Citations

Abstract Lessons Learned Everolimus does not have sufficient activity to justify its use as single agent in metastatic melanoma. Patients treated with 10 mg per day dose were most likely to require dose reductions. Everolimus appeared to reduce the numbers of regulatory T cells in approximately half of the treated patients; unfortunately, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Background Everolimus (RAD-001) is an orally active rapamycin analogue shown in preclinical data to produce cytostatic cell inhibition, which may be potentially beneficial in treating melanoma. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma (MM). Methods This study included two cohorts; cohort 1 received 30 mg of everolimus by mouth (PO) weekly, and cohort 2 was dosed with 10 mg of everolimus PO daily. The endpoints of the study were safety, 16-week progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and measures of immunomodulatory/antiangiogenic properties with therapy. Tumor samples before therapy and at week 8 of treatment were analyzed. Peripheral blood plasma or mononuclear cell isolates collected prior to therapy and at weeks 8 and 16 and at time of tumor progression were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor and regulatory T-cell (Treg) measurements. Results A total of 53 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 (n = 24) and cohort 2 (n = 29). Only 2 patients of the first 20 patients enrolled in cohort 2 had treatment responses (25%; 95% confidence interval, 8.6%–49.1%); this result did not allow full accrual to cohort 2, as the study was terminated for futility. Median OS was 12.2 months for cohort 1 versus 8.1 months in cohort 2; no PFS advantage was seen in either group (2.1 months vs. 1.8 months). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 myocardial ischemia (3.4%); grade 3 fatigue, mucositis, and hyperglycemia (10.3%); and anorexia and anemia (6.9%). Everolimus significantly reduced the number of Tregs in approximately half of the treated patients; however, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Conclusion Everolimus does not have sufficient single-agent activity in MM; however, we have identified evidence of biological activity to provide a potential rationale for future combination studies.

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.

Adrenocortical carcinomas are rare tumours that can be diagnostically challenging. Numerous multiparametric scoring systems and diagnostic algorithms have been proposed to differentiate adrenocortical adenoma from adrenocortical carcinoma. Adrenocortical neoplasms must also be differentiated from other primary adrenal tumours, such as phaeochromocytoma and unusual primary adrenal tumours, as well as metastases to the adrenal gland. Myxoid, oncocytic and sarcomatoid variants of adrenocortical tumours must be recognized so that they are not confused with other tumours. The diagnostic criteria for oncocytic adrenocortical carcinoma are different from those for conventional adrenocortical carcinomas. Adrenocortical neoplasms in children are particularly challenging to diagnose, as histological features of malignancy in adrenocortical neoplasms in adults may not be associated with aggressive disease in the tumours of children. Recent histological and immunohistochemical studies and more comprehensive and integrated genomic characterizations continue to advance our understanding of the tumorigenesis of these aggressive neoplasms, and may provide additional diagnostic and prognostic utility and guide the development of therapeutic targets.