = 1.098; 95% CI 0.71–1.71). In the platinum-refractory subgroup, median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 1.6–9.2) and 3.7 months (95% CI 1.9–9.2) in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin ( n  = 15) and liposomal doxorubicin arms ( n  = 16), respectively (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.38–1.91). Overall, 59.7% (olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin) and 65.6% (liposomal doxorubicin) of patients reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events regardless of causality. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades) regardless of causality were fatigue related (61%), nausea (57%), and constipation (52%) with olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and nausea (64%), fatigue related (62%), and mucositis (46%) with liposomal doxorubicin. Conclusions The addition of olaratumab to liposomal doxorubicin did not result in significant prolongation of PFS or OS in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00913835 ; registered June 2, 2009.

Background Hepcidin plays a central role in iron homeostasis and erythropoiesis. Neutralizing hepcidin with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) may prevent ferroportin internalization, restore iron efflux from cells, and allow transferrin-mediated iron transport to the bone marrow. This multicenter, phase 1 study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy of a fully humanized mAb (LY2787106) with high affinity for hepcidin in cancer patients with anemia. Methods Thirty-three patients with hepcidin levels ≥5 ng/mL received LY2787106 either every 3 weeks (19 patients, dose range 0.3–10 mg/kg) (part A) or weekly (14 patients, dose 10 mg/kg) (part B). LY2787106 PK/PD markers of iron and hematology biology were measured. Results LY2787106 clearance (32 mL/h) and volume of distribution (7.7 L) were independent of dose and time, leading to a dose-proportional increase in concentration with dose. Consistent dose-dependent increases in serum iron, and transferrin saturation were seen at the 3 and 10 mg/kg dose levels, typically peaking within 24 h after LY2787106 administration and returning to baseline by day 8. Conclusions Our findings indicate that LY2787106 was well tolerated in cancer patients with anemia and that targeting the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway by neutralizing hepcidin resulted in transient iron mobilization, thus supporting the role of hepcidin in iron regulation. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01340976

PurposeOlaratumab is a recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibody against PGDFRα. Olaratumab plus doxorubicin improved survivalversus doxorubicin in an open-label, randomised phase 2 soft tissue sarcoma (STS) trial. We characterised the olaratumab exposure–response relationship for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.MethodsPFS and OS data from the 133 patients enrolled in the phase 2 study were analysed using time-to-event modelling. The effect of olaratumab on PFS/OS was explored using the trough serum concentration after cycle 1 (Cmin1) and the average concentration throughout treatment (Cavg). The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was compared across olaratumab exposure quartiles.ResultsPFS and OS were described by models with an exponential hazard function and inhibitory EMAX functions to describe the effect of olaratumab, regardless of the PK endpoint. The olaratumab EC50s for PFS (ECmin150 = 82.0 µg/mL, ECavg50 = 179 µg/mL) and OS (ECmin150 = 66.1 µg/mL, ECavg50 = 134 µg/mL) corresponded to the median and 25th percentile of Cmin1/Cavg in the study, respectively. Maximum predicted improvement in the hazard ratio for OS and PFS was approximately 75% and 60%, respectively. There was no change in the rate of TEAEs with increasing olaratumab serum levels.ConclusionsPFS/OS benefits occurred without a rate change in TEAEs across quartiles. Maximum benefit in OS was achieved in the upper three quartiles and a potential of early disease progression in the lower quartile of olaratumab serum exposure. These results prompted a loading dose strategy in the ongoing phase 3 STS trial.

Purpose This phase I study was carried out to determine the phase II recommended dose of tasisulam sodium (hereafter, tasisulam), a novel anticancer agent with a unique mechanism of action. Methods Tasisulam was administered intravenously, every 21 days, in patients with refractory solid tumors using a three-plus-three dose-escalation schema. Results Fifty-three patients were enrolled; the first 34 were treated with a flat dose of tasisulam of up to 2,400 mg, the dose level at which all three patients had dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Controlling for C max proved important to reduce the risk of toxicity; therefore, we initially focused on identifying which parameters explained C max (end-of-infusion concentration) variability. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated that C max negatively correlates with lean body weight (LBW). Thus, the dosing regimen was revised using a LBW-based algorithm targeting a specific C max . A loading/chronic dose paradigm was then implemented as pharmacokinetic results revealed a long terminal half-life of tasisulam, likely because of its high-affinity albumin binding. C max -based dose escalation was stopped at the 420-μg/mL cohort, in which one of the 16 patients had DLT (transient hepatic transaminase elevation); grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was noted in later cycles in three patients. Although response was not a primary objective, 33% of heavily pretreated patients with post-dose radiological assessments had stable disease. Conclusion Implementation of a novel targeted C max -based dosing regimen allowed for the recommendation of a phase II tasisulam dose (loading dose of 420 μg/mL targeted C max with all subsequent doses administered at 65% of chronic dose given every 21 days) despite pharmacological challenges posed by high albumin binding.

Summary Background This phase Ib study used a parallel, multi-arm design to examine tasisulam-sodium (hereafter tasisulam), a drug with complex pharmacology, combined with standard chemotherapies in patients with advanced solid tumors, with the ultimate goal of accelerating drug development. Methods Patients received escalating doses of tasisulam (3 + 3 schema; target Cmax 300–400 μg/mL) every 28 days plus 1,000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine HCl (days 1 and 15), 60 mg/m 2 docetaxel, 200 mg/m 2 /day temozolomide, 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin, or 150 mg/day erlotinib. Following dose-escalation, patients were enrolled into specific tumor subtype arms, chosen based on the established activity of the standard agent. Because tasisulam is highly albumin-bound, patients in the tumor-specific confirmation arms were dosed targeting specific albumin-corrected exposure ranges (AUCalb) identified during dose-escalation (3,500 h*μg/mL [75th percentile] for docetaxel, temozolomide, and cisplatin; 4,000 h*μg/mL for gemcitabine and erlotinib). Results A total of 234 patients were enrolled. The safety profile of tasisulam with standard chemotherapies was sufficient to allow enrollment into the dose-confirmation phase in all arms. The primary dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). The most common grade ≥3 drug-related treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia, with the highest incidence in the docetaxel arm. Conclusions The multi-arm design allowed the efficient determination of the maximum tolerated dose of tasisulam across multiple combinations, and a preliminary characterization of pharmacokinetics, safety, and potential efficacy. Although enrollment into all planned groups was not completed due to termination of compound development, these data support the feasibility of this approach for accelerated cancer drug development, even for drugs with complex pharmacology.

Purpose To determine the recommended/maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety profile of tasisulam sodium (hereafter tasisulam), a novel anticancer agent. Methods In this phase I study, tasisulam was administered as a 24-h continuous intravenous infusion on day 1, every 28 days, to patients with advanced solid tumors. A flat-dosing schema was planned for four cohorts of 3–6 patients: 600, 1,200, 2,000, and 2,500 mg. Results Twenty-six patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed until cohort 3 (grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia). Interim PK analyses of this and another ongoing phase I study suggested that a lower dose after cycle 1 was necessary for doses ≥2,500 mg because of the long half-life of tasisulam (~14 days). Therefore, a loading dose of 2,500 mg followed by a chronic dose of 1,750 mg was implemented for cohort 4; one patient developed DLT (grade 4 neutropenia), and another developed grade 3 thrombocytopenia in cycles 2 and 3. These findings, together with PK data, which indicated a disproportionate increase in free drug relative to total tasisulam concentrations at doses >2,500 mg, led to the determination of the 2,500-/1,750-mg regimen as the MTD. Eight patients had stable disease, and two patients unconfirmed partial responses. Conclusions When administered as a flat-dose, 24-h infusion, the MTD of tasisulam was a loading dose of 2,500 mg followed by a chronic dose of 1,750 mg, every 28 days. Consistent with the profile of the 2-h infusion in clinical development, bone marrow suppression was the major DLT.

Purpose This phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose to be recommended for a future phase II study of tasisulam sodium in Japanese patients with advanced, refractory solid tumors. Safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary anti-tumor activities were assessed. Due to high-affinity albumin binding, an albumin-tailored dose to reduce the variability in tasisulam exposure was also studied. Methods A dose escalation scheme of tasisulam was used over 4 dose levels. Dose levels 1-3 targeted the maximum plasma concentration ( C max ) of 300, 340, and 360 μg/mL. Dose level 4 used an albumin-tailored range of C max -targeted doses to achieve an albumin-corrected exposure (AUCalb) of 1,200–6,400 μg h/mL, the range chosen for global tasisulam studies. Tasisulam was administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day (dose levels 1 and 2) or 28-day (dose levels 3 and 4) cycle. Results The major adverse events were related to bone marrow suppression, particularly neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were not observed until dose level 4, where 3 out of 6 patients experienced DLT, despite a tendency toward lower AUCalb variability (CV %) in the albumin-tailored dose group (38 %) compared with the targeted C max groups (50–236 %). Conclusions Tasisulam in doses up to dose level 3 (target C max 360 μg/mL) was well tolerated. Although albumin-tailored dosing provided less AUCalb variability, a MTD that aligns with other global tasisulam studies was not identified. A lower AUCalb range may be required for the Japan population.