Citations

Abstract Purpose: The safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of elraglusib, a glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) small-molecule inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors or hematologic malignancies was studied. Patients and Methods: Elraglusib (intravenously twice weekly in 3-week cycles) monotherapy dose escalation was followed by dose escalation with eight chemotherapy regimens (gemcitabine, doxorubicin, lomustine, carboplatin, irinotecan, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel/carboplatin, and pemetrexed/carboplatin) in patients previously exposed to the same chemotherapy. Results: Patients received monotherapy (n = 67) or combination therapy (n = 171) elraglusib doses 1 to 15 mg/kg twice weekly. The initial recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of elraglusib was 15 mg/kg twice weekly and was defined, without dose-limiting toxicity observation, due to fluid volumes necessary for drug administration. The RP2D was subsequently reduced to 9.3 mg/kg once weekly to reduce elraglusib-associated central/peripheral vascular access catheter blockages. Other common elraglusib-related adverse events (AE) included transient visual changes and fatigue. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 55.2% and 71.3% of patients on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Part 1 monotherapy (n = 62) and part 2 combination (n = 138) patients were evaluable for response. In part 1, a patient with melanoma had a complete response, and a patient with acute T-cell leukemia/lymphoma had a partial response (PR). In part 2, seven PRs were observed, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2–2.6] and 6.9 (95% CI, 5.7–8.4) months, respectively. Conclusions: Elraglusib had a favorable toxicity profile as monotherapy and combined with chemotherapy and was associated with clinical benefit supporting further clinical evaluation in combination with chemotherapy.

Abstract GB13 is a novel biologic therapy in the final stages of preclinical development for the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM) and H3 K27-altered diffuse midline glioma (DMG) that has received Orphan Drug Designation by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of malignant gliomas. GB13 targets a specific tumor-restricted receptor of interleukin 13 called interleukin 13 receptor alpha 2 (IL13Rα2). IL13Rα2 is highly expressed in malignant gliomas and, importantly, is not expressed on non-cancerous cells of the brain. GB13 consists of an engineered proprietary mutant of IL13, which binds exclusively to IL13Rα2, and is fused to a highly cytotoxic exotoxin molecule. In vitro data demonstrate that GB13 potently kills IL13Rα2+ cancer cells while sparing non-cancerous cells. These characteristics make GB13 an attractive agent for safe and efficacious targeting of tumor cells expressing IL13Rα2 in upcoming clinical trials. In the current studies, we employed patient-derived GBM and DMG cell and animal models to provide key conclusions that support GB13 as an effective treatment option for gliomas in the clinic. First, we demonstrated that single acute infusions of GB13 by enhanced delivery (CED) is effective at decreasing orthotopic tumor volumes and increasing animal survival and that a long-term infusion can more significantly extend animal survival. Second, we determined that IL13Rα2 is requisite for GB13 activity as tumors that do not express the receptor are insensitive to the cytotoxic effects of GB13, demonstrating a precise and clear biomarker for clinical trial patient selection. Finally, we determined that GB13 works in concert with clinical standard-of-care radiation therapy to increase cell death, compared to radiation alone. Based on this work, we and our clinical collaborators are confident that the current work confirms GB13 has many important characteristics as an exciting therapy, which continues development towards a Phase I clinical trial for both GBM and pediatric DMG.

AbstractPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are commonly approached with concerns involving patient genetics. This is a challenge because most PCPs lack expertise in genetic testing compared to their genetic counselor counterparts. Currently, the recommended best practice is to refer patients for genetic testing based on cancer‐related family history questionnaires with a genetic counseling referral to discuss their results and any implications. However, the extent to which PCPs are using these questionnaires for this purpose remains poorly understood. In this cross‐sectional study, PCPs were presented with the American Cancer Society's seven recommended family history questions to determine the percentage who consider each to be an indicator for referral to a genetics specialist. Questionnaires were completed by 88 of 260 attending PCPs at a national primary care review conference. The main outcome was the percentage of PCPs who identified each question as a trigger for genetic testing. Secondary outcomes included correlations with years of practice, genetics training, and methods used to obtain patient family history. Only two of the seven questions were considered triggers by most PCPs (range, 76–83%). The remaining five had lower percentages (range, 22–55%). Years of practice did not influence the number of triggers identified (Spearman correlation coefficient test: r = 0.05, p = 0.68). Few PCPs (3.4%) felt they had good to excellent genetics training during residency. Only 44.3% had genetics specialists available for referral. Overall, low percentages of PCPs consider the American Cancer Society questions to be triggers for genetic testing referrals. Furthermore, many do not have a genetics specialist or counselor available for referral. Addressing these concerns may help PCPs understand the basics of genetic testing and use standardized questionnaires to make appropriate referrals to genetic specialists, thereby reducing inappropriate referrals and improving appointment access to this precious resource for those who truly need it.

Importance People who smoked cigarettes may experience respiratory symptoms without spirometric airflow obstruction. These individuals are typically excluded from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials and lack evidence-based therapies. Objective To define the natural history of persons with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry (TEPS) and symptoms (symptomatic TEPS). Design, Setting, and Participants SPIROMICS II was an extension of SPIROMICS I, a multicenter study of persons aged 40 to 80 years who smoked cigarettes (>20 pack-years) with or without COPD and controls without tobacco exposure or airflow obstruction. Participants were enrolled in SPIROMICS I and II from November 10, 2010, through July 31, 2015, and followed up through July 31, 2021. Exposures Participants in SPIROMICS I underwent spirometry, 6-minute walk distance testing, assessment of respiratory symptoms, and computed tomography of the chest at yearly visits for 3 to 4 years. Participants in SPIROMICS II had 1 additional in-person visit 5 to 7 years after enrollment in SPIROMICS I. Respiratory symptoms were assessed with the COPD Assessment Test (range, 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV 1 ] to forced vital capacity >0.70) and COPD Assessment Test scores of 10 or greater. Participants with asymptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry and COPD Assessment Test scores of less than 10. Patient-reported respiratory symptoms and exacerbations were assessed every 4 months via phone calls. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was assessment for accelerated decline in lung function (FEV 1 ) in participants with symptomatic TEPS vs asymptomatic TEPS. Secondary outcomes included development of COPD defined by spirometry, respiratory symptoms, rates of respiratory exacerbations, and progression of computed tomographic–defined airway wall thickening or emphysema. Results Of 1397 study participants, 226 had symptomatic TEPS (mean age, 60.1 [SD, 9.8] years; 134 were women [59%]) and 269 had asymptomatic TEPS (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 9.1] years; 134 were women [50%]). At a median follow-up of 5.76 years, the decline in FEV 1 was −31.3 mL/y for participants with symptomatic TEPS vs −38.8 mL/y for those with asymptomatic TEPS (between-group difference, −7.5 mL/y [95% CI, −16.6 to 1.6 mL/y]). The cumulative incidence of COPD was 33.0% among participants with symptomatic TEPS vs 31.6% among those with asymptomatic TEPS (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46]). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had significantly more respiratory exacerbations than those with asymptomatic TEPS (0.23 vs 0.08 exacerbations per person-year, respectively; rate ratio, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.31], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Participants with symptomatic TEPS did not have accelerated rates of decline in FEV 1 or increased incidence of COPD vs those with asymptomatic TEPS, but participants with symptomatic TEPS did experience significantly more respiratory exacerbations over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.