Meyer, Christian

Abstract Purpose: Combined mTOR and MEK inhibition, critical components of the RAS effector pathway underlying the pathogenesis of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)–related tumors, caused regression in a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) transgenic mouse model. The primary objective was to determine the clinical benefit rate in patients with unresectable/metastatic MPNST. Patients and Methods: The study design was a multi-institutional, open-label, Simon two-stage, phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib and mTOR inhibitor sirolimus. Patients ≥12 years with histologically confirmed MPNST received selumetinib 50 mg twice daily and sirolimus 4 mg once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles. Correlative studies evaluated patient-reported pain, immune signature in peripheral blood, and cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Results: A total of 21 heavily pretreated patients [seven females; median age, 41 years (range, 16–72); and 14 with NF1] with advanced disease enrolled at five participating sites. Clinical benefit was observed in only one of seven in stage 1 and one of 14 patients in stage 2. The median number of cycles was two (range, 1–6). Most common adverse events (AE) were grade ≤2 gastrointestinal toxicity, acneiform rash, hypertriglyceridemia, mucositis, and transaminase elevation. Unlike the preclinical model, early 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scan performed during cycle 1 demonstrated partial metabolic responses in five patients (24%), but these did not correlate with objective responses after cycle 2. cfDNA was able to detect MPNST with the potential to be a biomarker of response. Conclusions: The combination was safe, with manageable and expected AEs, but did not meet study parameters for further evaluation in MPNST. Correlative studies were informative and may guide future therapeutic trials of MPNST.

PURPOSE This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase Ib study was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of unesbulin plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult subjects with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic, relapsed or refractory LMS were treated with escalating doses of unesbulin orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) once every 21 days. The time-to-event continual reassessment method was used to determine the RP2D on the basis of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) assessed during the first two 21-day treatment cycles. All explored doses of unesbulin (200 mg up to 400 mg) were in combination with DTIC. An expansion cohort was enrolled to evaluate the safety and efficacy of unesbulin at the RP2D. RESULTS Unesbulin 300 mg administered orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 IV once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D. On the basis of data from 27 subjects who were deemed DLT-evaluable, toxicity was higher in the unesbulin 400 mg group, with three of four subjects (75%) experiencing DLTs versus one of four subjects (25%) in the 200 mg group and three of 19 subjects (15.8%) in the 300 mg group. The most commonly reported DLTs and treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. At the RP2D, seven subjects who were efficacy evaluable achieved partial response for an objective response rate of 24.1%. CONCLUSION Unesbulin 300 mg twice per week plus DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D, demonstrating a favorable benefit-risk profile in a heavily pretreated population of adults with advanced LMS.

AbstractUnesbulin is being investigated in combination with dacarbazine (DTIC) as a potential therapeutic agent in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). This paper reports the pharmacokinetics (PK) of unesbulin, DTIC, and its unreactive surrogate metabolite 5‐aminoimidazole‐4‐carboxamide (AIC) in 29 patients with advanced LMS. Drug interactions between DTIC (and AIC) and unesbulin were evaluated. DTIC (1000 mg/m2) was administered to patients with LMS via 1‐h intravenous (i.v.) infusion on day 1 of every 21‐day (q21d) cycle. Unesbulin dispersible tablets were administered orally twice weekly (b.i.w.), starting on day 2 of every cycle, except for cycle 2 (C2), where unesbulin was dosed either on day 1 together with DTIC or on day 2, 1 day after DTIC administration. The PK of DTIC, AIC, and unesbulin in cycle 1 (C1) and C2 were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. DTIC and AIC were measurable immediately after the start of infusion and reached maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) immediately or shortly after end of infusion at 1.0 and 1.4 h (time to Cmax), respectively. Co‐administration of unesbulin orally at 200 mg or above with DTIC inhibited cytochrome P450 (CYP)1A2‐mediated DTIC metabolism, resulting in 66.7% reduction of AIC exposures. Such inhibition could be mitigated when unesbulin was dosed the day following DTIC infusion. Repeated unesbulin dosing demonstrated evidence of clinical CYP1A2 induction and increased AIC Cmax by 69.4% and area under concentration‐time curve to infinity by 57.9%. No meaningful difference in unesbulin PK was observed between C2 and C1. The combination therapy of 1000 mg/m2 i.v. DTIC q21d and 300 mg unesbulin b.i.w. in a staggered regimen is well‐tolerated in patients with LMS.

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.