Chen, Alice P.

Abstract Oncology has undergone major changes in systemic treatment options, from chemotherapy to antiangiogenic agents to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to immunotherapy. Historically, a therapeutic agent is tested in separate trials as monotherapy or combined with investigational or approved agents/modalities, to determine antitumor activity in each histology based on the premise that each histology responds differently to the same treatment. This paradigm is time consuming and may or may not make use of molecular characterization to test each agent in each histology. However, with the expansion of biologic understanding and development of various biomarkers, e.g., estrogen receptor and Her 2 amplification, we move beyond the basic paradigm of general histology to one in which treatment is based upon molecular characteristics of the tumor. Examples of recent discoveries from this more modern paradigm are (1) multiple histologies sharing a common molecular profile and (2) a subset within a single histology having a given molecular characteristic. Various agents have been tested singularly in terms of molecular aberrations and histology, e.g., ALK inhibitors and NSCLC. However, with the rapid increase in the number of targeted agents in development, more facile and efficient clinical trial designs are needed. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) collaborated in designing the Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial (NCI-MATCH or EAY131), the first large-scale signal-finding precision medicine oncology trial in the United States to incorporate centralized NGS testing to direct patients to parallel (nonrandomized) phase II treatment arms under a master protocol. The trial is being conducted by the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), with ECOG-ACRIN leading the trial. More than 100 investigators from across the NCTN adult cancer-oriented member groups (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN, NRG Oncology, and SWOG) have worked collaboratively to design and lead what is currently 30 treatment arms (subprotocols), with more arms in development. Wide-scale NCTN investigator involvement ensures use of the latest knowledge to define the actionable mutations required for eligibility and to make evidence-based selections of experimental agents. In NCI-MATCH, patients are assigned treatment based on the genomic alterations found in their tumors through genomic sequencing and other tests at the time of initial enrollment for screening. Unlike other phase II trials, each arm is open to advanced solid tumors, lymphomas, or myeloma that share a set of molecular aberrations, not restricted to a single histology. This strategy accommodates and encourages enrollment of rare tumors for which there are often no standard treatments and limited clinical trial options. NCI-MATCH has 10-30 concurrent treatment arms available to patients at any given time, testing both investigational agents and FDA-approved drugs for new indications. Most treatment arms have an enrollment goal of 35 patients, with some arms that address tumor gene variants of higher prevalence expanded to 70 patients. Together, the NCTN and NCI Community Oncology Research Program provide infrastructure for many clinical sites (>1100) to participate, providing ready access to physicians and patients; screening enrollment has occurred in all 50 states in the U.S, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A specific assay was developed for the trial (the MATCH assay), and a laboratory network was organized to rapidly process the tissue and efficiently interrogate for mutations. NCI and ECOG-ACRIN statisticians developed the analysis plan and are currently maintaining data that are closely monitored by safety experts for any adverse event signals. Lastly, a bioinformatics system (MATCHbox) was developed to coordinate molecular data collection and support rule-based decision-making based on those data. Because genomics in oncology is rapidly expanding and evolving, NCI-MATCH required flexibility to accommodate brisker screening accrual than anticipated, and adaptation to constantly emerging information about new drugs and new molecular alterations. The goal to sequence the tumors of 6,000 patients with NCI funding was achieved two years ahead of schedule, but that cohort was not sufficient to fill all the arms—in particular, those aimed at the most rarely occurring tumor gene aberrations. Currently, the goal for the trial is to complete the open treatment arms by allowing for designated commercial and academic laboratories to notify ordering physicians when genomic tests they ordered to guide clinical care indicate a potential eligibility to a NCI-MATCH arm with a rare variant and allow for enrollment to the relevant treatment subprotocol if the patient meets all subprotocol eligibility criteria. The tissue confirmation of the molecular abnormality on the MATCH assay by the central laboratories will be accomplished after subprotocol enrollment so that patient treatment will not be delayed for confirmation. A demonstration project is now under way to test the applicability of this approach and potentially develop common standards for future use. With tumor sequencing becoming a more and more common practice in oncology, this may allow patients with mutations of low prevalence to have investigational treatment options. NCI-MATCH is expanding its panel and definition of actionable mutations to allow greater flexibility to incorporate in real time new mutations supported with adequate levels of evidence. The valuable genomic and clinical outcome data collected in the trial will permit evaluation of efficacy of targeting certain actionable mutations with a specific agent. In addition, biospecimens are being collected to build a rich resource for conducting auxiliary biology studies that may answer questions about prevalence of mutations in the metastatic setting, prevalence of mutations in rare histologies, and resistance mechanisms of various targeted therapy. At this meeting, two abstracts will provide an overall trial update and present information about the prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the centrally screened population. Citation Format: Alice P. Chen, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Lyndsay Harris, Barbara A. Conley, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mickey Williams, Robert J. Gray, Shuli Li, Lisa M. McShane, Lawrence V. Rubinstein, Susanna I. Lee, Shaji Kumar, Edith P. Mitchell, James A. Zwiebel, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Lalitha K. Shankar, Paolo F. Caimi, Carlos L. Arteaga, A John Iafrate, Jeffrey Sklar, Richard F. Little, Keith T. Flaherty. NCI-MATCH: A new paradigm in the era of genomic oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PL03-01.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the dose limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of veliparib in combination with weekly topotecan in patients with solid tumors. Correlative studies were included to assess the impact of topotecan and veliparib on poly(ADP-ribose) levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, serum pharmacokinetics of both agents, and potential association of germline repair gene mutations with outcome. Experimental Design: Eligible patients had metastatic nonhematologic malignancies with measurable disease. Using a 3 + 3 design, patients were treated with veliparib orally twice daily on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 and topotecan intravenously on days 2, 9, and 16 every 28 days. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST. Results: Of 58 patients enrolled, 51 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The MTD and RP2D was veliparib 300 mg twice daily on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 along with topotecan 3 mg/m2 on days 2, 9, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. DLTs were grade 4 neutropenia lasting >5 days. The median number of cycles was 2 (1–26). The objective response rate was 10%, with 1 complete and 4 partial responses. Twenty-two patients (42%) had stable disease ranging from 4 to 26 cycles. Patients with germline BRCA1, BRCA2, or RAD51D mutations remained on study longer than those without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations (median 4 vs. 2 cycles). Conclusions: Weekly topotecan in combination with veliparib has a manageable safety profile and appears to warrant further investigation.

Abstract Purpose: We aimed to establish the MTD of the poly (ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymerase inhibitor, veliparib, in combination with carboplatin in germline BRCA1- and BRCA2- (BRCA)-associated metastatic breast cancer (MBC), to assess the efficacy of single-agent veliparib, and of the combination treatment after progression, and to correlate PAR levels with clinical outcome. Experimental Design: Phase I patients received carboplatin (AUC of 5–6, every 21 days), with escalating doses (50-20 mg) of oral twice-daily (BID) veliparib. In a companion phase II trial, patients received single-agent veliparib (400 mg BID), and upon progression, received the combination at MTD. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell PAR and serum veliparib levels were assessed and correlated with outcome. Results: Twenty-seven phase I trial patients were evaluable. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea, dehydration, and thrombocytopenia [MTD: veliparib 150 mg po BID and carboplatin (AUC of 5)]. Response rate (RR) was 56%; 3 patients remain in complete response (CR) beyond 3 years. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.7 and 18.8 months. The PFS and OS were 5.2 and 14.5 months in the 44 patients in the phase II trial, with a 14% RR in BRCA1 (n = 22) and 36% in BRCA2 (n = 22). One of 30 patients responded to the combination therapy after progression on veliparib. Higher baseline PAR was associated with clinical benefit. Conclusions: Safety and efficacy are encouraging with veliparib alone and in combination with carboplatin in BRCA-associated MBC. Lasting CRs were observed when the combination was administered first in the phase I trial. Further investigation of PAR level association with clinical outcomes is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4066–76. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor veliparib delays DNA repair and potentiates cytotoxicity of multiple classes of chemotherapy drugs, including topoisomerase I inhibitors and platinating agents. This study evaluated veliparib incorporation into leukemia induction therapy using a previously described topotecan/carboplatin backbone. Experimental Design: Employing a 3+3 trial design, we administered escalating doses of veliparib combined with topotecan + carboplatin in relapsed or refractory acute leukemias, aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Results: A total of 99 patients received veliparib 10–100 mg orally twice daily on days 1–8, 1–14, or 1–21 along with continuous infusion topotecan 1.0–1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 120–150 mg/m2/d on days 3–7. The MTD was veliparib 80 mg twice daily for up to 21 days with topotecan 1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 150 mg/m2/d. Mucositis was dose limiting and correlated with high veliparib concentrations. The response rate was 33% overall (33/99: 14 CR, 11 CRi, 8 PR) but was 64% (14/22) for patients with antecedent or associated aggressive MPNs or CMML. Leukemias with baseline DNA repair defects, as evidenced by impaired DNA damage–induced FANCD2 monoubiquitination, had improved survival [HR = 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.92)]. A single 80-mg dose of veliparib, as well as veliparib in combination with topotecan + carboplatin, induced DNA damage as manifested by histone H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ leukemia cells, with greater phosphorylation in cells from responders. Conclusions: The veliparib/topotecan/carboplatin combination warrants further investigation, particularly in patients with aggressive MPNs, CMML, and MPN- or CMML-related acute leukemias. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 899–907. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: In preclinical studies, the PARP inhibitor veliparib enhanced the antileukemic action of temozolomide through potentiation of DNA damage. Accordingly, we conducted a phase 1 study of temozolomide with escalating doses of veliparib in patients with relapsed, refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from aggressive myeloid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients received veliparib [20–200 mg once a day on day 1 and twice daily on days 4–12 in cycle 1 (days 1–8 in cycle ≥2)] and temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2 daily on days 3–9 in cycle 1 (days 1–5 in cycle ≥2)] every 28 to 56 days. Veliparib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [ability to inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (PAR) formation and induce H2AX phosphorylation] were assessed. Pretreatment levels of MGMT and PARP1 protein, methylation of the MGMT promoter, and integrity of the Fanconi anemia pathway were also examined. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated at seven dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were oral mucositis and esophagitis lasting >7 days. The MTD was veliparib 150 mg twice daily with temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily. The complete response (CR) rate was 17% (8/48 patients). Veliparib exposure as well as inhibition of PAR polymer formation increased dose proportionately. A veliparib-induced increase in H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ cells was observed in responders. Three of 4 patients with MGMT promoter methylation achieved CR. Conclusions: Veliparib plus temozolomide is well tolerated, with activity in advanced AML. Further evaluation of this regimen and of treatment-induced phosphorylation of H2AX and MGMT methylation as potential response predictors appears warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(3); 697–706. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: Aflibercept is a novel decoy receptor that efficiently neutralizes circulating VEGF. A pediatric phase I trial was conducted to define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of aflibercept. Experimental Design: Cohorts of three to six children with refractory solid tumors received aflibercept intravenously over 60 minutes every 14 days, at 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 mg/kg/dose. PK sampling and analysis of peripheral blood biomarkers were conducted with the initial dose. Results: Twenty-one eligible patients were enrolled; 18 were fully evaluable for toxicity. One of six patients receiving 2.0 mg/kg/dose developed dose-limiting intratumoral hemorrhage and two of six receiving 3.0 mg/kg/dose developed either dose-limiting tumor pain or tissue necrosis. None of the six patients receiving 2.5 mg/kg/dose developed DLTs, defining this as the MTD. The most common non-DLTs were hypertension and fatigue. Three patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatoblastoma and clear cell sarcoma had stable disease for >13 weeks. At the MTD, the ratio of free-to-bound aflibercept serum concentration was 2.10 on day 8 but only 0.44 by day 15. A rapid decrease in VEGF (P < 0.05) and increase in placental growth factor (PlGF; P < 0.05) from baseline was observed in response to aflibercept by day 2. Conclusions: The aflibercept MTD in children of 2.5 mg/kg/dose every 14 days is lower than the adult recommended dose of 4.0 mg/kg. This dose achieves, but does not sustain, free aflibercept concentrations in excess of bound. Tumor pain and hemorrhage may be evidence of antitumor activity but were dose-limiting. Clin Cancer Res; 18(18); 5081–9. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract Background: ABT-888 is an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase1 (PARP1) and PARP2, two highly conserved enzymes implicated in DNA repair, maintenance of genomic stability, and regulation of transcription. Topotecan (TPT) is a water soluble camptothecin derivative with antitumor activity against ovarian tumors. The combination of ABT-888 with TPT is under investigation in phase I trials because PARP inhibition sensitizes tumors cells to TPT in vitro and in vivo. In those trials, the pharmacokinetics of TPT and ABT-888 are being studied to determine if ABT-888 levels are sufficient to modulate PARP activity and to investigate the potential interaction between TPT and ABT-888. Methods: Advanced cancer patients with ECOG performance scores 0-2, adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function were treated with ABT-888 on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 every 28 days. Topotecan was administered on days 2, 9 and 16 every 28 days. DLTs were defined as grade 4 neutropenia, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, grade 4 anemia or ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities despite maximal supportive care. ABT-888 and Toptoecan pharmacokinetics were characterized in all patients. Analysis of urinary recovery is ongoing. Results: In this ongoing Phase I trial, 13 female patients with ovarian (n=12) or breast (n=1) cancer have been enrolled to date and pharmacokinetic data is available for 12 of those patients. ABT-888/TPT dose levels are: Level 1- 10 mg/ 2 mg/m2, Level 2- 20 mg/2 mg/m2, Level 3- 10 mg/3 mg/m2, and Level 4- 20 mg/3 mg/m2. The combination of ABT-888 with topotecan has been tolerable, with no dose limiting toxicity, and dose escalation continues at dose level 5. Topotecan t1/2 and clearance values were 3.0 ± 0.5 hrs and 9.50 ± 1.51 L/hr/m2 when administered alone, and were not affected by administration with ABT-888. When administered alone, ABT-888 t1/2, Cmax, AUC0-∞ values after the 10 mg dose were 8.2 ± 2.4 hrs, 432 ± 217 nM, and 2568 ± 1300 nM*hr, respectively. ABT-888 t1/2, Cmax, AUC values after the 20 mg dose were 5.7 ± 3.1 hrs, 600 ± 165 nM, and 3870± 934 respectively. When administered with TPT, ABT-888 t1/2, Cmax, AUC values after the 10 mg dose were 7.2 ± 2.1 hrs, 412 ± 283 nM, and 2705± 1089 nM*hr are: nM*hr respectively. ABT-888 t1/2, Cmax and AUC values after the 20 mg dose combined with TPT were 5.8 ± 2.2 hrs, 664 ± 97.6 nM, and 4283± 936 nM*hr respectively. Conclusions: Plasma clearance of TPT and ABT-888 does not appear to be altered when they are administered together. The effect of co-administration of these agents on renal clearance is presently under investigation and those results will be presented. This work was supported by NIH grants R25 GM75148-04, U01CA069912-16S and MM01-RR00585. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1301. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-1301

Abstract A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor, in combination with topotecan, a topoisomerase I–targeted agent, was carried out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the combination in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Varying schedules and doses of intravenous topotecan in combination with ABT-888 (10 mg) administered orally twice a day (BID) were evaluated. Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics were assessed and levels of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) and the DNA damage marker γH2AX were measured in tumor and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Significant myelosuppression limited the ability to coadminister ABT-888 with standard doses of topotecan, necessitating dose reductions. Preclinical studies using athymic mice carrying human tumor xenografts also informed schedule changes. The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m2/d and ABT-888 10 mg BID on days one to five of 21-day cycles. Topotecan did not alter the pharmacokinetics of ABT-888. A more than 75% reduction in PAR levels was observed in 3 paired tumor biopsy samples; a greater than 50% reduction was observed in PBMCs from 19 of 23 patients with measurable levels. Increases in γH2AX response in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and PBMCs were observed in patients receiving ABT-888 with topotecan. We show a mechanistic interaction of a PARP inhibitor, ABT-888, with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in PBMCs, tumor, and CTCs. Results of this trial reveal that PARP inhibition can modulate the capacity to repair topoisomerase I–mediated DNA damage in the clinic. Cancer Res; 71(17); 5626–34. ©2011 AACR.