Rubinstein, Larry V

Abstract Introduction: Next generation of Theranostics studies are looking at novel combinations with radiation sensitizers to enhance PRRT’s efficacy. Here, we present safety and efficacy data from a multi-center phase 1 study of a [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate -triapine combination in patients with GEP-NETs. Methods: The study consisted of two phases (dose escalation and expansion) administering the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) for the two agents. All patients received 200 mCi of [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate on day 1 of four 8-week cycles, in combination with oral triapine administered at assigned dose levels (100 mg, 150 mg or 200mg) from days 1 to 14 of each cycle. Results: A total of 31 (A: 15 ; B: 16 ) patients received treatment. Nine patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities; Grade 3 anemia (n=1), Grade 5 cardiac arrest (n=1), and Grade 4 neutropenia (n=7). Based on the overall safety and pharmacokinetics data, a [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate (200 mCi) plus triapine (150 mg) dose was selected as the RP2D for the expansion phase. Grade ≥3 treatment related adverse events were observed in 77% patients: anemia (23%), nausea and vomiting (3% ), lymphopenia ( 58%), neutropenia ( 35%) and leukopenia ( 39%). The majority of cytopenias were transient and resolved within two weeks. Among the 28 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 21.4% and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) has not been reached (median follow-up period: 23.7 months). Conclusions: The combination of [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate (200 mCi) and oral triapine (150 mg D1-14) was well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary activity in patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs. (NCT04234568).

PURPOSE NCI-MATCH is a nationwide, histology-agnostic, signal-finding, molecular profile–driven trial for patients with refractory cancers, lymphomas, or myelomas. Patients with tumors harboring actionable aberration(s) in fibroblast growth factor receptor ( FGFR) 1-3 were treated with AZD4547, an oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor. METHODS Patients’ tumors were screened by next-generation sequencing for predefined FGFR amplification, activating mutations, or fusions. Patients were treated with AZD4547, 80 mg orally twice daily until progression of disease or drug intolerance. A response rate of 16% was considered promising. RESULTS Between July 2016 and June 2017, 70 patients were assigned and 48 received protocol therapy and are eligible for analysis. Patients’ tumors harbored FGFR1 or FGFR2 amplification (n = 20), FGFR2 or FGFR3 single-nucleotide variants (n = 19), or FGFR1 or FGFR3 fusions (n = 9). The most common primary tumors were breast (33.3%), urothelial (12.5%), and cervical cancer (10.4%).Grade 3 adverse events were consistent with those described in previous clinical trials. Confirmed partial responses were seen in 8% (90% CI, 3% to 18%) and were observed only in patients whose tumors harbored FGFR1-3 point mutations or fusions. Stable disease was observed in 37.5% (90% CI, 25.8% to 50.4%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months, and the 6-month PFS rate was 15% (90% CI, 8% to 31%). For patients with tumors harboring FGFR fusions, the response rate was 22% (90% CI, 4.1% to 55%), and 6-month PFS rate was 56% (90% CI, 31% to 100%). CONCLUSION Preliminary signals of activity appeared to be limited to cancers harboring FGFR activating mutations and fusions, although AZD4547 did not meet the primary end point. Different FGFR somatic alterations may confer different levels of signaling potency and/or oncogene dependence.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.

AbstractWe compiled and analyzed a database of cooperative group trials in advanced pancreatic cancer to develop historical benchmarks for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Such benchmarks are essential for evaluating new therapies in a single-arm setting. The analysis included patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving regimens that included gemcitabine, between 1995 and 2005. Prognostic baseline factors were selected by their significance in Cox regression analysis. Outlier trial arms were identified by comparing individual 6-month OS and PFS rates against the entire group. The dataset selected for the generation of OS and PFS benchmarks was then tested for intertrial arm variability using a logistic-normal model with the selected baseline prognostic factors as fixed effects and the individual trial arm as a random effect. A total of 1,132 cases from eight trials qualified. Performance status and sex were independently significant for OS, and performance status was prognostic for PFS. Outcomes for one trial (NCCTG-034A) were significantly different from the other trial arms. When this trial was excluded, the remaining trial arms were homogeneous for OS and PFS outcomes after adjusting for performance status and sex. Benchmark values for 6-month OS and PFS are reported along with a method for using these values in future study design and analysis. The benchmark survival values were generated from a dataset that was homogeneous between trials. The benchmarks can be used to enable single-arm phase II trials using a gemcitabine platform, especially under certain circumstances. Such circumstances might be when a randomized control arm is not practically feasible, an early signal of activity of an experimental agent is being explored such as in expansion cohorts of phase I studies, and in patients who are not candidates for combination cytotoxic therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4176–85. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.

Abstract A phase I trial of ABT-888 (veliparib), a PARP inhibitor, in combination with topotecan, a topoisomerase I–targeted agent, was carried out to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the combination in patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas. Varying schedules and doses of intravenous topotecan in combination with ABT-888 (10 mg) administered orally twice a day (BID) were evaluated. Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics were assessed and levels of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) and the DNA damage marker γH2AX were measured in tumor and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Significant myelosuppression limited the ability to coadminister ABT-888 with standard doses of topotecan, necessitating dose reductions. Preclinical studies using athymic mice carrying human tumor xenografts also informed schedule changes. The MTD was established as topotecan 0.6 mg/m2/d and ABT-888 10 mg BID on days one to five of 21-day cycles. Topotecan did not alter the pharmacokinetics of ABT-888. A more than 75% reduction in PAR levels was observed in 3 paired tumor biopsy samples; a greater than 50% reduction was observed in PBMCs from 19 of 23 patients with measurable levels. Increases in γH2AX response in circulating tumor cells (CTC) and PBMCs were observed in patients receiving ABT-888 with topotecan. We show a mechanistic interaction of a PARP inhibitor, ABT-888, with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in PBMCs, tumor, and CTCs. Results of this trial reveal that PARP inhibition can modulate the capacity to repair topoisomerase I–mediated DNA damage in the clinic. Cancer Res; 71(17); 5626–34. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract The optimal design of phase II studies continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, especially studies of newer molecularly targeted agents. The observations that many new therapeutics “fail” in definitive phase III studies, coupled with the numbers of new agents to be tested as well as the increasing costs and complexity of clinical trials, further emphasize the critical importance of robust and efficient phase II design. The Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) has published a series of discussion papers on phase II trial design in Clinical Cancer Research. The IDSC has developed formal recommendations about aspects of phase II trial design that are the subject of frequent debate, such as endpoints (response versus progression-free survival), randomization (single-arm designs versus randomization), inclusion of biomarkers, biomarker-based patient enrichment strategies, and statistical design (e.g., two-stage designs versus multiple-group adaptive designs). Although these recommendations in general encourage the use of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, randomization, inclusion of biomarkers, and incorporation of newer designs, we acknowledge that objective response as an endpoint and single-arm designs remain relevant in certain situations. The design of any clinical trial should always be carefully evaluated and justified based on characteristic specific to the situation. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1764–9

Abstract As the use of molecularly targeted agents, which are anticipated to increase overall survival (OS)and progression-free survival (PFS) but not necessarily tumor response, has increased in oncology, there has been a corresponding increase in the recommendation and use of randomized phase II designs. Such designs reduce the potential for bias, existent in comparisons with historical controls, but also substantially increase the sample size requirements. We review the principal statistical designs for historically controlled and randomized phase II trials, along with their advantages, disadvantages, and statistical design considerations. We review the arguments for and against the use of randomization in phase II studies, the situations in which the use of historical controls is preferred, and the situations in which the use of randomized designs is preferred. We review methods used to calculate predicted OS or PFS values from historical controls, adjusted so as to be appropriate for an experimental sample with particular prognostic characteristics. We show how adjustment of the type I and type II error bounds for randomized studies can facilitate the detection of appropriate target increases in median PFS or OS with sample sizes appropriate for phase II studies. Although there continue to be differences among investigators concerning the use of randomization versus historical controls in phase II trials, there is agreement that each approach will continue to be appropriate, and the optimal approach will depend upon the circumstances of the individual trial.