Citations

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).

Abstract Background Instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) should generate high-quality evidence. Reliable PRO evidence is essential to policymakers, in conjunction with outcomes such as survival and radiological response, to understand the net clinical benefit of antitumor treatments. This study aimed to establish the content validity of 215 identified PRO measures used in patients with brain tumors. Methods A survey (n = 148 items) was developed reflecting aspects of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Patients with brain tumors, their proxies, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were asked to rate each survey item on relevance. An item was considered a relevant issue if ≥25% of the patients or proxies or ≥50% of the HCPs considered that item to be an issue. Next, all items in the identified PRO measures were linked to ICF and relevant items in the survey, and the percentage of content coverage was calculated. Results In total, 114 patients, 71 proxies, and 65 HCPs from different countries completed the survey. Fifty-six of 148 (37.8%) items in the survey were considered relevant. The most important aspects mentioned by both patients and proxies were difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, multitasking, and handling stress. Depending on the definition, between 35% and 49% of PRO measures were considered to have sufficient content validity (≥80% coverage). Conclusion The content validity was insufficient in more than half of the identified PRO measures, particularly multidimensional measures. Future research should investigate whether different approaches to PRO assessment better meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Abstract Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis and repair of DNA, making RNR-targeted therapy a rationale therapeutic strategy for radiosensitization. ETCTN 10388 (NCT04234568) evaluated safety and efficacy of the combination of lutetium 177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Method: This study was a multicenter phase 1 dose escalation trial [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] of triapine in combination with fixed dose lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE for well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NETs) after the failure of at least one line of prior systemic cancer treatment with an expansion cohort at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Oral triapine (100mg, 150mg, 200mg) was administered once daily on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. Response and adverse effects were assessed per RECIST and CTCAE 5.0, respectively. Exploratory correlative studies included tumor somatic and germline mutation testing, RNA sequencing, pharmacokinetics, deoxynucleosides and circulating cell free DNA analysis. Primary endpoints were safety and RP2D. Results: Overall, 31 patients were enrolled between 6 sites, 15 in the dose escalation phase and 16 in the dose expansion phase. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. One DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT in dose level 3 were observed. The RP2D of the combination is triapine 150 mg QD (dose level 2) on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Detailed safety and adverse event data will be presented at the meeting. There were 28 patients evaluable for efficacy, of which 6 (21%) achieved a partial response. At 12 months, 6 patients had progressed, while 22 (86%) remained progression free. Median PFS has not been reached. PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Conclusion: The combination of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE was safe with preliminary efficacy signals, which will be further evaluated in ETCTN 10558, a randomized phase 2 study that is comparing the effectiveness of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE to Lu-177 DOTATATE alone. Citation Format: Aman Chauhan, Susanne Arnold, Jill Kolesar, William Carson, Heidi Weiss, Rani Jayswal, Donglin Yan, Riham El Khouli, Aman Khurana, Jan Beumer, Heloisa Soares, Mary Mulcahy, Thorvardur Halfdanarson, Daneng Li, Heather Jacene, Percy Ivy, Elise Kohn, John Wright, Larry Rubinstein, Zeta Chow, Piotr Rychahou, Mark B. Evers, Charles Kunos, Lowell Anthony, Bhavana Konda. ETCTN 10388: a first in human phase I trial of triapine and lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT194.

648 Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme for conversion of ribonucleoside diphosphate to deoxyribonucleotide diphosphate, and thus repair of DNA in this setting. ETCTN 10388 evaluated safety of combination Lu-177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Methods: This investigator initiated, NCI sponsored, multicenter phase 1 trial, enrolled a total of 31 patients in the dose escalation [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] and dose expansion cohorts. Oral triapine was administered on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. All enrolled patients had blood samples collected for triapine pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis in EDTA tubes prior to and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 h after oral administration during cycle 1. Results: Five patients were enrolled in triapine Dose Level 1 (100 mg/day), twenty-five to dose level two (150 mg/day), and one patient to dose level three (200 mg/day). PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Triapine PK parameter values observed in this trial, were comparable to previous reports that used a previous formulation [ 1 ]. While exposure was similar, variability appeared smaller with the current oral formulation. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. A total of one DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs (Transient cytopenia; primarily neutropenia and rarely thrombocytopenia) in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT (Death probably from progressive cancer and carcinoid heart disease but possibly from trial drugs) in dose level 3 were observed. Detailed AE profile will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: The RP2D of triapine is 150 mg QD on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Clinical trial information: 04234568 .

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

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.