Banck, Michaela S.

8093 Background: Activation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET receptor pathway promotes tumor growth, invasion and dissemination. LY is a humanized IgG4 monoclonal bivalent antibody against MET which inhibits ligand dependent- and ligand independent activation of MET. Based on preclinical results, we examined LY alone in patients with advanced solid tumors and LY+E in advanced NSCLC patients. Methods: LY monotherapy was administered 20-2,000 mg Q2W IV to 23 patients with advanced solid tumors. Combination therapy with 700-2,000 mg Q2W IV of LY and E (150 mg QD) was completed in 14 patients with advanced NSCLC. The primary objective was to determine a recommended phase II dose (RPTD) for LY and LY+E. Secondary objectives included assessment of toxicity, PK, PD (including MET extracelluar domain and HGF), and antitumor activity. Results: LY and LY+E were well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicities, serious adverse events, or ≥ Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) possibly related to LY have been observed. The most frequent (≥5% of patients) AEs possibly related to LY2875358 monotherapy were nausea (8.7 %), vomiting (8.7%), and diarrhea (8.7%). The most frequent (≥10% of patient) grade 1 or 2 adverse event possibly related to LY2875358 in patients treated with LY+E were fatigue (21.4%) and anorexia (14.3%). Durable PR according to RECIST were observed for LY (n=1) and LY+E (n=2 out of 13 evaluable patients; both PR patients positive for MET protein expression). Conclusions: LY appears to be safe when administered as single agent and in combination with E up to 2,000 mg Q2W IV. The RPTD of LY is 750 mg Q2W IV for monotherapy and in combination with E based on PK/PD data. Clinical trial information: NTC 01287546.

Abstract Purpose: The MET/HGF pathway regulates cell proliferation and survival and is dysregulated in multiple tumors. Emibetuzumab (LY2875358) is a bivalent antibody that inhibits HGF-dependent and HGF-independent MET signaling. Here, we report dose escalation results from the first-in-human phase I trial of emibetuzumab. Experimental Design: The study comprised a 3+3 dose escalation for emibetuzumab monotherapy (Part A) and in combination with erlotinib (Part A2). Emibetuzumab was administered i.v. every 2 weeks (Q2W) using a flat dosing scheme. The primary objective was to determine a recommended phase II dose (RPTD) range; secondary endpoints included tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and antitumor activity. Results: Twenty-three patients with solid tumors received emibetuzumab monotherapy at 20, 70, 210, 700, 1,400, and 2,000 mg and 14 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at 700, 1,400, and 2,000 mg in combination with erlotinib 150 mg daily. No dose-limiting toxicities and related serious or ≥ grade 3 adverse events were observed. The most common emibetuzumab-related adverse events included mild diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, and mild to moderate fatigue, anorexia, and hypocalcemia in combination with erlotinib. Emibetuzumab showed linear PK at doses >210 mg. Three durable partial responses were observed, one for emibetuzumab (700 mg) and two for emibetuzumab + erlotinib (700 mg and 2,000 mg). Both of the responders to emibetuzumab + erlotinib had progressed to prior erlotinib and were positive for MET protein tumor expression. Conclusions: Based on tolerability, PK/PD analysis, and preliminary clinical activity, the RPTD range for emibetuzumab single agent and in combination with erlotinib is 700 to 2,000 mg i.v. Q2W. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1910–9. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Background: Activation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor receptor (MET) pathway promotes tumor growth, invasion and dissemination. Emibetuzumab is a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits ligand-dependent and ligand-independent activation of MET. In the first-in-human dose escalation study NCT0128756, emibetuzumab demonstrated favorable tolerability when administered up to 2000mg Q2W IV in unselected patients. The study was expanded to evaluate emibetuzumab in expansion cohorts for patients with tumors positive for MET expression. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with bone metastasis, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) received 2000 mg emibetuzumab Q2W IV on a 28-day cycle. RCC, NSCLC, and HCC patients were required to have measurable disease as defined by RECIST v1.1 and have MET positive tumors (≥50% of cells to be ≥2+ for MET expression) as determined by a MET IHC assay (Ventana). The objectives were to evaluate the safety and activity of emibetuzumab in patients with MET positive tumors. Additional objectives included pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Results: A total of 62 patients received emibetuzumab across the 4 cohorts: CRPC n = 15, RCC n = 19, NSCLC n = 19,and HCC n = 9, with a median of prior systemic oncology therapies of 6, 3, 5, and 3, respectively. Common possibly related treatment-emergent adverse events included fatigue (29% all grades, 3% Gr3/4), nausea (13% all grades, no Gr3/4), edema of limbs (8% all grades, 2% Gr3/4), and anorexia (8%, no Gr3/4) and were similar among cohorts. No evidence of clinical activity was observed in CRPC patients. For RCC, NSCLC, and HCC patients with MET positive tumors, an overall disease control rate (DCR = partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]) of 32% (15/47) was observed. In the individual cohorts, DCR was 26% (5/19) in RCC, 26% (5/19) in NSCLC, and 56% (5/9) in HCC. The median duration of disease stabilization in the 3 cohorts was: 4.2 months (range 1.6-24.6) in RCC, 3.9 months (range 2.5-6.4) in NSCLC, and 3.7 months (range 1.2-6.6) in HCC. One PR was observed in an HCC patient with MET amplification. After a single dose of 2000 mg emibetuzumab, PK parameters were similar among these cohorts and also comparable to patients treated at this dose during dose escalation. Conclusions: In cohorts enriched for tumor MET expression, limited single-agent activity of emibetuzumab was observed indicating that MET positivity by IHC (Ventana assay) at the cut-point employed here might not be a sufficient predictive biomarker to select patients receiving benefit from emibetuzumab monotherapy for the tumor types studied. Further evaluation of biomarkers/assays to identify patients who may benefit from treatment with emibetuzumab may be warranted. Citation Format: Michaela S. Banck, Rashmi Chugh, Ronald B. Natale, Alain Algazi, Bradley C. Carthon, Lee S. Rosen, Michael E. Menefee, Andrew Xiuxuan Zhu, Takami Sato, Brian Moser, P. Kellie Turner, Jay Tuttle, Xuejing Aimee Wang, Volker Wacheck, Frederick E. Millard. Phase 1 results of emibetuzumab (LY2875358), a bivalent MET antibody, in patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer, and MET positive renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2015 Nov 5-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(12 Suppl 2):Abstract nr A55.

AbstractPaclitaxel‐induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) cannot be predicted from clinical parameters and might have a pharmacogenomic basis. Previous studies identified single nucleotide variants (SNV) associated with PIPN. However, only a subset of findings has been confirmed to date in more than one study, suggesting a need for further re‐testing and validation in additional clinical cohorts. Candidate PIPN‐associated SNVs were identified from the literature. SNVs were retested in 119 patients selected by extreme phenotyping from 269 in NCCTG N08C1 (Alliance) as previously reported. SNV genotyping was performed by a combination of short‐read sequencing analysis and Taqman PCR. These 22 candidate PIPN SNVs were genotyped. Two of these, rs7349683 in the EPHA5 and rs3213619 in ABCB1 were found to be significantly associated with PIPN with an Odds ratios OR = 2.07 (P = 0.02) and OR = 0.12 (P = 0.03), respectively. In addition, three SNVs showed a trend toward a risk‐ or protective effect that was consistent with previous reports. The rs10509681 and rs11572080 in the gene CYP2C8*3 showed risk effect with an OR = 1.49 and rs1056836 in CYP1B1 showed a protective effect with an OR = 0.66. None of the other results supported the previously reported associations, including some SNVs displaying an opposite direction of effect from previous reports, including rs1058930 in CYP2C8, rs17222723 and rs8187710 in ABCC2, rs10771973 in FGD4, rs16916932 in CACNB2 and rs16948748 in PITPNA. Alliance N08C1 validated or supported a minority of previously reported SNV‐PIPN associations. Associations previously reported by multiple studies appeared to have a higher likelihood to be validated by Alliance N08C1.

ObjectiveMutations in Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (CMT) genes are the cause of rare familial forms of polyneuropathy. Whether allelic variability in CMT genes is also associated with common forms of polyneuropathy—considered “acquired” in medical parlance—is unknown. Chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) occurs commonly in cancer patients and is individually unpredictable. We used CIPN as a clinical model to investigate the association of non‐CMT polyneuropathy with CMT genes.MethodsA total of 269 neurologically asymptomatic cancer patients were enrolled in the clinical trial Alliance N08C1 to receive the neurotoxic drug paclitaxel, while undergoing prospective assessments for polyneuropathy. Forty‐nine CMT genes were analyzed by targeted massively parallel sequencing of genomic DNA from patient blood.ResultsA total of 119 (of 269) patients were identified from the 2 ends of the polyneuropathy phenotype distribution: patients that were most and least susceptible to paclitaxel polyneuropathy. The CMT gene PRX was found to be deleteriously mutated in patients who were susceptible to CIPN but not in controls (p = 8 × 10−3). Genetic variation in another CMT gene, ARHGEF10, was highly significantly associated with CIPN (p = 5 × 10−4). Three nonsynonymous recurrent single nucleotide variants contributed to the ARHGEF10 signal: rs9657362, rs2294039, and rs17683288. Of these, rs9657362 had the strongest effect (odds ratio = 4.8, p = 4 × 10−4).InterpretationThe results reveal an association of CMT gene allelic variability with susceptibility to CIPN. The findings raise the possibility that other acquired polyneuropathies may also be codetermined by genetic etiological factors, of which some may be related to genes already known to cause the phenotypically related Mendelian disorders of CMT. Ann Neurol 2014;76:727–737

Abstract Genomics and proteomics have held out the promise of individualized medicine for the last 10 or 20 years, but clinical medicine has not yet delivered on this promise. Some cancers, such as breast cancer and some hematologic malignancies, have been at the forefront of individualized therapeutic approaches by integrating molecular biomarkers into treatment decision algorithms. Until recently, the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has lagged behind these other cancers in this regard and therapeutic decisions have been solely empirical. Data from various clinical trials and translational studies have now opened the door for individualized treatment approaches by identifying patients with metastatic CRC who are most likely to benefit from antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cetuximab and panitumumab. Activating mutations of KRAS, a downstream mediator of EGFR signaling, has been shown to render EGFR antibodies ineffective, such that analyzing tumors for these mutations has become mandatory before the use of EGFR antibodies is considered in CRC. Beyond KRAS, several additional biomarkers are currently being investigated as potential positive or negative predictors for the efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy. Most of these markers are alterations of molecules integrated in the EGFR pathway. This review will focus on the type and quality of evidence that has been gathered to date to predict resistance to monoclonal antibodies against EGFR in CRC. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(24):7492–501)