Aggarwal, Rahul

Abstract Background: Zedoresertib (zedo) and lunresertib (lunre) are oral, highly selective WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibitors, respectively. Inhibition of these targets leads to premature mitotic entry, and in the presence of high replication stress causes mitotic catastrophe. In preclinical models, the combination of the zedo and lunre is synthetically lethal, supporting this first-in-class trial combination (NCT04855656). Methods: In this Phase 1 trial, patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors with CCNE1 amplification (amp), or FBXW7 or PPP2R1A deleterious mutations (mut) were treated with zedo (daily dosing) plus lunre (3 days on/4 days off), guided by preclinical modelling of the pharmacological contributions of WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibition in achieving tumor regression. Objectives included safety, tolerability, recommended doses (RD), pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PDy), antitumor activity and molecular response rate (MRR; ≥50% decline in circulating tumor DNA). Results: As of 18 Nov 2025, 54 pts (55.6% female ; prior lines of therapy 1 - 9, main cancer types: ovarian (OC) (35.2%), colorectal (31.5%), pancreatic (7.4%) and breast (5.6%)) were treated at 5 dose levels (DL) from 150 mg to 260 mg of zedo plus 60 mg or 80 mg of lunre. The most common ≥G3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were anemia (9.3%), neutropenia (7.4%) and Palmar Plantar Erythrodysesthesia (PPE) (7.4%). There were no G5 TRAEs. 4 (9.3%) of 54 pts had a dose-limiting toxicity (G3 pain in extremity and G1 rash in same pt (zedo 150 mg / lunre 60 mg), G3 rash (200 mg / 80 mg), G3 PPE (260 mg / 60 mg), G3 vomiting (260 mg / 60 mg)). PK/PDy analyses showed dose-dependent exposures for both zedo and lunre and target engagement in most pts, with reductions in pCDK1 Thr14 and Tyr15 and yH2AX induction. 24 (55.5%) of 44 RECIST v1.1 evaluable pts showed tumor shrinkage (3 cCR, 5 uPR, 15 SD and 1 PD). Of 16 evaluable pts with advanced OC (12 platinum resistant , 2 unknown and 2 platinum sensitive) with CCNE1 amp (13 pts) or FBXW7 mut (3 pts), 13 (81.3%) showed tumor shrinkage (3 cCR, 3 uPR and 7 SD); clinical benefit rate (pts with CR, PR or SD) was 93.8%; 7 (43.8%) OC pts were on treatment for at least 16 weeks; 4 (25%) OC pts achieved GCIG CA-125 responses. Of 23 pts with a post baseline ctDNA analysis, a MRR of 39% was seen across all DLs. Conclusion: We report the first disclosure of clinical data of the first-in-field synthetic lethal combination of WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibitors in a molecularly defined pt population. The safety profile of zedo and lunre was expected and manageable. Promising antitumor activity was observed in pts with CCNE1 amp or FBXW7 mut solid tumors, especially pts with OC. Further dose optimization of this combination is ongoing. Citation Format: Timothy A. Yap, Rahul Aggarwal, Elisa Fontana, Martin Hojgaard, Benedito A. Carneiro, Linda Duska, Patricia LoRusso, Siddhartha Yadav, Stephanie Lheureux, Cara Mathews, Ryan H. Moy, Nehal Lakhani, Mia Weiss, Joan Tymon-Rosario, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, Elisabeth K. Lee, Esteban Rodrigo Imedio, Jonathan Wessen, Luke Piggott, Vito Dozio, Noemie Luong, Christophe Mas, Alison M. Schram. First data disclosure of the Phase I trial of the first in class combination of WEE1 inhibitor zedoresertib with PKMYT1 inhibitor lunresertib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring CCNE1, FBXW7, or PPP2R1A genomic alterations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT022.

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.