Citations

Background Cyclin D has been shown to play an essential role in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) initiation and progression, providing rationale for targeting the CDK4/6-cyclin D complex that regulates cell cycle progression. Procedure The Children’s Oncology Group AINV18P1 phase 1 trial evaluated the CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, in combination with standard four-drug reinduction chemotherapy in children and young adults with relapsed/refractory B- and T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoma. Palbociclib (50 mg/m 2 /dose) was administered orally once daily for 21 consecutive days, first as a single agent (days 1-3) and subsequently combined with reinduction chemotherapy. This two-part study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by an expansion pharmacokinetic (PK) cohort. Results Twelve heavily pretreated patients enrolled, all of whom were evaluable for toxicity. One dose-limiting hematologic toxicity (DLT) occurred at the starting dose of 50 mg/m 2 /dose orally for 21 days. No additional DLTs were observed in the dose determination or PK expansion cohorts and overall rates of grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were comparable to those observed with the chemotherapy platform alone. Five complete responses were observed, two among four patients with T-ALL and three among seven patients with B-ALL. Pharmacokinetic studies showed similar profiles with both liquid and capsule formulations of palbociclib. Conclusions Palbociclib in combination with reinduction chemotherapy was well tolerated with a RP2D of 50 mg/m 2 /day for 21 days. Complete responses were observed among heavily pretreated patients.

AbstractBackgroundThe VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression‐free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost‐effectiveness of these regimens.MethodsA cost‐effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision‐analytic Markov model with 5‐year, 10‐year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model.ResultsAt 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost‐effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost‐effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10‐year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One‐way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5‐year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost‐effective.ConclusionsNeoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost‐effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC.Lay summary We performed a benefit‐to‐cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost‐effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Abstract Purpose: In many cancers, nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab improves response rates compared with either agent alone, but the combination has not been evaluated in childhood cancer. We conducted a phase I/II trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in children and young adults with recurrent/refractory solid tumors. Patients and Methods: ADVL1412, Part C assessed safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab at two dose levels (DL): DL1 1 mg/kg of each drug and DL2 3 mg/kg nivolumab plus 1 mg/kg ipilimumab. Part D evaluated response at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and osteosarcoma. Part E tested DL3 (1 mg/kg nivolumab plus 3 mg/kg ipilimumab) in Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. Tumor response was measured using RECIST v1.1. Pharmacokinetics and PD-L1 expression on archival tissues were assessed. Results: Fifty-five eligible patients enrolled. Based on safety, tolerability, and similar drug exposure to the same doses administered in adults, DL2 was defined as the pediatric RP2D. Among 41 patients treated at the RP2D, 2 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities during cycle 1, and 4 patients experienced toxicities beyond that period. Two patients had clinically significant sustained partial responses (1 rhabdomyosarcoma, 1 Ewing sarcoma) and 4 had stable disease. Among 8 patients treated at DL3, 3 dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) occurred, all immune-related adverse events; no objective responses were observed. Conclusions: The RP2D of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) is well tolerated in children and young adults with solid tumors and shows some clinical activity. Increased dose of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) plus nivolumab (1 mg/kg) was associated with increased toxicity without clinical benefit.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

10022 Background: nab-Sirolimus (formerly know ABI-009 and nab-rapamycin) is a novel human albumin-bound preparation of sirolimus, a potent mTOR inhibitor. We report results of a Phase I study of ABI-009 alone and in combination with irinotecan and temozolomide in children with relapsed/refractory solid or CNS tumors. Methods: Patients (age 1-21 years) with relapsed/refractory solid or CNS tumors were eligible. Using a rolling 6 design, ABI-009 was administered intravenously as a single agent on Days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 (cycle = 21d), then subsequent cycles ABI-009 was administered in combination with temozolomide (125 mg/m2/dose, maximum 250 mg/dose) orally once daily x 5 on Days 1-5 and irinotecan 90 mg/m2/dose orally once daily x 5 on Days 1-5. Three dose levels (DL) of ABI-009 were investigated (DL1: 35mg/m2/dose, DL-1: 20mg/m2/dose, and DL-2: 15mg/m2/dose). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or Recommended Phase 2 Dose (RP2D) was established based on dose limiting toxicity (DLT) observed during Cycle 1 and 2. At the RP2D, additional patients were enrolled for pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 33 patients were enrolled (32 eligible and 1 ineligible); 11 did not experience DLT but were not evaluable for toxicity due to progressive disease or physician decision to discontinue protocol therapy prior to completion of cycle 2; 17 [median age 13 (2-20) years] were evaluable for determination of MTD during dose escalation, 6 were enrolled on the PK cohort, of which 3 were evaluable to toxicity. At DL1, 2/5 patients experienced DLT (thrombocytopenia during cycle 1 (n = 1) and cycle 2 (n = 1)); at DL-1, 2/6 patients experienced DLT (thrombocytopenia in cycle 1); at DL-2, 1/6 patients experienced DLT (thrombocytopenia in cycle 1). PK expansion enrolled at DL-2 and 1/3 participants evaluable for toxicity had a DLT (mucositis). Overall, at DL-2, 2/9 patients (22%) had DLT. One patient with Ewing Sarcoma had a partial response and remained on study for 35 cycles; Patients (one each) with Ewing Sarcoma, Wilms Tumor, and Pineoblastoma had stable disease, ranging from 3-6 cycles. Conclusions: Thrombocytopenia was dose limiting for ABI-009 alone and in combination with temozolomide and irinotecan. The MTD for ABI-009 is 15mg/m2/dose days 1 and 8 in combination with 5 daily doses of temozolomide 125 mg/m2/dose and oral irinotecan 90 mg/m2/dose. One patient had a partial response, 3 patients had prolonged stable disease. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are pending and will inform future trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02975882.

10009 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients, age 1-21 years, with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm C evaluated the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients whose tumors harbored EZH2 hotspot mutations or SMARCB1 or SMARCA4 loss by immunohistochemistry. Methods: Tazemetostat 1200 mg/m2/dose PO BID was administered to the first 13 patients; after study amendment due to second malignancy noted in the pediatric phase 1 trial, the dose for patients with non-CNS tumors was reduced to 520 mg/m2/dose PO BID. Patients were treated for 28-day cycles until PD or intolerable toxicity (max 26 cycles); response assessments occurred every 2-3 cycles. Primary and secondary endpoints were ORR and PFS, respectively. Results: Twenty eligible and evaluable patients (median age 5 years; range 1-21) were enrolled between Nov 2017 and Sept 2020. SMARCB1 loss was detected in 16/20 (80%) tumors: atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT, n = 8), malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT, n = 4), epithelioid sarcoma (ES, n = 2), renal medullary carcinoma (RMC, n = 1) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, n = 1). EZH2 mutations were identified in 3/20 (15%) tumors: Ewing sarcoma (n = 2), ependymoma (n = 1). One patient with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) had SMARCA4 loss. Centrally reviewed, one objective response (PR) was observed (LCH [SMARCA4], 26 cycles at 1200 mg/m2/dose BID). Five other patients had a best response of stable disease (ES [SMARCB1], 26 cycles, 520 mg/m2/dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 13 cycles,1200 mg/m2/dose BID; RMC [SMARCB1], 12 cycles, 520 mg/m2/dose BID; ES [SMARCB1], 9 cycles,1200 mg/m2/dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 6 cycles, 1200 mg/m2/dose BID). No other patients received > 2 cycles. Six-month PFS was 35% (95% CI 15.7%, 55.2%); OS was 45% (95% CI 23.1%, 64.7%). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with AEs previously reported with tazemetostat, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, elevated LFTs, abdominal pain, dyspnea, infection, and intracranial hemorrhage. Three patients had bromide elevations. Conclusions: In this cohort of children with relapsed tumors harboring EZH2 mutations or loss of SMARCB1 or SMARCA4, tazemetostat did not produce significant objective responses (ORR: 5%, 90% CI 1%, 20%). However, we observed prolonged stable disease of > 6 months (range: 6-26 cycles) in 33% of patients across different histologic diagnoses, including two patients who received the full two years of study therapysuggesting a potential effect of tazemetostat on disease stabilization. Future studies will incorporate tazemetostat in combination with chemotherapy or immunologic agents for patients with these aggressive and difficult to treat tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT03213665.

3009 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients age 1 to 21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms of molecularly-targeted therapies based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm J evaluated the ERK1/2 inhibitor ulixertinib (BVD-523FB) in patients whose tumors harbored activating alterations in the MAPK pathway ( ARAF, BRAF, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, MAPK1, MAP2K1, GNA11, GNAQ hotspot mutations; NF1inactivating mutations; BRAF fusions). Methods: As there were no prior pediatric data, ulixertinib was initially tested in a dose escalation cohort using a rolling 6 design to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) before proceeding with enrollment to the phase 2 cohort. Ulixertinib was administered at 260 mg/m2/dose PO BID (dose level 1, DL1, n = 15) or 350 mg/m2/dose PO BID (dose level 2, DL2, n = 5). Patients were treated on continuous 28-day cycles for up to 2 years, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity; response assessment occurred every 2-3 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate; secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Twenty patients (median age 12 years; range 5-20) were enrolled between November 2018 and March 2021. All patients were evaluable for response. High-grade glioma (HGG, n = 7) was most common, with CNS tumors comprising 55% (11/20) of diagnoses; all CNS tumors except one (HGG with KRAS and NF1 mutations) harbored BRAF fusions or V600 mutations. Rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5) was the most frequent non-CNS diagnosis, with NRAS mutations detected in 4 tumors. DL1 was declared the RP2D after first-cycle dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in 1/6 DLT-evaluable patients at DL1 and 2/5 patients at DL2 in the dose escalation cohort. Any-cycle DLTs in 8 patients in the dose escalation and primary cohorts included fatigue, anorexia, rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, increased creatinine, hypoalbuminemia, hypernatremia, and hip fracture. No objective responses were observed. Six-month PFS was 37% (95% CI: 17%, 58%). Three patients with CNS tumors achieved stable disease > 6 months (HGG with BRAF fusion, 15 cycles; glioneuronal tumor with BRAF V600E, 9 cycles; low-grade glioma with BRAF fusion, 7 cycles). Analyses of correlative studies, including pharmacokinetics and circulating tumor DNA, are ongoing. Conclusions: The pediatric RP2D of ulixertinib was established as 260 mg/m2/dose PO BID. There were no objective responses in this cohort of children and young adults with treatment-refractory tumors with activating MAPK alterations. Clinical benefit of prolonged disease control was observed in 3 patients with BRAF-altered gliomas and glioneuronal tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT03698994.

AbstractBackgroundChildren with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) have a dismal prognosis. Adavosertib (AZD1775) is an orally available, blood-brain barrier penetrant, Wee1 kinase inhibitor. Preclinical efficacy against DIPG is heightened by radiation induced replication stress.MethodsUsing a rolling six design, 7 adavosertib dose levels (DLs) (50 mg/m2 alternating weeks, 50 mg/m2 alternating with weeks of every other day, 50 mg/m2, then 95, 130, 160, 200 mg/m2) were assessed. Adavosertib was only given on days of cranial radiation therapy (CRT).The duration of CRT (54 Gy over 30 fractions; 6 weeks) constituted the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period. Endpoints included tolerability, pharmacokinetics, overall survival (OS) and peripheral blood γH2AX levels as a marker of DNA damage.ResultsA total of 46 eligible patients with newly diagnosed DIPG [median (range) age 6 (3–21) years; 52% female] were enrolled. The recommend phase 2 dose (RP2D) of adavosertib was 200 mg/m2/d during days of CRT. Dose limiting toxicity included ALT elevation (n = 1, DL4) and neutropenia (n = 1, DL7). The mean Tmax, T1/2 and Clp on Day 1 were 2 h, 4.4 h, and 45.2 L/hr/m2, respectively. Modest accumulation of adavosertib was observed comparing day 5 versus day 1 AUC0-8h (accumulation ratio = 1.6). OS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 9.4, 12.5) and did not differ from historical control.ConclusionAdavosertib in combination with CRT is well tolerated in children with newly diagnosed DIPG, however, compared to historical controls, did not improve OS. These results can inform future trial design in children with high-risk cancer.

AbstractBackgroundE3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study.MethodsWe performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival.ResultsIn 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy–prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.63, p = 0.44).ConclusionsThere was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

PURPOSE The NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial assigns patients age 1-21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase II studies of molecularly targeted therapies on the basis of detection of predefined genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring mutations or fusions driving activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway were treated with the MEK inhibitor selumetinib. METHODS Patients received selumetinib twice daily for 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points included progression-free survival and tolerability of selumetinib. RESULTS Twenty patients (median age: 14 years) were treated. All were evaluable for response and toxicities. The most frequent diagnoses were high-grade glioma (HGG; n = 7) and rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 7). Twenty-one actionable mutations were detected: hotspot mutations in KRAS (n = 8), NRAS (n = 3), and HRAS (n = 1), inactivating mutations in NF1 (n = 7), and BRAF V600E (n = 2). No objective responses were observed. Three patients had a best response of stable disease including two patients with HGG ( NF1 mutation, six cycles; KRAS mutation, 12 cycles). Six-month progression-free survival was 15% (95% CI, 4 to 34). Five patients (25%) experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event that was possibly or probably attributable to study drug. CONCLUSION A national histology-agnostic molecular screening strategy was effective at identifying children and young adults eligible for treatment with selumetinib in the first Pediatric MATCH treatment arm to be completed. MEK inhibitors have demonstrated promising responses in some pediatric tumors (eg, low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma). However, selumetinib in this cohort with treatment-refractory tumors harboring MAPK alterations demonstrated limited efficacy, indicating that pathway mutation status alone is insufficient to predict response to selumetinib monotherapy for pediatric cancers.