Explore the vast range of titles available.

Among persons with breast cancer previously treated with hormonal therapy, the AKT pathway inhibitor capivasertib when added to fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival as compared with fulvestrant alone.

PurposeAbemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) has demonstrated significant efficacy benefits in HR+ , HER2− advanced breast cancer patients in the Phase 3 studies MONARCH 2 (fulvestrant as ET) and MONARCH 3 (letrozole or anastrozole as ET). Here, we report age-specific safety and efficacy outcomes.MethodsExploratory analyses of MONARCH 2 and 3 were performed for 3 age groups (<65, 65–74, and ≥75 years). For safety, data were pooled from both studies; for efficacy, a subgroup analysis of PFS was performed for each trial independently.ResultsPooled safety data were available for 1152 patients. Clinically relevant diarrhea (Grade 2/3) was higher in older patients receiving abemaciclib + ET (<65, 39.5%; 65–74, 45.2%; ≥75, 55.4%) versus placebo + ET (<65, 6.8%; 65–74, 4.5%; ≥75, 16.0%). Nausea, decreased appetite, and venous thromboembolic events were all moderately higher in older patients. Neutropenia (Grade ≥ 3) did not differ as a function of age in the abemaciclib + ET arm (<65, 25.8%; 65–74, 27.4%; ≥75, 18.1%). Dose adjustments and discontinuation rates were slightly higher in older patients. Abemaciclib + ET improved PFS compared with placebo + ET independent of patient age, with no significant difference in abemaciclib treatment effect between the 3 age groups (MONARCH 2: interaction p-value, 0.695; MONARCH 3: interaction p-value, 0.634). Estimated hazard ratios ranged from 0.523–0.633 (MONARCH 2) and 0.480–0.635 (MONARCH 3).ConclusionsWhile higher rates of adverse events were reported in older patients, they were manageable with dose adjustments and concomitant medication. Importantly, a consistent efficacy benefit was observed across all age groups.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02107703 (first posted April 8, 2014) and NCT02246621 (first posted September 23, 2014).

CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib–fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo–fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan–Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib–fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo–fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51–67) in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49–66) in the placebo–fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1–16·7) for capivasertib–fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0–16·4) for placebo–fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of −2·5 [95% CI −4·5 to −0·6] with capivasertib–fulvestrant vs −5·6 [−7·9 to −3·4] with placebo–fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo–fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group than in the placebo–fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01–3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools “frequently” or “almost constantly” was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib–fulvestrant group than in the placebo–fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported “not at all” or “a little bit” of bother from treatment side-effects. Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib–fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit–risk profile of capivasertib–fulvestrant in this population. AstraZeneca.

Background Endocrine resistance is a major challenge in treating patients with ER+ /HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC) necessitating a switch from endocrine therapy to more toxic therapies. Mutations in ESR1 constitute a key mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy in ER+ /HER2− BC. Therapies that overcome endocrine resistance are needed. Palazestrant is a novel oral complete estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist (CERAN) and selective ER degrader (SERD) belonging to a new class of ER-targeting agents that completely blocks estrogen-induced transcriptional activity, regardless of ESR1 mutation status. This first-in-human, open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 dose-escalation/expansion study was designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of palazestrant in patients with ER+ /HER2− MBC with disease progression on prior treatment. Methods Adults with ER+ /HER2‒ MBC who received ≥ 1 prior line of endocrine therapy for advanced disease and ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease were eligible. Patients received once-daily oral palazestrant (30–300 mg) in 28-day cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. Results This study enrolled 146 patients. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at doses up to 300 mg/day palazestrant. Confirmed partial responses were observed with 60 and 120 mg/day palazestrant. Both doses showed similar and tolerable safety profiles, favorable pharmacokinetics, and steady-state plasma concentrations above the predicted threshold for complete ER inhibition. Greater clinical benefit at palazestrant 120 mg/day (46%) versus 60 mg/day (19%) led to selection of 120 mg/day as RP2D and study expansion dose. At 120 mg/day, the median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.5–7.1) overall and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.8–NE) among patients with cancers with ESR1 mutations. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1–2. The most common TEAEs were nausea (62.8%), vomiting (29.1%), and fatigue (25.6%). The most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE was transient neutropenia (10.5%) managed by dose interruption and reduction. Conclusions Palazestrant demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with antitumor activity observed in patients with heavily pretreated cancers with wild-type and ESR1 -mutated BC. These data support the ongoing phase 3 study evaluating palazestrant in patients with ER+ /HER2 − MBC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04505826 . Registered August 6, 2020.

BackgroundSUPLEXA is a first-in-class, autologous, adoptive immunotherapy; prepared from patients’ PBMCs that contains cytolytic populations of NK cells, NKT-like, gd T cells, and ab CD8/CD4 T cells.MethodsThis is a FIH Phase 1, non-comparative, open-label, basket-design study NCT05237206. The study has enrolled 28 patients in Australia with histologically or cytologically or radiographically confirmed cancer for whom standard of care have failed. All have received the minimum dosing regimen of 2.5 billion cells per dose for at least 3 weekly treatments with continued SUPLEXA dosing depending on manufacturing yield. The primary objective was to determine safety and tolerability of SUPLEXA cell therapy and with the secondary objective was to assess efficacy.ResultsTo date, 28 patients have been enrolled. As an open label trial, cancer types have included renal cell, colorectal, TNBC, lung, melanoma, ovarian, liver and others. We demonstrate successful GMP SUPLEXA manufacturing for all enrolled patients to receive the minimum course of 3 cell treatments and > 90% exceeded this minimum.SAFETY: Treatment was well tolerated with no study related serious adverse events (SAE) or discontinuations. The one TEAE related to therapy was a did report a mild unpleasant odour lasting for 3days post infusion (expected from the DMSO in the cryopreservative). No negative or unusual clinical measurements of clinical chemistry, hematology, urinalysis, serology, or ECG or other assessments were detected.EFFICACY: Of the 22 patients with clinical measurements to date, >70% had attained stable disease (SD) and a response duration mean of 19 weeks ranging up to 35 weeks post SUPLEXA treatment. Two colorectal cancer patients have showed early partial response (PR).ConclusionsWe present overall positive clinical findings for SUPLEXA-101 autologous cellular therapy for differing types of cancers in patients with end stage solid tumours and metastases. SUPLEXA cell therapy showed excellent safety and tolerability in all patients that were treated with multiple weekly doses. Greater than 70% of the patients showed early signals of SD or PR by RECIST criteria. This FIH trial is now closed to enrolment with plans the next SUPLEXA clinical trial underway now that safety and encouraging efficacy clinical outcomes have been established.Trial RegistrationNCT05237206Ethics ApprovalApproval was obtained from BellBerry 2021–10-1150All participants signed PICF before starting the trial

This randomized, open‐label, active‐controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of three doses of Rolontis (eflapegrastim), a novel, long‐acting myeloid growth factor, versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients being treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). The primary efficacy endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during the first cycle of treatment. Patients who were candidates for adjuvant/neoadjuvant TC chemotherapy were eligible for participation. TC was administered on Day 1, followed by 45, 135, or 270 μg/kg Rolontis or 6 mg pegfilgrastim on Day 2. Complete blood counts were monitored daily when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) fell to <1.5 × 109/L. Up to four cycles of TC were investigated. The difference in DSN (time from ANC <0.5 × 109/L to ANC recovery ≥2.0 × 109/L) between the Rolontis and pegfilgrastim groups was −0.28 days (confidence interval [CI]: −0.56, −0.06) at 270 μg/kg, 0.14 days (CI: −0.28, 0.64) at 135 μg/kg, and 0.72 days (CI: 0.19, 1.27) at 45 μg/kg. Noninferiority to pegfilgrastim was demonstrated at 135 μg/kg (P = 0.002) and 270 μg/kg (P < .001), with superiority demonstrated at 270 μg/kg (0.03 days; P = 0.023). The most common treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) were bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, back pain, and elevated white blood cell counts, with similar incidences across groups. All doses of Rolontis were well tolerated, and no new or significant treatment‐related toxicities were observed. In Cycle 1, Rolontis demonstrated noninferiority at the 135 μg/kg dose and statistical superiority in DSN at the 270 μg/kg dose when compared to pegfilgrastim. The trial demonstrates that Rolontis conferred comparable efficacy benefits to pegfilgrastim in duration of severe neutropenia and presented no unknown safety concerns when administered to patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Four cases previously treated with ipilimumab with a total of six histologically confirmed symptomatic lesions of RNB without any sign of active tumour following stereotactic irradiation of MBM are reported. These lesions were all originally thought to be disease recurrence. In two cases, ipilimumab was given prior to SRT; in the other two ipilimumab was given after SRT. The average time from first ipilimumab to RNB was 15 months. The average time from SRT to RNB was 11 months. The average time from first diagnosis of MBM to last follow-up was 20 months at which time three patients were still alive, one with no evidence of disease. These cases represent approximately three percent of the total cases of melanoma and ten percent of those cases treated with ipilimumab irradiated in our respective centres collectively. We report this to highlight this new problem so that others may have a high index of suspicion, allowing, if clinically warranted, aggressive surgical salvage, possibly resulting in increased survival. Further studies prospectively collecting data to understand the denominator of this problem are needed to determine whether this problem is just the result of longer survival or whether there is some synergy between these two modalities that are increasingly being used together.

Endocrine resistance is a major challenge in treating patients with ER+ /HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) necessitating a switch from endocrine therapy to more toxic therapies. Mutations in ESR1 constitute a key mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy in ER+ /HER2- BC. Therapies that overcome endocrine resistance are needed. Palazestrant is a novel oral complete estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist (CERAN) and selective ER degrader (SERD) belonging to a new class of ER-targeting agents that completely blocks estrogen-induced transcriptional activity, regardless of ESR1 mutation status. This first-in-human, open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 dose-escalation/expansion study was designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of palazestrant in patients with ER+ /HER2- MBC with disease progression on prior treatment. Adults with ER+ /HER2- MBC who received [greater than or equal to] 1 prior line of endocrine therapy for advanced disease and [less than or equal to] 2 prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease were eligible. Patients received once-daily oral palazestrant (30-300 mg) in 28-day cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. This study enrolled 146 patients. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at doses up to 300 mg/day palazestrant. Confirmed partial responses were observed with 60 and 120 mg/day palazestrant. Both doses showed similar and tolerable safety profiles, favorable pharmacokinetics, and steady-state plasma concentrations above the predicted threshold for complete ER inhibition. Greater clinical benefit at palazestrant 120 mg/day (46%) versus 60 mg/day (19%) led to selection of 120 mg/day as RP2D and study expansion dose. At 120 mg/day, the median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.5-7.1) overall and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.8-NE) among patients with cancers with ESR1 mutations. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1-2. The most common TEAEs were nausea (62.8%), vomiting (29.1%), and fatigue (25.6%). The most common grade [greater than or equal to] 3 TEAE was transient neutropenia (10.5%) managed by dose interruption and reduction. Palazestrant demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with antitumor activity observed in patients with heavily pretreated cancers with wild-type and ESR1-mutated BC. These data support the ongoing phase 3 study evaluating palazestrant in patients with ER+ /HER2 - MBC.

Purpose Abemaciclib, a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor, is indicated for advanced breast cancer treatment. Diarrhea is a frequently associated adverse event of abemaciclib. The study objective was to investigate if food intake impacts local gastrointestinal toxicity. Methods This Phase 2 study (I3Y-MC-JPCP, NCT03703466) randomized 72 patients 1:1:1 to receive abemaciclib 200 mg monotherapy twice daily (1) with a meal, (2) in a modified fasting state or (3) without regard to food. Primary endpoints included: incidence of investigator assessed severe (≥ Grade 3), prolonged (> 7 days) Grade 2 diarrhea, treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and loperamide utilization during the first 3 cycles of treatment. Patient outcomes were captured via a daily electronic diary. Pharmacokinetics (PK) are reported. Results Incidence of investigator assessed severe diarrhea (Grade ≥ 3) was 1.4% (1 patient in Arm 1). Median duration of Grade 3 diarrhea was 1 day by both investigator assessment (1 patient in Arm 1) and patient-reported assessment (1 patient each in Arms 1 and 3). Median duration of investigator-assessed Grade 2 diarrhea was 2 days overall. No patient discontinued treatment due to diarrhea. Nine patients (12.7%) had a dose reduction, and 7 patients (9.9%) had a dose omission due to diarrhea. Ninety-four percent of patients used loperamide at least once. Abemaciclib PK was comparable across the 3 arms. Conclusion The results suggest that diarrhea incidence associated with abemaciclib was unrelated to timing of food intake, was predominantly low grade, of short duration and well managed with loperamide and dose modifications.

BackgroundSUPLEXA is a first-in-class, autologous, adoptive immunotherapy; prepared from patients’ PBMCs it contains NK cells, NKT-like, gd T cells, and ab T cells of both the CD8+ and CD4+ variety primed for broad tumor cytolytic activity.MethodsThis is a FIH Phase 1, non-comparative, open-label, basket-design study NCT05237206. The study is enrolling up to 40 participants in Australia in 2 cohorts: 1. Solid tumours cohort that includes subjects with histologically or cytologically or radiographically confirmed and 2. a haematologic malignancies cohort including subjects with histologically or cytologically confirmed multiple myeloma, lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Primary objective is to assess safety and tolerability of SUPLEXA and the secondary objective is to assess the efficacy. All eligible subjects will receive a minimum 7.5 x 109 cumulative dose of SUPLEXA therapeutic cells. Each treatment is administered at least 1 week apart at Day 1 (baseline), Week 1, Week 2 and possibly more depending on manufacturing yield. The first 3 subjects in each cohort will be enrolled in a staggered manner, at least 1 week apart; these subjects will be evaluated for safety and if no safety concerned are identified, all remaining subjects will be enrolled. All subjects will be evaluated for DLTs, 1 week after the 1st dose and 2nd dose (prior to administration of 2nd dose and 3rd dose, respectively).ResultsAs of submission, 10 patients (8 female and 2 male; age 34-75years) have been enrolled. Cancer types have included squamous cell, ovarian, bladder, urothelial and pancreatic cancers. SUPLEXA therapy was successfully manufactured for all patients to receive the minimum course of 7.5 x 109 SUPLEXA cells. Treatment has been well tolerated with no study related SAEs or discontinuations. No clinical observations have been noted with clinical chemistry, hematology, urinalysis, or other serology, nor with ECG or other assessments. Of note there has been a mild transient observation of odour for 24hrs post infusion as commonly expected from the DMSO cellular cryopreservative used. Data for the first 3 participants has been reviewed by the DSMB and the study is now fully opened to enrolment.ConclusionsTrial is proceeding well with an excellent tolerability profile and ease of administration for the patients. Additional safety and efficacy data will be forthcoming.AcknowledgementsDaniel Clark, Kelly Mead, Stephanie KosmalaTrial RegistrationNCT05237206Ethics ApprovalEthics approval received from Belberry HREC