Alese, Olatunji B

Abstract Background This phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of rucaparib (RUB), a poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) and 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. RUB targets DNA repair pathways, showing efficacy in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, such as BRCA mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy with irinotecan, but overlapping toxicities pose challenges. Methods Eighteen patients with metastatic GI cancers, who previously progressed on at least one systemic therapy, were enrolled. A novel sequential dosing regimen, informed by nal‐IRI pharmacokinetic analysis, was used. Twelve patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and 12 for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria. Results The MTD was established as RUB 600 mg twice daily, nal‐IRI 50 mg/m 2 , and 5‐FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours. The objective response rate (ORR) was 33% (4 of 12), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75% (9 of 12). Common grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and neutropenia (25%), with no grade 4/5 events. Responses were notable in patients with somatic ATM and BRCA mutations, especially those with prior platinum exposure. No DLTs occurred at the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions This optimized dosing schedule successfully established the MTD for RUB with nal‐IRI and 5‐FU, overcoming prior challenges with PARP inhibitor and irinotecan combinations. The promising ORR and DCR support further evaluation of this regimen in advanced GI malignancies.

Abstract Importance The addition of agents targeting critical signal mediators of cancer cell proliferation such as cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) potentiates the efficacy of platinum chemotherapy. Objective To determine the safety and efficacy of palbociclib combined with cisplatin (cis) or carboplatin (carbo) in advanced solid malignancies Design Enrollment on dose escalation (part I) proceeded using the Bayesian adaptive design Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC). Setting Single institution investigator initiated trial. Participants Patients with any advanced cancer after at least one prior therapy were enrolled on dose escalation to determine recommended phase II doses (RP2D). Expansion cohorts were then opened for pancreaticobiliary tract cancers. Intervention Escalating doses of palbociclib in combination with different doses of cisplatin or carboplatin. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results We enrolled 39 patients on dose escalation (part I) and 32 additional patients on dose expansion (part II). RP2D of palbociclib 100 mg on Day 2-22 + Cisplatin (cis) 60 mg/m2 IV on Day 1 Q4W (Arm A); and palbociclib 75 mg on Day 2-22 + Carboplatin (carbo) AUC 6 IV on Day 1 Q4W (Arm B). ORR for Part I were 12.5% (Arm A) and 25% (Arm B). Median PFS and OS for dose expansion were 2.1 and 4.9 months, respectively. For PDAC, mPFS was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.7, 2.4), and OS was 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.7, 5.7). Most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs—all grade %): Arm A—neutropenia (66%), thrombocytopenia (26%), nausea, fatigue, and anemia (20% each); Arm B—neutropenia (64.7%), thrombocytopenia (53%), and anemia (29%). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Conclusions and Relevance The combination of palbociclib with cisplatin or carboplatin had an acceptable safety profile and clinical responses in some treatment refractory advanced cancers. There was no objective response, but about half of PDAC patients had disease stabilization. Additional efforts are needed to exploit CDK abnormalities in these patients. Clinical trial registration number: NCT02897375

Abstract Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Furthermore, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with <80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide. It is projected to increase by 3.2 million new cases and account for 1.6 million deaths by 2040. Mortality is largely due to limited treatment options for patients who present with advanced disease. Thus, the development of effective and tolerable therapies is crucial. Chemotherapy has been the backbone of systemic treatment of advanced CRC, but utility has been limited because of invariable resistance to therapy, narrow mechanisms of action, and unfavorable toxicity profile. Tumors that are mismatch repair-deficient have demonstrated remarkable response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, most CRC tumors are mismatch repair-proficient and represent an unmet medical need. Although ERBB2 amplification occurs only in a few cases, it is associated with left-sided tumors and a higher incidence of brain metastasis. Numerous combinations of HER2 inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy, and antibody-drug conjugates against HER2 represent innovative strategies in this area. The KRAS protein has been classically considered undruggable. Fortunately, new agents targeting KRAS G12C mutation represent a paradigm shift in the management of affected patients and could lead the advancement in drug development for the more common KRAS mutations. Furthermore, aberrant DNA damage response is present in 15%-20% of CRCs, and emerging innovative combinations with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors could improve the current therapeutic landscape. Multiple novel biomarker-driven approaches in the management of patients with advanced CRC tumors are reviewed in this article.

Abstract Purpose: Romidepsin dosing recommendations for patients with malignancy and varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction was lacking at the time of regulatory approval for T-cell lymphoma. We conducted a multicenter phase I clinical trial (ETCTN-9008) via the NCI Organ Dysfunction Working Group to investigate safety, first cycle MTD, and pharmacokinetic profile of romidepsin in this setting. Patients and Methods: Patients with select advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were stratified according to hepatic function. Romidepsin was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and escalation followed a 3 + 3 design in moderate and severe impairment cohorts. Blood samples for detailed pharmacokinetic analyses were collected after the first dose. Results: Thirty-one patients received one dose of romidepsin and were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analyses in normal (n = 12), mild (n = 8), moderate (n = 5), and severe (n = 6) cohorts. Adverse events across cohorts were similar, and dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two patients (mild and severe impairment cohorts). The MTD was not determined because the geometric mean AUC values of romidepsin in moderate (7 mg/m2) and severe (5 mg/m2) impairment cohort were 114% and 116% of the normal cohort (14 mg/m2). Conclusions: Data from the ETCTN-9008 trial led to changes in the romidepsin labeling to reflect starting dose adjustment for patients with cancer and moderate and severe hepatic impairment, with no adjustment for mild hepatic impairment.