Explore the vast range of titles available.

Alisertib is an investigational, oral, selective inhibitor of aurora kinase A. We aimed to investigate the safety and activity of single-agent alisertib in patients with predefined types of advanced solid tumours. We did a multicentre phase 1/2 study at 40 centres in four countries (Czech Republic, France, Poland, and the USA). Here, we report results from phase 2; enrolment for the study began on Feb 16, 2010, and ended on May 3, 2013. Adult patients were eligible for the study if they had either breast cancer, small-cell lung cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma, or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma that had relapsed or was refractory to chemotherapy. Patients had to have undergone two or fewer previous cytotoxic regimens (four or fewer for breast cancer patients), not including adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatments. Enrolment followed a two-stage design: to proceed to the second stage, two or more objective responses were needed in the first 20 response-assessable patients in each of the five tumour cohorts. Alisertib was administered orally in 21-day cycles at the recommended phase 2 dose of 50 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by a break of 14 days. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an objective response, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the response-assessable population (ie, patients with measurable disease who received at least one dose of alisertib and had undergone at least one post-baseline tumour assessment). This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01045421. By May 31, 2013, 249 patients had been treated, 53 with breast cancer, 60 with small-cell lung cancer, 26 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 55 with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma, and 55 with gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Among response-assessable patients, an objective response was noted in nine (18%, 95% CI 9−32) of 49 women with breast cancer, ten (21%, 10−35) of 48 participants with small-cell lung cancer, one (4%, 0−22) of 23 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, four (9%, 2−21) of 45 people with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma, and four (9%, 2−20) of 47 individuals with gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma; all were partial responses. Adverse events were similar across tumour types. The most frequent drug-related grade 3–4 adverse events included neutropenia (n=107 [43%]), leukopenia (53 [21%]), and anaemia (26 [10%]). Serious drug-related adverse events were reported in 108 (43%) patients. These data support further clinical assessment of alisertib in patients with solid tumours, particularly those with breast cancer and small-cell lung cancer. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Purpose of ReviewImmunotherapy and tumor microenvironment have been at the forefront of cancer research over the past several decades. Here, we will review the role of immunotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal cancers including targeted antibodies, immunomodulating agents, vaccines, oncolytic virus therapy, and adoptive immunotherapy, and discuss the future direction for immunotherapy in this population.Recent FindingsTargeted antibodies are already standard-of-care. An anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody is currently FDA approved for second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic ESCC, as well as beyond second-line treatment of advanced G/GEJ cancers, and recent data suggests it may be considered in first-line treatment of advanced G/GEJ cancers. Combination therapies such as immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, vaccines, oncolytic viral therapy, and adoptive immunotherapy in varying combinations are currently under active investigation.SummarySeveral trials are ongoing and are hoped to reach more efficacious and individualized treatment options in advanced gastroesophageal cancer, where novel treatment options are desperately needed.

Frequent mutations of genes in the histone-lysine N-methyltransferase 2 (KMT2) family members were identified in gastric cancers (GCs). Understanding how gene mutations of KMT2 family affect cancer progression and tumor immune microenvironment may provide new treatment strategies. A total of 1245 GCs were analyzed using next-generation sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing, immunohistochemistry (Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). The overall mutation rate of genes in the KMT2 family was 10.6%. Compared to KMT2 -wild-type GCs, genes involved in epigenetic modification, receptor tyrosine kinases/MAPK/PI3K, and DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways had higher mutation rates in KMT2 -mutant GCs ( p  < 0.05). Significantly higher rates of high tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability-high/mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR), and PD-L1 positivity were observed in KMT2 -mutant GCs ( p  < 0.01), compared to KMT2 -wild-type GCs. The association between PD-L1 positivity and KMT2 mutations remained significant in the proficient-MMR and microsatellite stable subgroup. Based on transcriptome data from the TCGA, cell cycle, metabolism, and interferon-α/β response pathways were significantly upregulated in KMT2 -mutant GCs than in KMT2 -wild-type GCs. Patients with KMT2 mutation treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors had longer median overall survival compared to KMT2 -wild-type patients with metastatic solid tumors (35 vs. 16 months, HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62–0.87, p  = 0.0003). In conclusion, this is the largest study to investigate the distinct molecular features between KMT2 -mutant and KMT2- wild-type GCs to date. Our data indicate that GC patients with KMT2 mutations may benefit from ICIs and drugs targeting DDR, MAPK/PI3K, metabolism, and cell cycle pathways.

SummaryBackground Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combined with mTOR inhibitors, like everolimus, result in significant responses and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) [1]. However, everolimus doses >5 mg are often not tolerated when combined with other TKIs2,3. Vorolanib (X-82), an oral anti-VEGFR/platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)/colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) multitarget TKI, has a short half-life and limited tissue accumulation. We conducted a Phase 1 study of vorolanib with everolimus (10 mg daily) in patients with solid tumors. Methods A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized to determine dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of vorolanib/everolimus. Oral vorolanib at 100, 150, 200, 300, or 400 mg was combined with 10 mg oral everolimus daily. The phase 2 portion was terminated after enrolling two patients due to funding. Results Eighteen patients were evaluable for DLT among 22 treated subjects. Observed DLTs were grade 3 fatigue, hypophosphatemia, and mucositis. The RP2D is vorolanib 300 mg with everolimus 10 mg daily. In 15 patients evaluable for response, three had partial response (PR; 2 RCC, 1 neuroendocrine tumor [NET]) and eight had stable disease (SD; 2 RCC, 6 NET). Conclusions Vorolanib can safely be combined with everolimus. Encouraging activity is seen in RCC and NET. Further studies are warranted. Trial Registration Number: NCT01784861.

SummaryAim Two studies investigated the effect of gastric acid reducing agents and strong inducers/inhibitors of CYP3A4 on the pharmacokinetics of alisertib, an investigational Aurora A kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced malignancies. Methods In Study 1, patients received single doses of alisertib (50 mg) in the presence and absence of either esomeprazole (40 mg once daily [QD]) or rifampin (600 mg QD). In Study 2, patients received single doses of alisertib (30 mg) in the presence and absence of itraconazole (200 mg QD). Blood samples for alisertib and 2 major metabolites were collected up to 72 h (Study 1) and 96 h (Study 2) postdose. Area under the curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf) and maximum concentrations (Cmax) were calculated and compared using analysis of variance to estimate least squares (LS) mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The LS mean ratios (90% CIs) for alisertib AUC0-inf and Cmax in the presence compared to the absence of esomeprazole were 1.28 (1.07, 1.53) and 1.14 (0.97, 1.35), respectively. The LS mean ratios (90% CIs) for alisertib AUC0-inf and Cmax in the presence compared to the absence of rifampin were 0.53 (0.41, 0.70) and 1.03 (0.84, 1.26), respectively. The LS mean ratios (90% CIs) for alisertib AUC0-inf and Cmax in the presence compared to the absence of itraconazole were 1.39 (0.99, 1.95) and 0.98 (0.82, 1.19), respectively. Conclusions The use of gastric acid reducing agents, strong CYP3A inhibitors or strong metabolic enzyme inducers should be avoided in patients receiving alisertib.

PurposeResistance to treatment with inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is partially mediated by activation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). We conducted a phase I study to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of temsirolimus (mTOR inhibitor) combined with erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) in patients with refractory solid tumors.MethodsStandard “3 + 3” design was used for dose escalation. An expansion cohort at RP2D included only patients with squamous histology or mutations relevant to PI3K or EGFR pathway activation. Patients started daily erlotinib 7 days prior to starting temsirolimus on cycle 1. Intravenous temsirolimus was then administered weekly. Starting dose levels were 15 mg for temsirolimus and 100 mg for erlotinib.ResultsForty-four patients received treatment on this study (28 in dose escalation and 16 in the expansion cohort). The RP2D was temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly and erlotinib 100 mg orally daily. Two patients experienced DLTs (G3 dehydration and G4 renal failure). The most common drug-related adverse events (all grades) were rash, mucositis/stomatitis, diarrhea, nausea and fatigue. No complete or partial responses were observed. The median duration on this study was 69 days (range 3–770) for escalation and 88 days (range 25–243) for expansion cohorts. Among 11 response-evaluable patients in the expansion cohort, 9 (82%) had stable disease and 2 (18%) had progressive disease.ConclusionThe combination of temsirolimus and erlotinib at the RP2D was well tolerated, and the regimen resulted in prolonged disease stabilization in selected patients (NCT00770263).

SummaryAims A primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of single and multiple doses of alisertib, an investigational Aurora A kinase inhibitor, on the QTc interval in patients with advanced malignancies. The dose regimen used was the maximum tolerated dose which was also the recommended phase 3 dose (50 mg twice daily [BID] for 7 days in 21-day cycles). Methods Patients received a single dose of alisertib (50 mg) on Day 1, and multiple doses of alisertib (50 mg BID) on Days 4 through to the morning of Day 10 of the first cycle of treatment. Triplicate ECGs were collected at intervals over 10 to 24 h via Holter recorders on Days −1 (baseline), 1 and 10. Changes from time-matched baseline values were calculated for various ECG parameters including QTc, heart rate, PR and QRS intervals. Alisertib pharmacokinetics were also assessed during the study, and an exposure-QTc analysis was conducted. Results Fifty patients were included in the QTc analysis. The upper bounds of the 95% confidence intervals for changes from time-matched baseline QTcF and QTcI values were <5 ms across all study days, time points and correction methods. Alisertib did not produce clinically relevant effects on heart rate, PR or QRS intervals. There was no evidence of a concentration-QTc effect relationship. Conclusions Alisertib does not cause QTc prolongation and can be concluded to not have any clinically relevant effects on cardiac repolarization or ECG parameters at the single agent maximum tolerated dose of 50 mg BID.

Mutations in TP53 lead to a defective G1 checkpoint and the dependence on checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) for G2 or S phase arrest in response to DNA damage. In preclinical studies, Chk1 inhibition resulted in enhanced cytotoxicity of several chemotherapeutic agents. The high frequency of TP53 mutations in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC: negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2) make Chk1 an attractive therapeutic target. UCN-01, a non-selective Chk1 inhibitor, combined with irinotecan demonstrated activity in advanced TNBC in our Phase I study. The goal of this trial was to further evaluate this treatment in women with TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes received irinotecan (100–125 mg/m 2 IV days 1, 8, 15, 22) and UCN-01 (70 mg/m 2 IV day 2, 35 mg/m 2 day 23 and subsequent doses) every 42-day cycle. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and tumor specimens were collected. Twenty five patients were enrolled. The overall response (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)) rate was 4 %. The clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + stable disease ≥6 months) was 12 %. Since UCN-01 inhibits PDK1, phosphorylated ribosomal protein S6 (pS6) in PBMC was assessed. Although reduced 24 h post UCN-01, pS6 levels rose to baseline by day 8, indicating loss of UCN-01 bioavailability. Immunostains of γH2AX and pChk1 S296 on serial tumor biopsies from four patients demonstrated an induction of DNA damage and Chk1 activation following irinotecan. However, Chk1 inhibition by UCN-01 was not observed in all tumors. Most tumors were basal-like (69 %), and carried mutations in TP53 (53 %). Median overall survival in patients with TP53 mutant tumors was poor compared to wild type (5.5 vs. 20.3 months, p  = 0.004). This regimen had limited activity in TNBC. Inconsistent Chk1 inhibition was likely due to the pharmacokinetics of UCN-01. TP53 mutations were associated with a poor prognosis in metastatic TNBC.

Although histological and molecular classifications have been extensively studied for gastric cancer (GC), targeted therapies for GC remain limited. CDH1 mutations (MT) are characteristic of genomically stable GC and are associated with poor prognosis, but lack effective or targeted therapies. Here, we showed the overall mutation frequency of CDH1 was 9.7% (155 of 1596). CDH1 -MT GC showed significantly lower rates of PD-L1 positivity (CPS score ≥1) than CDH1 -wildtype (WT) GC (56.7% vs. 73.3%, p  <  0.05 ). Compared to CDH1 -WT GC, mutations of ARID1A , WRN , POT1 , CDK12 , and FANCC were significantly higher, while TP53 and APC were significantly lower in CDH1 -MT GC ( p  < 0.05); The rates of KRAS and HER2 amplifications were significantly lower, while CRKL and IGF1R amplifications were significantly higher in CDH1 -MT GC, compared to CDH1 -WT GC ( p  < 0.05). Frequently altered genes in CDH1 -MT GC were especially enriched in DNA damage repair and cell cycle checkpoint pathways. Inhibition of E-cadherin sensitized GC cell lines to PARP and Wee1 inhibitors by disrupting DNA damage repair pathway and cell cycle checkpoint. This is the largest study to investigate the distinct genomic landscape of CDH1 -MT GC. Our data indicated GC patients with CDH1 mutations could potentially benefit from agents targeting PARP and Wee1.

Purpose Cabazitaxel is primarily metabolized by CYP3A. This study evaluated the impact of moderate/strong CYP3A inhibitors [aprepitant (Study Part 2); ketoconazole (Study Part 3)] or strong CYP3A inducers [rifampin (Study Part 4)] on the pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel. Methods Adult patients received IV cabazitaxel/cisplatin 15/75 mg/m 2 on Day 1 of 3-week cycles (5/75 mg/m 2 in Cycles 1 and 2 of Part 3 to allow a safety margin to the cabazitaxel MTD). Patients received repeated oral doses of aprepitant, ketoconazole or rifampin before/during Cycle 2. Cabazitaxel clearance was the primary endpoint; clearance and area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) were normalized to body surface area and dose, respectively. Results The PK population included 13 (Part 2), 23 (Part 3) and 21 patients (Part 4). Repeated aprepitant administration did not affect cabazitaxel clearance [geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.98; 90 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80–1.19]. Repeated ketoconazole administration resulted in 20 % decrease in cabazitaxel clearance (GMR 0.80; 90 % CI 0.55–1.15), associated with 25 % increase in AUC (GMR 1.25; 90 % CI 0.86–1.81). Repeated rifampin administration resulted in 21 % increase in cabazitaxel clearance (GMR 1.21; 90 % CI 0.95–1.53), associated with 17 % decrease in AUC (GMR 0.83; 90 % CI 0.65–1.05). The GMR of AUC 0–24 with rifampin administration was 1.09 (90 % CI 0.9–1.33), suggesting that rifampin had a low impact during the initial phases of cabazitaxel elimination. Safety findings were consistent with previous results. Conclusions Cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics are modified by drugs strongly affecting CYP3A. Co-administration of cabazitaxel with strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers should be avoided.