Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cannabis or its derivatives are widely used by patients with cancer to help with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects. However, cannabis has potent immunomodulatory properties. To determine if cannabis consumption during immunotherapy affects therapy outcomes, we conducted a prospective observatory study including 102 (68 immunotherapy and 34 immunotherapy plus cannabis) consecutive patients with advanced cancers who initiated immunotherapy. Cannabis consumption correlated with a significant decrease in time to tumor progression and overall survival. On the other hand, the use of cannabis reduced therapy-related immune-related adverse events. We also tested the possibility that cannabis may affect the immune system or the tumor microenvironment through the alteration of the endocannabinoid system. We analyzed a panel of serum endocannabinoids (eCBs) and eCB-like lipids, measuring their levels before and after immunotherapy in both groups. Levels of serum eCBs and eCB-like lipids, before immunotherapy, showed no significant differences between cannabis users to nonusers. Nevertheless, the levels of four eCB and eCB-like compounds were associated with patients’ overall survival time. Collectively, cannabis consumption has considerable immunomodulatory effects, and its use among cancer patients needs to be carefully considered due to its potential effects on the immune system, especially during treatment with immunotherapy.

Abstract Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has a poor prognosis, necessitating the investigation of novel treatments and targets. This study evaluated JNJ-70218902 (JNJ-902), a T-cell redirector targeting transmembrane protein with epidermal growth factor-like and 2 follistatin-like domains 2 (TMEFF2) and cluster of differentiation 3, in mCRPC. Patients and methods Patients who had measurable/evaluable mCRPC after at least one novel androgen receptor–targeted therapy or chemotherapy were eligible. Participants received subcutaneous JNJ-902 0.3, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 mg once weekly (QW) or 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, or 6.0 mg biweekly (Q2W). Study objectives included assessment of safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and preliminary efficacy. Results Eighty-two participants were enrolled to receive at least one dose of JNJ-902 (QW; n = 38; Q2W; n = 44). Median duration of treatment was 1.91 (0.0-19.4) months across dosing groups. All participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and 76 (92.7%) experienced treatment-related TEAEs. Fourteen participants (17.1%) experienced a TEAE that led to study discontinuation, of which 3 (3.7%) were related to JNJ-902. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in 2 participants (2.4%). Five participants (15.2%) with measurable disease had a confirmed partial response and 10 participants (12.2%) had ≥50% decrease from baseline prostate-specific antigen levels. Clinical activity was not dose related and no clear exposure-response relationship was observed. Conclusions In this study, dose escalation was limited by emerging dose-limiting toxicities. Although a recommended phase II dose was not determined, findings indicate TMEFF2 to be a potential target in mCRPC that warrants further investigation.

The optimal therapy for patients with non-metastatic biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC-M0) after local therapy is elusive. Thus, the evaluation of new non-toxic compounds in BRPC-M0 patients is warranted. PectaSol®-Modified citrus pectin (P-MCP) is a food supplement categorized as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the FDA. It is a competitive inhibitor of the galectin-3 protein, which is involved in cancer pathogenesis. In an early report of the present phase 2 study, P-MCP treatment for 6 months led to prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) improvement in 75% of patients with BRPC-M0. Herein, we report the second long-term treatment phase of an additional 12 months of P-MCP therapy (4.8 g × 3/day orally) in patients without disease progression after the initial 6 months of therapy. Of the 46 patients that entered the second treatment phase, 7 patients withdrew consent and decided to continue therapy out of pocket, and 39 initiated the second treatment phase. After a total of 18 months of P-MCP treatment, 85% (n = 33) had a durable long-term response, with 62% (n = 24) showing decreased/stable PSA, 90% (n = 35) PSADT improvement, and all with negative scans. No patient had grade 3/4 toxicity. In conclusion, P-MCP may have long-term durable efficacy and is safe in BRPC-M0.

Optimal therapy of biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC) after local treatment is elusive. An established modified citrus pectin (PectaSol®, P-MCP), a dietary polysaccharide, is an established antagonist of galectin-3, a carbohydrate-binding protein involved in cancer pathogenesis. Based on PSA dynamics, we report on the safety and the primary outcome analysis of a prospective phase II study of P-MCP in non-metastatic BRPC based. Sixty patients were enrolled, and one patient withdrew after a month. Patients (n = 59) were given P-MCP, 4.8 grams X 3/day, for six months. The primary endpoint was the rate without PSA progression and improved PSA doubling time (PSADT). Secondary endpoints were the rate without radiologic progression and toxicity. Patients that did not progress by PSA and radiologically at six months continued for an additional twelve months. After six months, 78% (n = 46) responded to therapy, with a decreased/stable PSA in 58% (n = 34), or improvement of PSADT in 75% (n = 44), and with negative scans, and entered the second twelve months treatment phase. Median PSADT improved significantly (p = 0.003). Disease progression during the first 6 months was noted in only 22% (n = 13), with PSA progression in 17% (n = 10), and PSA and radiologic progression in 5% (n = 3). No patients developed grade 3 or 4 toxicity.

Abstract Background Immunotherapy is a standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, many patients will develop resistance to first-line therapy, and effective second- and later-line treatment options are therefore needed. The von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene is inactivated in approximately 90% of patients with RCC and results in the constitutive activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α), a key oncogenic driver in RCC. Belzutifan, a first-in-class HIF-2α inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity with manageable safety in previously treated patients with advanced ccRCC. The cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) pathway is also associated with poor clinical outcomes in ccRCC. In RCC cell lines, the CDK 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib inhibited cell growth. CDK 4/6 inhibition has shown synergistic antiproliferative effects with HIF-2α inhibition in HIF-2α–dependent VHL -/- RCC cell lines. Palbociclib could therefore potentially enhance the efficacy of belzutifan as combination therapy for previously treated pts with advanced RCC. Methods LITESPARK-024 is a 2-part, open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 randomized study (NCT05468697). Part 1 is intended to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of belzutifan plus palbociclib using a modified toxicity probability interval design. After the RP2D is established, part 2 will directly compare the safety and efficacy of belzutifan monotherapy with belzutifan + palbociclib in patients with advanced ccRCC. In both parts, patients with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, a Karnofsky Performance Status score of ≥70%, and histologically confirmed unresectable stage IV RCC with a clear cell component and disease progressing on or after receiving at least 2 systemic treatments (both an anti–PD-1/L1 monoclonal antibody and a VEGF receptor–targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in sequence or in combination) will be enrolled. Up to 30 patients will be enrolled into 3 dose groups in part 1 and will receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily plus palbociclib (75, 100, or 125 mg) daily for 21 consecutive days followed by 7 days off. In part 2, approximately 150 patients will be randomly assigned 2:1 to receive belzutifan 120 mg once daily plus palbociclib RP2D (21 consecutive days/7 days off) or belzutifan 120 mg once daily. Patients will be stratified by International metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk (0 vs 1-2 vs 3-6) and sarcomatoid histology (yes vs no) at randomization in part 2. The primary end point for part 1 is to assess dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events and to determine the RP2D of belzutifan plus palbociclib. The primary end point for part 2 is objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Secondary end points for part 2 are clinical benefit rate, duration of response, and progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment; overall survival, and safety and tolerability. Enrollment began in July 2022. ©2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. All rights reserved. CDMRP DOD Funding: no

Background Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) levels correlate with poor outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are often co-expressed. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In a subgroup analysis of patients with advanced UC participating in a phase I/II study, epacadostat-pembrolizumab treatment produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 35%. Methods ECHO-303/KEYNOTE-698 was a double-blinded, randomized phase III study of adults with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced UC with recurrence or progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomized to epacadostat 100 mg twice daily (BID) plus pembrolizumab or placebo plus pembrolizumab until completion of 35 pembrolizumab infusions, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results Target enrollment was 648 patients; enrollment was halted early based on efficacy results from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study in metastatic melanoma. Forty-two patients were randomized to each treatment arm. Median duration of follow-up was 62 days in each arm. The investigator-assessed ORR (unconfirmed) was 26.2% (95% CI 16.35–48.11) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11.9% (95% CI 4.67–29.50) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Two complete responses were reported, both in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Circulating kynurenine levels increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and numerically decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. The safety profile of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab monotherapy, although a numerically greater proportion of patients in the combination vs. control arm experienced treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (16.7% vs. 7.3%). One patient in each arm died due to cardiovascular events, which were not deemed drug-related. No new safety concerns were identified for either agent. Conclusions Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity and was generally tolerable as second-line treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or recurrent/progressive metastatic UC. Epacadostat 100 mg BID, when administered with pembrolizumab, did not normalize circulating kynurenine in most patients. Further study of combined IDO1/PD-L1 inhibition in this patient population, particularly with epacadostat doses that result in durable normalization of circulating kynurenine, may be warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03374488. Registered 12/15/2017.

PurposeConcomitant treatment with radium-223 and paclitaxel is a potential option for cancer patients with bone metastases; however, myelosuppression risk during coadministration is unknown. This phase Ib study in cancer patients with bone metastases evaluated the safety of radium-223 and paclitaxel.MethodsEligible patients had solid tumor malignancies with ≥2 bone metastases and were candidates for paclitaxel. Treatment included seven paclitaxel cycles (90 mg/m2 per week intravenously per local standard of care; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus six radium-223 cycles (55 kBq/kg intravenously; one injection every 4 weeks, starting at paclitaxel cycle 2). The primary end point was percentage of patients with grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia during coadministration of radium-223 and paclitaxel (cycles 2, 3) versus paclitaxel alone (cycle 1).ResultsOf 22 enrolled patients, 15 were treated (safety population), with 7 completing all six radium-223 cycles. Treated patients had primary cancers of breast (n = 7), prostate (n = 4), bladder (n = 1), non–small cell lung (n = 1), myxofibrosarcoma (n = 1), and neuroendocrine (n = 1). No patients discontinued treatment from toxicity of the combination. In the 13 patients who completed cycle 3, the rates of grade 3 neutropenia in cycles 2 and 3 were 31% and 8%, respectively, versus 23% in cycle 1; there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia or grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. Breast cancer subgroup safety results were similar to the overall safety population.ConclusionRadium-223 was tolerated when combined with weekly paclitaxel, with no clinically relevant additive toxicities. This combination should be explored further in patients with bone metastases.

Background Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC. Methods ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Results A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n  = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n  = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46–55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33–43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%). Conclusions Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

In the original article [...]

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations. Janssen Research & Development.