Citations

BACKGROUNDMitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)‐dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR‐2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.METHODSPatients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts‐of‐3 design. The 2‐stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)–naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi.RESULTSThe MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression‐free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi‐naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi‐naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients.CONCLUSIONSThe limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single‐agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455‐63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Purpose Sorafenib and lenvatinib are oral multikinase inhibitors targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and approved for radioiodine (RAI)-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). However, there are no approved second- or third-line therapies. MET is implicated in resistance to VEGFR inhibitors. Cabozantinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET in addition to VEGFR and is approved for medullary thyroid cancer. In a phase I study of cabozantinib, five of eight patients with DTC previously treated with a VEGFR-targeted therapy had an objective response to cabozantinib. Patients and Methods Patients with RAI-refractory disease with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable disease and evidence of progression on prior VEGFR-targeted therapy were enrolled in this single-arm phase II study. The cabozantinib starting dose was 60 mg/day orally but could be escalated to 80 mg if the patient did not experience a response. Patients underwent tumor assessment according to RECIST v1.1 every 8 weeks. In this study, if at least five of 25 response-evaluable patients had an objective response, cabozantinib would be considered a promising agent in this patient population. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 years, and 64% of patients were men. Twenty-one patients had received only one prior VEGFR-targeted therapy (sorafenib, pazopanib, or cediranib), and four patients had received two such therapies. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, weight loss, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and hypertension. One drug-related death was noted. Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had a partial response, 13 (52%) had stable disease, and two (8%) had nonevaluable disease. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 12.7 months and 34.7 months, respectively. Conclusion Cabozantinib demonstrated clinically significant, durable objective response activity in patients with RAI-refractory DTC who experienced disease progression while taking prior VEGFR-targeted therapy.

551 Background: Sorafenib inhibits various pro-angiogenesis pathways including PDGFR-B, a factor associated with resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. A previous phase II trial in patients with chemorefractory metastatic CRC demonstrated a 63% disease control rate with a combination of bevacizumab (BEV) and sorafenib. This phase I trial sought to determine the MTD of BEV and sorafenib combined with standard cytotoxic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Methods: Patients with advanced GI malignancies appropriate for irinotecan-based therapy were enrolled (14 with CRC, 3 gastroesophageal). A standard 3 + 3 design was used with 3 escalating sorafenib dose levels (DL): (1) 200 mg po daily, days 3-7, 10-14; (2) 200 mg po twice daily, days 3-6, 10-13; and (3) 200 mg po twice daily, days 3-7, 10-14. FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m2 d1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 d1, 5-fluorouracil (FU) bolus 400 mg/m2 d1, 5-FU infusion 2400 mg/m2d1-2 and BEV 5 mg/kg d1. 1 cycle = 14 days. Results: Seventeen pts were enrolled, median age of 56 (range 32 and 81). Two pts were replaced, as they did not complete DLT evaluation, leaving 15 evaluable pts. Four evaluable pts at DL1 and 6 pts at DL2 had no DLTs. At DL 3, the first cohort of 3 pts did not experience any DLTs. In the second cohort of 3 pts, 2 pts experienced DLTs (asymptomatic G3 hypophosphatemia, G3 dehydration and diarrhea). MTD was determined to be DL2: sorafenib 200 mg PO twice daily, days 3-6, 10-13 combined with FOLFIRI and BEV at standard doses. Of the 15 evaluable pts, 4 pts had PR, 8 pts had SD as best response, 1 pt had PD, and 2 pts discontinued treatment prior to first tumor assessment. The median number of cycles was 10 (range 1-37). Three pts with CRC had disease control > 12 months. Conclusions: The MTD of this regimen is sorafenib 200 mg PO twice daily, days 3-6,10-13 combined with standard doses of FOLFIRI and BEV. Dual VEGF inhibition combined with cytotoxic therapy may provide prolonged disease stabilization for select patients with advanced GI malignancies. Supported by CA69912 and CA15083. Clinical trial information: NCT01383343.

Abstract Purpose: This phase I study was conducted to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of alvocidib when combined with vorinostat in patients with relapsed, refractory, or poor prognosis acute leukemia, or refractory anemia with excess blasts-2. Secondary objectives included investigating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the combination. Experimental Design: Patients received vorinostat (200 mg orally, three times a day, for 14 days) on a 21-day cycle, combined with 2 different alvocidib administration schedules: a 1-hour intravenous infusion, daily × 5; or a 30-minute loading infusion followed by a 4-hour maintenance infusion, weekly × 2. The alvocidib dose was escalated using a standard 3+3 design. Results: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and treated. The alvocidib MTD was 20 mg/m2 (30-minute loading infusion) followed by 20 mg/m2 (4-hour maintenance infusion) on days one and eight, in combination with vorinostat. The most frequently encountered toxicities were cytopenias, fatigue, hyperglycemia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, and QT prolongation. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were cardiac arrhythmia-atrial fibrillation and QT prolongation. No objective responses were achieved although 13 of 26 evaluable patients exhibited stable disease. Alvocidib seemed to alter vorinostat pharmacokinetics, whereas alvocidib pharmacokinetics were unaffected by vorinostat. Ex vivo exposure of leukemia cells to plasma obtained from patients after alvocidib treatment blocked vorinostat-mediated p21CIP1 induction and downregulated Mcl-1 and p-RNA Pol II for some specimens, although parallel in vivo bone marrow responses were infrequent. Conclusions: Alvocidib combined with vorinostat is well tolerated. Although disease stabilization occurred in some heavily pretreated patients, objective responses were not obtained with these schedules. Clin Cancer Res; 19(7); 1873–83. ©2013 AACR.

AbstractSrc tyrosine kinases are overexpressed in pancreatic cancers, and the oral Src inhibitor saracatinib has shown antitumor activity in preclinical models of pancreas cancer. We performed a CTEP‐sponsored Phase II clinical trial of saracatinib in previously treated pancreas cancer patients, with a primary endpoint of 6‐month survival. A Simon MinMax two‐stage phase II design was used. Saracatinib (175 mg/day) was administered orally continuously in 28‐day cycles. In the unselected portion of the study, 18 patients were evaluable. Only two (11%) patients survived for at least 6 months, and three 6‐month survivors were required to move to second stage of study as originally designed. The study was amended as a biomarker‐driven trial (leucine rich repeat containing protein 19 [LRRC19] > insulin‐like growth factor‐binding protein 2 [IGFBP2] “top scoring pairs” polymerase chain reaction [PCR] assay, and PIK3CA mutant) based on preclinical data in a human pancreas tumor explant model. In the biomarker study, archival tumor tissue or fresh tumor biopsies were tested. Biomarker‐positive patients were eligible for the study. Only one patient was PIK3CA mutant in a 3′ untranslated region (UTR) portion of the gene. This patient was enrolled in the study and failed to meet the 6‐month survival endpoint. As the frequency of biomarker‐positive patients was very low (<3%), the study was closed. Although we were unable to conclude whether enriching for a subset of second/third line pancreatic cancer patients treated with a Src inhibitor based on a biomarker would improve 6‐month survival, we demonstrate that testing pancreatic tumor samples for a biomarker‐driven, multicenter study in metastatic pancreas cancer is feasible.

Abstract Background: Based upon preclinical synergy and prior phase 1 study results, the clinical efficacy of flavopiridol combined with cisplatin was assessed in patients with recurrent ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers. Methods: A two cohort phase 2 trial of cisplatin (60 mg/m2 IV) followed by flavopiridol (100 mg/m2 IV, 24 h continuous infusion; 21 day cycles) was undertaken in patients with recurrent platin-sensitive or platin-resistant ovarian/primary peritoneal cancers (defined by disease progression &gt; vs. &lt;6 months following platin-based therapy). Measurable disease (RECIST criteria) – or evaluable disease plus CA125 &gt;2X the post-treatment nadir – was required, as was ECOG performance &lt;2 and exposure to only one prior treatment regimen. Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled between April 20, 2004 and March 4, 2010 – 40 platin-resistant patients (Group 1), and 5 platin-sensitive patients (Group 2). In Group 1, the median number of treatment cycles was 3 (range 2-12); 39 of the 40 eligible patients have now discontinued treatment. While only 10% of all patients incurred grade 4 toxicities, grade 3 toxicities were seen in the majority (65%). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were neutropenia (all grade 3, 17.5%); nausea (12.5%); vomiting, fatigue, thrombosis, anemia (10% each). Sensory neuropathy, grade 1 or 2, was observed in 75% of all patients – with grade 3 and 4 neuropathy not observed primarily due to pre-specified aggressive dose reductions. Six patients (15%) in Group 1 achieved a confirmed response (1 CR, 5 PR), with a median response duration of 119 days (range 84-212). Ten additional Group 1 patients (32.5%) experienced maintained stable disease. Median Group 1 overall time to progression was 3.7 months; overall survival was 17.2 months. Pilot assessment of attained ascites flavopiridol level and sensitivity of patient ascitic tumor cells to flavopiridol confirmed that patient flavopiridol levels were consistent with observed clinical antitumor efficacy. In Group 2, although 2 of 5 patients also responded (40%; 2 PR), the cohort was closed due to poor accrual. Conclusions: The combination of flavopiridol and cisplatin has promising clinical activity in both platin-sensitive and platin-resistant ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers. Supported in part by NCI CA097129, CA15083 and CM62205; clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00083122 Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4712. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-4712

Relationships between artefacts in recorded intracardiac pulses and the dynamic response and susceptibility of catheter-manometer systems to artefacts caused by motion of the catheter were investigated. Sine-wave motions of the catheter, resembling motion frequently seen when the catheter is in the pulmonary artery, produce sine-wave pressure variations with peak-to-peak amplitudes of 10 mm. Hg. Square-wave motions (impacts) produce high-frequency pressure variations, greatest (10 to 200 mm. Hg) when directed along the axis and much less when perpendicular to the axis of the catheter. High-fidelity records of pressure by conventional cardiac catheter-manometer systems are most unlikely when such catheters are threaded through the beating heart.