Davis, Elizabeth J

We previously reported initial results of the pivotal phase II trial of atezolizumab for patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03141684 ). Here, we report on three additional years of observation. Fifty-three patients with ASPS received atezolizumab. Median duration of response increased to 37.0 months. Objective response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) remained essentially as previously reported (35.8% [95% CI, 23.1 to 50.2] and 20.8 months [IQR, 7.6-not reached], respectively). ASPSCR1::TFE3 fusion type was determined for 47/53 patients; ORR and mPFS were higher among the 41 patients expressing type 1 (43.9% [95% CI, 28.5 to 60.2] and 28.3 months [IQR, 9.2-not reached], respectively) than the six patients expressing type 2 (0% [95% CI, 0 to 45.9] and 7.5 months [IQR, 3.9-not reached], respectively, PFS HR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.2]). Eleven patients chose a per-protocol drug holiday (range, 3.5-26.4 months) after ≥2 years of treatment; two experienced disease progression during the holiday. Nine eligible patients elected to receive bevacizumab plus atezolizumab after progressing on monotherapy; ORR was 0% and mPFS was 18.5 months (IQR, 7.9-21.1) in this small cohort. Long-term results support using atezolizumab to treat ASPS, even for several years; a drug holiday with careful monitoring may be an option for some patients.

Introduction Registrational trials are clinical trials which are used to justify regulatory approval of a new medication by the FDA. However, clinical trials may not be designed around patient-centred outcomes, like overall survival (OS) or quality of life. This disconnect raises concerns about whether current trial designs are truly aligned with the long-term needs and priorities of patients. A comprehensive analysis of trial designs and endpoints is necessary to ensure that future oncological therapies deliver meaningful clinical improvements. Our objective was to describe types of clinical trial design and primary endpoints used for registrational trials, and their trends over time. Research design and methods In this cohort study, the HemOnc database was used to identify registrational trials supporting cancer drug approval from 2004 through 2023. Clinical trial design (escalation, de-escalation, in-class switch, out-of-class switch) and primary endpoint (OS; time-to-event including progression-free survival; response-based endpoint) were characterized. Results Escalation trial designs were more common than in-class switches or out-of-class switches. De-escalation and mixed designs were exceedingly rare. The most common primary endpoint was a composite time-to-event endpoint. Conclusion Most clinical trials leading to FDA approval for cancer-directed therapies employ escalation designs with composite time-to-event endpoints. Designs reflecting paradigm shifts in therapy (in-class switches and out-of-class switches) are sparsely used. This approach raises the concern that trials may increase therapeutic toxicity without delivering meaningful improvements in OS or quality of life.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ–CAMTA1 (calmodulinbinding transcription activator 1) operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of the MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. Patients and Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management before enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ– CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS), 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ– CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. TheORRwas 3.7%[95% confidence interval (CI), 0.094–19.0], median PFS was 10.4 months (95%CI, 7.1–NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3%(95%CI, 19.1–58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common adverse events related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia, and edema; one grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. Conclusions: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months, providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal. See related commentary by Van Tine and Haarberg, p. 4552

Abstract Purpose: The safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of elraglusib, a glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) small-molecule inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors or hematologic malignancies was studied. Patients and Methods: Elraglusib (intravenously twice weekly in 3-week cycles) monotherapy dose escalation was followed by dose escalation with eight chemotherapy regimens (gemcitabine, doxorubicin, lomustine, carboplatin, irinotecan, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel/carboplatin, and pemetrexed/carboplatin) in patients previously exposed to the same chemotherapy. Results: Patients received monotherapy (n = 67) or combination therapy (n = 171) elraglusib doses 1 to 15 mg/kg twice weekly. The initial recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of elraglusib was 15 mg/kg twice weekly and was defined, without dose-limiting toxicity observation, due to fluid volumes necessary for drug administration. The RP2D was subsequently reduced to 9.3 mg/kg once weekly to reduce elraglusib-associated central/peripheral vascular access catheter blockages. Other common elraglusib-related adverse events (AE) included transient visual changes and fatigue. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 55.2% and 71.3% of patients on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Part 1 monotherapy (n = 62) and part 2 combination (n = 138) patients were evaluable for response. In part 1, a patient with melanoma had a complete response, and a patient with acute T-cell leukemia/lymphoma had a partial response (PR). In part 2, seven PRs were observed, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2–2.6] and 6.9 (95% CI, 5.7–8.4) months, respectively. Conclusions: Elraglusib had a favorable toxicity profile as monotherapy and combined with chemotherapy and was associated with clinical benefit supporting further clinical evaluation in combination with chemotherapy.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.