Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeGenomic alterations of BRAF and NRAS are oncogenic drivers in malignant melanoma and other solid tumors. Tovorafenib is an investigational, oral, selective, CNS-penetrant, small molecule, type II pan‑RAF inhibitor. This first-in-human phase 1 study explored the safety and antitumor activity of tovorafenib.MethodsThis two-part study in adult patients with relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors included a dose escalation phase and a dose expansion phase including molecularly defined cohorts of patients with melanoma. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety of tovorafenib administered once every other day (Q2D) or once weekly (QW), and to determine the maximum-tolerated and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) on these schedules. Secondary objectives included evaluation of antitumor activity and tovorafenib pharmacokinetics.ResultsTovorafenib was administered to 149 patients (Q2D n = 110, QW n = 39). The RP2D of tovorafenib was defined as 200 mg Q2D or 600 mg QW. In the dose expansion phase, 58 (73%) of 80 patients in Q2D cohorts and 9 (47%) of 19 in the QW cohort had grade ≥ 3 adverse events. The most common of these overall were anemia (14 patients, 14%) and maculo-papular rash (8 patients, 8%). Responses were seen in 10 (15%) of 68 evaluable patients in the Q2D expansion phase, including in 8 of 16 (50%) patients with BRAF mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors. In the QW dose expansion phase, there were no responses in 17 evaluable patients with NRAS mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors; 9 patients (53%) had a best response of stable disease. QW dose administration was associated with minimal accumulation of tovorafenib in systemic circulation in the dose range of 400–800 mg.ConclusionsThe safety profile of both schedules was acceptable, with QW dosing at the RP2D of 600 mg QW preferred for future clinical studies. Antitumor activity of tovorafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma was promising and justifies continued clinical development across multiple settings.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT01425008.

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 Epacadostat is a potent inhibitor of the immunosuppressive indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) enzyme. We present phase 1 results from a phase 1/2 clinical study of epacadostat in combination with ipilimumab, an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody, in advanced melanoma (NCT01604889). Methods Only the phase 1, open-label portion of the study was conducted, per the sponsor’s decision to terminate the study early based on the changing melanoma treatment landscape favoring exploration of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand 1 inhibitor-based combination strategies. Such decision was not related to the safety of epacadostat plus ipilimumab. Patients received oral epacadostat (25, 50, 100, or 300 mg twice daily [BID]; 75 mg daily [50 mg am , 25 mg pm ]; or 50 mg BID intermittent [2 weeks on/1 week off]) plus intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Results Fifty patients received ≥1 dose of epacadostat. As of January 20, 2017, 2 patients completed treatment and 48 discontinued, primarily because of adverse events (AEs) and disease progression ( n  = 20 each). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 11 patients ( n  = 1 each with epacadostat 25 mg BID, 50 mg BID intermittent, 75 mg daily; n  = 4 each with epacadostat 50 mg BID, 300 mg BID). The most common immune-related treatment-emergent AEs included rash (50%), alanine aminotransferase elevation (28%), pruritus (28%), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (24%), and hypothyroidism (10%). Among immunotherapy-naive patients ( n  = 39), the objective response rate was 26% by immune-related response criteria and 23% by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. No objective response was seen in the 11 patients who received prior immunotherapy. Epacadostat exposure was dose proportional, with clinically significant IDO1 inhibition at doses ≥25 mg BID. Conclusions When combined with ipilimumab, epacadostat ≤50 mg BID demonstrated clinical and pharmacologic activity and was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced melanoma. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01604889 . Registration date, May 9, 2012, retrospectively registered.

Summary Introduction Drugs inhibiting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) are approved in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but resistance inevitably emerges. Proposed escape pathways include increased phosphorylation of Akt, which can be down regulated by histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. We hypothesized that co-treatment with the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus and the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat may abrogate resistance in RCC. Methods This phase 1 study evaluated the co-administration of ridaforolimus and vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in RCC patients. Although all solid tumors were allowed, prior cytotoxic chemotherapy was limited to 1 regimen. Using a modified 3 + 3 dose escalation design, various dose combinations were tested concurrently in separate cohorts. Efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Results Fifteen patients were treated at one of three dose levels, thirteen with RCC (10 clear cell, 3 papillary). Dosing was limited by thrombocytopenia. The MTD was determined to be ridaforolimus 20 mg daily days 1–5 with vorinostat 100 mg BID days 1–3 weekly, however late onset thrombocytopenia led to a lower recommended phase II dose: ridaforolimus 20 mg daily days 1–5 with vorinostat 100 mg daily days 1–3 weekly. Two patients, both with papillary RCC, maintained disease control for 54 and 80 weeks, respectively. Conclusions The combination of ridaforolimus and vorinostat was tolerable at the recommended phase II dose. Two patients with papillary RCC experienced prolonged disease stabilization, thus further study of combined HDAC and mTOR inhibition in this population is warranted.

Background Gastrointestinal (GI) infections, which often result in or stem from intestinal dysbiosis, can affect the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and increase the risk of adverse effects, such as colitis. In this study, we explored the impact of GI infections before initiation of ICI therapy on the incidence and severity of immune‐mediated colitis (IMC) and survival. Methods A single‐center, retrospective review including all patients who received ICIs from January 2010 to February 2024 and subsequently developed IMC. Patients were screened for IMC and prior GI infections based on symptoms and stool tests. Patients' demographic, IMC, and GI infection–related clinical data were collected. Results Thirty‐four of the 1132 patients (3.0%) included in the analysis had GI infections before ICI therapy. GI infections were most commonly caused by Clostridioides difficile and most often treated with oral antibiotics (interquartile range [IQR], 7–14 days). The incidence of IMC was higher in patients with prior GI infections compared to patients without prior infections (8.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.002). IMC symptoms, severity, and outcomes were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). In multivariate Cox proportional survival analysis, prior GI infection was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.4–1.8]; p < 0.001) for patients who received ICIs. Conclusions Our study is the first to explore the impact of GI infection before ICI therapy on IMC risk and survival. We found that prior GI infection was associated with an increased incidence of IMC and an increased risk of mortality in patients receiving ICIs.

Mivavotinib (TAK‐659/CB‐659), a dual SYK/FLT3 inhibitor, reduced immunosuppressive immune cell populations and suppressed tumor growth in combination with anti‐PD‐1 therapy in cancer models. This dose‐escalation/expansion study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of mivavotinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received oral mivavotinib 60–100 mg once‐daily plus intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 in 28‐day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dose‐escalation phase evaluated the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; primary endpoint). The expansion phase evaluated overall response rate (primary end point) at the RP2D in patients with triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). During dose‐escalation (n = 24), two dose‐limiting toxicities (grade 4 lipase increased and grade 3 pyrexia) occurred in patients who received mivavotinib 80 mg and 100 mg, respectively. The determined RP2D was once‐daily mivavotinib 80 mg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg. The expansion phase was terminated at ~50% enrollment (n = 17) after failing to meet an ad hoc efficacy futility threshold. Among all 41 patients, common treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included dyspnea (48.8%), aspartate aminotransferase increased, and pyrexia (46.3% each). Common grade ≥3 TEAEs were hypophosphatemia and anemia (26.8% each). Mivavotinib plasma exposure was generally dose‐proportional (60–100 mg). One patient had a partial response. Mivavotinib 80 mg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg was well tolerated with no new safety signals beyond those of single‐agent mivavotinib or nivolumab. Low response rates highlight the challenges of treating unresponsive tumor types, such as TNBC, with this combination and immunotherapies in general. Trial registration ID NCT02834247.

Affinity-optimized T cell receptors can enhance the potency of adoptive T cell therapy. Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) is a human leukocyte antigen-restricted autologous T cell therapy targeting melanoma-associated antigen A4 (MAGE-A4), a cancer/testis antigen expressed at varying levels in multiple solid tumors. We conducted a multicenter, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic solid tumors expressing MAGE-A4, including synovial sarcoma (SS), ovarian cancer and head and neck cancer ( NCT03132922 ). The primary endpoint was safety, and the secondary efficacy endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response. All patients ( N  = 38, nine tumor types) experienced Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicities; 55% of patients (90% Grade ≤2) experienced cytokine release syndrome. ORR (all partial response) was 24% (9/38), 7/16 (44%) for SS and 2/22 (9%) for all other cancers. Median duration of response was 25.6 weeks (95% confidence interval (CI): 12.286, not reached) and 28.1 weeks (95% CI: 12.286, not reached) overall and for SS, respectively. Exploratory analyses showed that afami-cel infiltrates tumors, has an interferon-γ-driven mechanism of action and triggers adaptive immune responses. In addition, afami-cel has an acceptable benefit–risk profile, with early and durable responses, especially in patients with metastatic SS. Although the small trial size limits conclusions that can be drawn, the results warrant further testing in larger studies. In a phase 1 dose-escalation trial in patients with nine different types of solid tumors, MAGE-A4-specific T cells had an acceptable safety profile and exhibited an encouraging overall response rate in patients with synovial sarcoma.

Surgery has always been the mainstay of melanoma treatment, but the risk of recurrence after curative-intent surgery remains high for some stages of the disease. In this Annals of Surgical Oncology Guidelines Review, we provide an overview of practice changing studies, review international guidelines, and highlight current recommendations and areas of controversy when treating melanoma patients in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. Recent clinical trials have established important roles for adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy in conjunction with surgery for selected patients with stage II, stage III, and even resectable stage IV melanoma. Patients with melanoma should be evaluated for multimodality therapy, including a combination of surgery, systemic therapy (i.e., BRAF-targeted therapy or checkpoint blockade immunotherapy), and at times radiotherapy. With the rapid pace of advances in the field, it is crucial for surgical oncologists to remain updated on the latest guidelines and recommendations for adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy and to continue to be leaders in this paradigm shift. Given the complex and evolving nature of treatment, this report reviews the latest practice guidelines in the context of modern multidisciplinary management of melanoma.

Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the United States. The advent of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy has improved progression-free and overall survival in many patients with advanced disease. However, the selection of therapeutic choices requires a nuanced approach, especially when considering molecularly targeted agents. This case report highlights a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in managing a patient with a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and recurrent melanoma. Molecular testing suggested discordant BRAF V600E testing and a simultaneous NRAS G12D mutation. After a careful literature review, repetition of his molecular testing, and analysis of the timelines and results of all his molecular testing, we concluded that the BRAF V600E mutation result was falsely positive. The patient was treated with two cycles of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg) as per the NADINA trial and had a complete radiographic response. He then underwent resection demonstrating a pathologic partial response ranging from 20% to 95% tumor necrosis, dependent on the satellite examined. This case report underscores the importance of precise molecular diagnostics in guiding melanoma treatment and demonstrates the complexities of managing a patient with a coexisting malignancy.

SummaryBackground. Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) kinase orchestrates DNA double strand break (DSB) repair; ATM inhibitors may therefore enhance the therapeutic effect of DSB-inducing treatments such as radiotherapy (RT). M3541 is an orally administered selective inhibitor of ATM. Methods. This phase I dose-escalation study evaluated the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose(s) (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and antitumor activity of M3541 in combination with fractionated palliative RT in patients with solid tumors. Fifteen patients received palliative RT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) and escalating doses of M3541 (50–300 mg administered on RT fraction days) guided by a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control. Results. Doses of M3541 up to 300 mg/fraction day were well tolerated. One patient (200 mg group) experienced two dose-limiting toxicities (urinary tract infection, febrile neutropenia) that resolved with antibiotics. All patients reported ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) but none led to treatment discontinuation. No grade ≥ 4 TEAEs were reported and there was no indication of a dose effect for any TEAE. Three patients (20.0%; 95% confidence interval 4.3–48.1) had confirmed complete or partial response. M3541 total plasma levels did not increase with dose following single or repeated dosing. No relationship was observed between dose and changes in the ratio of phosphorylated to total ATM or in immune cell counts. Conclusions. The MTD and RP2D could not be established as the study closed early due to the absence of a dose–response relationship and non-optimal PK profile. No further clinical development of M3541 was pursued. (Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03225105. Registration date July 21, 2017).