Explore the vast range of titles available.

The development of oncology drugs traditionally begins by studying them in heavily pretreated patients, and then working ‘upstream’ to populations with earlier-stage disease. The recent FDA approval of an androgen receptor antagonist first in prostate cancer patients without demonstrable metastatic disease but at high-risk for metastasis, based on a novel metastasis-free survival end point developed by the FDA, could provide a template for a paradigm shift.

Dabrafenib is an inhibitor of BRAF kinase that is selective for mutant BRAF. We aimed to assess its safety and tolerability and to establish a recommended phase 2 dose in patients with incurable solid tumours, especially those with melanoma and untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases. We undertook a phase 1 trial between May 27, 2009, and March 20, 2012, at eight study centres in Australia and the USA. Eligible patients had incurable solid tumours, were 18 years or older, and had adequate organ function. BRAF mutations were mandatory for inclusion later in the study because of an absence of activity in patients with wild-type BRAF. We used an accelerated dose titration method, with the first dose cohort receiving 12 mg dabrafenib daily in a 21-day cycle. Once doses had been established, we expanded the cohorts to include up to 20 patients. On the basis of initial data, we chose a recommended phase 2 dose. Efficacy at the recommended phase 2 dose was studied in patients with BRAF-mutant tumours, including those with non-Val600Glu mutations, in three cohorts: metastatic melanoma, melanoma with untreated brain metastases, and non-melanoma solid tumours. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00880321. We enrolled 184 patients, of whom 156 had metastatic melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 2 or worse were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (20 patients, 11%), fatigue (14, 8%), and pyrexia (11, 6%). Dose reductions were necessary in 13 (7%) patients. No deaths or discontinuations resulted from adverse events, and 140 (76%) patients had no treatment-related adverse events worse than grade 2. Doses were increased to 300 mg twice daily, with no maximum tolerated dose recorded. On the basis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and response data, we selected a recommended phase 2 dose of 150 mg twice daily. At the recommended phase 2 dose in 36 patients with Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, responses were reported in 25 (69%, 95% CI 51·9–83·7) and confirmed responses in 18 (50%, 32·9–67·1). 21 (78%, 57·7–91·4) of 27 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma responded and 15 (56%, 35·3–74·5) had a confirmed response. In Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, responses were durable, with 17 patients (47%) on treatment for more than 6 months. Responses were recorded in patients with non-Val600Glu BRAF mutations. In patients with melanoma and untreated brain metastases, nine of ten patients had reductions in size of brain lesions. In 28 patients with BRAF-mutant non-melanoma solid tumours, apparent antitumour activity was noted in a gastrointestinal stromal tumour, papillary thyroid cancers, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and colorectal cancer. Dabrafenib is safe in patients with solid tumours, and an active inhibitor of Val600-mutant BRAF with responses noted in patients with melanoma, brain metastases, and other solid tumours. GlaxoSmithKline.

MEK is a member of the MAPK signalling cascade that is commonly activated in melanoma. Direct inhibition of MEK blocks cell proliferation and induces apoptosis. We aimed to analyse safety, efficacy, and genotyping data for the oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with melanoma. We undertook a multicentre, phase 1 three-part study (dose escalation, cohort expansion, and pharmacodynamic assessment). The main results of this study are reported elsewhere; here we present data relating to patients with melanoma. We obtained tumour samples to assess BRAF mutational status, and available tissues underwent exploratory genotyping analysis. Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events were defined by common toxicity criteria. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. 97 patients with melanoma were enrolled, including 81 with cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma (36 BRAF mutant, 39 BRAF wild-type, six BRAF status unknown), and 16 with uveal melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=80; 82%) and diarrhoea (44; 45%), most of which were grade 2 or lower. No cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas were recorded. Of 36 patients with BRAF mutations, 30 had not received a BRAF inhibitor before; two complete responses (both confirmed) and ten partial responses (eight confirmed) were noted in this subgroup (confirmed response rate, 33%). Median progression-free survival of this subgroup was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0–7·4). Of the six patients who had received previous BRAF inhibition, one unconfirmed partial response was recorded. Of 39 patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, four partial responses were confirmed (confirmed response rate, 10%). Our data show substantial clinical activity of trametinib in melanoma and suggest that MEK is a valid therapeutic target. Differences in response rates according to mutations indicate the importance of mutational analyses in the future. GlaxoSmithKline.

We applied mathematical models to clinical trial data available at Project Data Sphere LLC (Cary, NC, USA), a non-profit universal access data-sharing warehouse. Our aim was to assess the rates of cancer growth and regression using the comparator groups of eight randomised clinical trials that enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In this retrospective analysis, we used data from eight randomised clinical trials with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to estimate the growth (g) and regression (d) rates of disease burden over time. Rates were obtained by applying mathematical models to prostate-specific antigen levels as the representation of tumour quantity. Rates were compared between study interventions (prednisone, mitoxantrone, and docetaxel) and off-treatment data when on-study treatment had been discontinued to understand disease behaviour during treatment and after discontinuation. Growth (g) was examined for association with a traditional endpoint (overall survival) and for its potential use as an endpoint to reduce sample size in clinical trials. Estimates for g, d, or both were obtained in 2353 (88%) of 2678 patients with data available for analysis; g differentiated docetaxel (a US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy) from prednisone and mitoxantrone and was predictive of overall survival in a landmark analysis at 8 months. A simulated sample size analysis, in which g was used as the endpoint, compared docetaxel data with mitoxantrone data and showed that small sample sizes were sufficient to achieve 80% power (16, 47, and 25 patients, respectively, in the three docetaxel comparator groups). Similar results were found when the mitoxantrone data were compared with the prednisone data (41, 39, and 41 patients in the three mitoxantrone comparator groups). Finally, after discontinuation of docetaxel therapy, median tumour growth (g) increased by nearly five times. The application of mathematical models to existing clinical data allowed estimation of rates of growth and regression that provided new insights in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The availability of clinical data through initiatives such as Project Data Sphere, when combined with innovative modelling techniques, could greatly enhance our understanding of how cancer responds to treatment, and accelerate the productivity of clinical development programmes. None.

Background Globally, gastric cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death, with the majority of the health burden borne by economically less-developed countries. Methods Here, we report a genetic characterization of 50 gastric adenocarcinoma samples, using affymetrix SNP arrays and Illumina mRNA expression arrays as well as Illumina sequencing of the coding regions of 384 genes belonging to various pathways known to be altered in other cancers. Results Genetic alterations were observed in the WNT, Hedgehog, cell cycle, DNA damage and epithelial-to-mesenchymal-transition pathways. Conclusions The data suggests targeted therapies approved or in clinical development for gastric carcinoma would be of benefit to ~22% of the patients studied. In addition, the novel mutations detected here, are likely to influence clinical response and suggest new targets for drug discovery.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to be equivalent to post-operative treatment for breast cancer, and allows for assessment of chemotherapy response. In a pilot trial of docetaxel (T) and capecitabine (X) neoadjuvant chemotherapy for Stage II/III BC, we assessed correlation between baseline gene expression and tumor response to treatment, and examined changes in gene expression associated with treatment. Patients received four cycles of TX. Tumor tissue obtained from Mammotome™ core biopsies pretreatment (BL) and post-cycle 1 (C1) of TX was flash frozen and stored at −70°C until processing. Gene expression analysis utilized Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 GeneChip arrays. Statistical analysis was performed using BRB Array Tools after RMA normalization. Gene ontology (GO) pathway analysis used random variance t tests with a significance level of P < 0.005. For gene categories identified by GO pathway analysis as significant, expression levels of individual genes within those pathways were compared between classes using univariate t tests; those genes with significance level of P < 0.05 were reported. PAM50 analyses were performed on tumor samples to investigate biologic subtype and risk of relapse (ROR). Using GO pathway analysis, 39 gene categories discriminated between responders and non-responders, most notably genes involved in microtubule assembly and regulation. When comparing pre- and post-chemotherapy specimens, we identified 71 differentially expressed gene categories, including DNA repair and cell proliferation regulation. There were 45 GO pathways in which the change in expression after one cycle of chemotherapy was significantly different among responders and non-responders. The majority of tumor samples fell into the basal-like and luminal B categories. ROR scores decreased in response to chemotherapy; this change was more evident in samples from patients classified as responders by clinical criteria. GO pathway analysis identified a number of gene categories pertinent to therapeutic response, and may be an informative method for identifying genes important in response to chemotherapy. Larger studies using the methods described here are necessary to fully evaluate gene expression changes in response to chemotherapy.

Farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) are a novel class of cancer therapeutics whose development was based on the discovery that the function of oncogenic Ras depends upon its posttranslational farnesylation. Significantly, experiments in animal models have shown that FTIs have promise as nontoxic cancer therapeutics. However, cell biological studies have suggested that FTIs may act at a level beyond that of suppressing Ras function, so the exact mechanism of action has emerged as a question of major interest. Here, we review evidence that proteins other than Ras are important targets for inhibition, summarize findings suggesting a role for farnesylated Rho proteins prompted by studies on RhoB, and suggest a new model for how FTIs exert their biological effects. The 'FTI-Rho hypothesis' proposes that FTIs act in part by altering Rho-dependent cell adhesion signals which are linked to pathways controlling cell cycle and cell survival and which are subverted or defective in neoplastic cells. This model offers a novel framework for addressing the questions about FTI biology, including the basis for lack of toxicity to normal cells, cytotoxic versus cytostatic effects on tumor cells, and the persistence and drug resistance of malignant cells in FTI-treated animals.

The combination of a BRAF inhibitor (dabrafenib) and a MEK inhibitor (trametinib) in patients with metastatic melanoma produced a significantly higher response rate than dabrafenib alone. Median progression-free survival was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months with dabrafenib alone. Pharmacologic inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway has proved to be a major advance in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The use of vemurafenib and dabrafenib, agents that block MAPK signaling in patients with melanoma and the BRAF V600E mutation, has been associated with prolonged survival and progression-free survival, respectively, in randomized phase 3 trials involving patients with previously untreated melanoma. 1 – 6 Trametinib mediates blockade of MAPK kinase (MEK), which is downstream of BRAF in the MAPK pathway and has been associated with improved progression-free and overall survival in BRAF V600 melanoma (comprising both V600E and V600K mutations). . . .

Summary Two studies were conducted in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic or renal impairment and subjects with normal organ function to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of casopitant and to assess its safety in these populations. A total of 26 subjects were enrolled in the hepatic impairment study and 18 subjects in the renal impairment study. All subjects received oral casopitant 100 mg once-daily for 5 days. Casopitant area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) increased 11% and 24% in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, respectively, on Day 1, compared with subjects with normal hepatic function; a similar increase was observed on Day 5. The AUC of the active major metabolite, GSK525060, was reduced 29% and 19% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment, but not altered by mild hepatic impairment. Casopitant AUC increased 34% and 22% on Day 1 in subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment, respectively, and 28% and 11% on Day 5, respectively, compared with subjects with normal renal function. GSK525060 AUC was increased 17% and 24% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with mild renal impairment; but did not significantly change in subjects with moderate renal impairment. Further age-adjusted analysis showed no meaningful effect of renal impairment on casopitant or GSK525060 AUC. Plasma protein binding of casopitant and GSK525060 was similar in all subjects. The pharmacokinetics of casopitant is not altered to a clinically significant extent in subjects with mild or moderate, hepatic or renal impairment. The impact of severe hepatic or renal impairment was not evaluated.

Introduction Pharmacokinetic interactions between casopitant (a substrate and weak to moderate inhibitor of CYP3A), dexamethasone (a substrate and weak inducer of CYP3A), and ondansetron (a mixed CYP substrate) were evaluated in a two-part, three-period, single-sequence study in two groups of healthy subjects. Materials and methods Part 1: subjects received oral casopitant (regimen A); oral dexamethasone and IV ondansetron (regimen B); and oral casopitant, a reduced dose of oral dexamethasone, and IV ondansetron (regimen C). Part 2: subjects received oral casopitant (regimen D); IV dexamethasone and oral ondansetron (regimen E); and oral casopitant, IV dexamethasone, and oral ondansetron (regimen F). Each regimen was separated by 14 days. Results Casopitant AUC in regimen C was increased 28% on day 1 but decreased 34% on day 3 compared to casopitant alone in regimen A. When given with casopitant and ondansetron in regimen C, dexamethasone AUC was 17% lower on day 1, but similar on day 3, compared to regimen B (representing dose-normalized increases in exposure of 39% and 108%, respectively). Ondansetron exposure was equivalent in regimens B and C. Casopitant AUC in regimen F was similar to regimen D on days 1 and 3. Dexamethasone AUC increased 21% when given with oral casopitant and oral ondansetron (regimen F compared to regimen E). Ondansetron exposure was equivalent in regimens E and F. Conclusion When repeat-dose oral dexamethasone is to be coadministered with oral casopitant, a reduction in dexamethasone dose may be considered; however, no change in casopitant dose is required. Ondansetron exposure was not affected by coadministration with casopitant.