Szabó, Éva

Abstract The recent pace, extent, and impact of paradigm-changing cancer prevention science has been remarkable. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) convened a 3-day summit, aligned with five research priorities: (i) Precancer Atlas (PCA). (ii) Cancer interception. (iii) Obesity-cancer linkage, a global epidemic of chronic low-grade inflammation. (iv) Implementation science. (v) Cancer disparities. Aligned with these priorities, AACR co-led the Lancet Commission to formally endorse and accelerate the NCI Cancer Moonshot program, facilitating new global collaborative efforts in cancer control. The expanding scope of creative impact is perhaps most startling—from NCI-funded built environments to AACR Team Science Awarded studies of Asian cancer genomes informing global primary prevention policies; cell-free epigenetic marks identifying incipient neoplastic site; practice-changing genomic subclasses in myeloproliferative neoplasia (including germline variant tightly linked to JAK2 V617F haplotype); universal germline genetic testing for pancreatic cancer; and repurposing drugs targeting immune- and stem-cell signals (e.g., IL-1β, PD-1, RANK-L) to cancer interception. Microbiota-driven IL-17 can induce stemness and transformation in pancreatic precursors (identifying another repurposing opportunity). Notable progress also includes hosting an obesity special conference (connecting epidemiologic and molecular perspectives to inform cancer research and prevention strategies), co-leading concerted national implementation efforts in HPV vaccination, and charting the future elimination of cancer disparities by integrating new science tools, discoveries and perspectives into community-engaged research, including targeted counter attacks on e-cigarette ad exploitation of children, Hispanics and Blacks. Following this summit, two unprecedented funding initiatives were catalyzed to drive cancer prevention research: the NCI Cancer Moonshot (e.g., PCA and disparities); and the AACR-Stand Up To Cancer bold “Cancer Interception” initiative.

Abstract Previous preclinical studies and a phase I clinical trial suggested that myo-inositol may be a safe and effective lung cancer chemopreventive agent. We conducted a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study to determine the chemopreventive effects of myo-inositol in smokers with bronchial dysplasia. Smokers with ≥1 site of dysplasia identified by autofluorescence bronchoscopy-directed biopsy were randomly assigned to receive oral placebo or myo-inositol, 9 g once a day for 2 weeks, and then twice a day for 6 months. The primary endpoint was change in dysplasia rate after 6 months of intervention on a per-participant basis. Other trial endpoints reported herein include Ki-67 labeling index, blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) levels of proinflammatory, oxidant/antioxidant biomarkers, and an airway epithelial gene expression signature for PI3K activity. Seventy-four (n = 38 myo-inositol and n = 36 placebo) participants with a baseline and 6-month bronchoscopy were included in all efficacy analyses. The complete response and the progressive disease rates were 26.3% versus 13.9% and 47.4% versus 33.3%, respectively, in the myo-inositol and placebo arms (P = 0.76). Compared with placebo, myo-inositol intervention significantly reduced IL6 levels in BAL over 6 months (P = 0.03). Among those with a complete response in the myo-inositol arm, there was a significant decrease in a gene expression signature reflective of PI3K activation within the cytologically normal bronchial airway epithelium (P = 0.002). The heterogeneous response to myo-inositol suggests a targeted therapy approach based on molecular alterations is needed in future clinical trials to determine the efficacy of myo-inositol as a chemopreventive agent. Cancer Prev Res; 9(12); 906–14. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Background Although a number of cancer chemopreventive agents have now been evaluated in phase II and phase III clinical trials that assess their efficacy and tolerability in both high risk and general populations, few have shown clear efficacy and uptake of approved agents has been disappointingly low. Therefore, chemopreventive agents should undergo rigorous screening prior to clinical trial evaluation in order to improve the selection of suitable agents for testing in large, expensive multi-center phase III trials. The aim of this study is to develop a descriptive method for prioritizing candidate agents for further development. Methods This framework was developed through a systematic literature review of Pubmed/Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library. A semi-quantitative assessment focusing on efficacy and toxicity/tolerability was established based on expert input. Data from clinical trials, cancer epidemiological, observational and preclinical studies, including in vivo and in vitro basic research, was used to retrospectively evaluate the clinical application and effectiveness of cancer chemopreventive agents. Two chemopreventive agents with either a positive (aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer) or negative (selenium for lung cancer) phase III clinical trial outcome were subsequently evaluated to determine the usefulness of the framework. Results Chemopreventive agents must reduce or reverse the process of carcinogenesis in normal or pre-malignant tissue with minimal toxicity. Evaluation of efficacy included data from preclinical and animal models, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials (both early phase trials in the organ of interest as well as secondary endpoints from other relevant studies). Agent suitability evaluation included assessment of toxicities, tolerability, and agent specific attributes (PK/PD, bioavailability, dosing, etc.). Examination of selenium and AI historical data in these categories revealed strong concordance with phase III outcomes. The detailed descriptive evaluation of the agents will be presented. Conclusion This framework provides a descriptive paradigm for cancer chemopreventive agent evaluation through systematic and rigorous interrogation. Thorough, standardized evaluation of all available preclinical, epidemiological, and clinical data should be strongly encouraged to better inform the investments required for clinical trials. Citation Format: Naomi Walsh, David S. Alberts, Powel Brown, Paul Limburg, Mark Sherman, Eva Szabo. Framework for clinical evaluation of chemopreventive agents: Defining criteria for future assessment. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4662. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4662

AbstractSulindac is a prescription‐based non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) that continues to be actively investigated as a candidate cancer chemoprevention agent. To further current understanding of sulindac bioavailability, metabolism, and disposition, we developed a population pharmacokinetic model for the parent compound and its active metabolites, sulindac sulfide, and exisulind. This analysis was based on data from 24 healthy subjects who participated in a bioequivalence study comparing two formulations of sulindac. The complex disposition of sulindac and its metabolites was described by a seven‐compartment model featuring enterohepatic recirculation and is the first reported population pharmacokinetic model for sulindac. The derived model was used to explore effects of clinical variables on sulindac pharmacokinetics and revealed that body weight, creatinine clearance, and gender were significantly correlated with pharmacokinetic parameters. Moreover, the model quantifies the relative bioavailability of the sulindac formulations and illustrates the utility of population pharmacokinetics in bioequivalence assessment. This novel population pharmacokinetic model provides new insights regarding the factors that may affect the pharmacokinetics of sulindac and the exisulind and sulindac sulfide metabolites in generally healthy subjects, which have implications for future chemoprevention trial design for this widely available agent.

Abstract SR13668, an orally active Akt pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability. Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single, 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. On the basis of existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol oral solution was defined as the reference formulation. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC0–∞) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size. Participants (n = 20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. AUC0–∞ values were highest in the fed state (range = 122–439 ng/mL × hours) and were statistically significantly different across formulations (P = 0.007), with Solutol HS15 providing the highest bioavailability. SR13668 time to peak plasma concentration (3 hours; range, 2–6 hours) and half-life were (11.2 ± 3.1 hours) were not formulation-dependent. Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development. Cancer Prev Res; 4(3); 347–53. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: SR13668, an orally active AKT pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability. Patients and Methods: Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. Based on existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol@ oral solution (formulation 1) was defined as the reference formulation. Four self-emulsifying solid dispersion test formulations in capsules were also investigated: Solutol@ HS 15 (formulation 2), Solutol@ HS 15/Vitamin E TGPS (50/50 w/w %) (formulation 3), Vitamin E TGPS (formulation 4), and Myrj 53 (formulation 5). SR163668 bioavailability was compared using a two-stage study design. In stage I, participants were randomized to receive the formulation 1 with or without a high-fat meal after an overnight fast. In Stage II, participants were randomly assigned to receive the test formulations, using the preferred dietary condition identified in stage I. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size. Results: Participants (N=20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. The time to peak plasma concentration and half-life values for SR13668 were 3 hours (range, 2 — 6 hours) and 11.2 ± 3.1 hours, respectively, and were not dependent on the formulation. In stage I, the oral bioavailability of SR13668 in formulation 1 was greater under the fed versus fasting dietary state (p = 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Therefore, the fed state was selected as the preferred dietary condition for stage II. In stage II, the bioavailability of SR13668 for each of the test formulations were compared with the bioavailability of formulation 1 in the fed state. While not significantly different from formulation 1, formulation 2 AUC0-24h was significantly different (p = 0.004, ANOVA) from formulation 3, 4, and 5 (AUC0-24h, formulation 1- 222 ± 53 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 2 — 302 ± 78 ng/ml·hr; AUC-177±39ng/ml·hr; AUC-144±29 0-24h, formulation30-24h, formulation 4 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 5- 98 ± 21 ng/ml·hr). Formulation 1 AUC0-24h was almost 40% lower than the value achieved with formulation 2, and not significantly different from formulation 3, 4, and 5. Thus, formulation 2 provided the highest bioavailability of SR13668. Conclusions: Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation (Solutol@ HS 15) of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development. Supported by NIH grants N01-CN-35000, CA15083-34C3 and UL1 RR024150. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(12 Suppl):CN02-03.

Abstract The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme appears to be an important target for cancer chemoprevention. Given the recent emergence of potentially serious cardiovascular toxicity associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, have received renewed attention as candidate chemoprevention agents. Sulindac has shown consistent chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies as well as in a limited number of clinical trials reported to date. For the current pharmacokinetic study, sulindac capsules were prepared to facilitate ample agent supplies for future intervention studies. Encapsulation of the parent compound (sulindac sulfoxide) can be readily accomplished, but the effects of alternate formulations on bioavailability have not been rigorously examined. In the present single-dose, two-period crossover trial, we conducted pharmacokinetic analyses of sulindac in capsule (test) versus tablet (reference) formulations. Overall, bioavailability appeared to be higher for the capsule compared with the tablet formulation based on test-to-reference pharmacokinetic variable ratios for the parent compound alone. However, additional analyses based on the sulfide and sulfone metabolites of sulindac with the same pharmacokinetic variables indicated similar chemopreventive exposures between the capsule and tablet formulations. These data support the use of sulindac capsules, which can be readily prepared with matching placebos, in future blinded chemoprevention trials. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(3):674–9)

AbstractThis article reviews progress in chemopreventive drug development, especially data and concepts that are new since the 2002 AACR report on treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia. Molecular biomarker expressions involved in mechanisms of carcinogenesis and genetic progression models of intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed and analyzed for how they can inform mechanism-based, molecularly targeted drug development as well as risk stratification, cohort selection, and end-point selection for clinical trials. We outline the concept of augmenting the risk, mechanistic, and disease data from histopathologic intraepithelial neoplasia assessments with molecular biomarker data. Updates of work in 10 clinical target organ sites include new data on molecular progression, significant completed trials, new agents of interest, and promising directions for future clinical studies. This overview concludes with strategies for accelerating chemopreventive drug development, such as integrating the best science into chemopreventive strategies and regulatory policy, providing incentives for industry to accelerate preventive drugs, fostering multisector cooperation in sharing clinical samples and data, and creating public-private partnerships to foster new regulatory policies and public education.