Citations

Abstract Background: Zedoresertib (zedo) and lunresertib (lunre) are oral, highly selective WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibitors, respectively. Inhibition of these targets leads to premature mitotic entry, and in the presence of high replication stress causes mitotic catastrophe. In preclinical models, the combination of the zedo and lunre is synthetically lethal, supporting this first-in-class trial combination (NCT04855656). Methods: In this Phase 1 trial, patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors with CCNE1 amplification (amp), or FBXW7 or PPP2R1A deleterious mutations (mut) were treated with zedo (daily dosing) plus lunre (3 days on/4 days off), guided by preclinical modelling of the pharmacological contributions of WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibition in achieving tumor regression. Objectives included safety, tolerability, recommended doses (RD), pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PDy), antitumor activity and molecular response rate (MRR; ≥50% decline in circulating tumor DNA). Results: As of 18 Nov 2025, 54 pts (55.6% female ; prior lines of therapy 1 - 9, main cancer types: ovarian (OC) (35.2%), colorectal (31.5%), pancreatic (7.4%) and breast (5.6%)) were treated at 5 dose levels (DL) from 150 mg to 260 mg of zedo plus 60 mg or 80 mg of lunre. The most common ≥G3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were anemia (9.3%), neutropenia (7.4%) and Palmar Plantar Erythrodysesthesia (PPE) (7.4%). There were no G5 TRAEs. 4 (9.3%) of 54 pts had a dose-limiting toxicity (G3 pain in extremity and G1 rash in same pt (zedo 150 mg / lunre 60 mg), G3 rash (200 mg / 80 mg), G3 PPE (260 mg / 60 mg), G3 vomiting (260 mg / 60 mg)). PK/PDy analyses showed dose-dependent exposures for both zedo and lunre and target engagement in most pts, with reductions in pCDK1 Thr14 and Tyr15 and yH2AX induction. 24 (55.5%) of 44 RECIST v1.1 evaluable pts showed tumor shrinkage (3 cCR, 5 uPR, 15 SD and 1 PD). Of 16 evaluable pts with advanced OC (12 platinum resistant , 2 unknown and 2 platinum sensitive) with CCNE1 amp (13 pts) or FBXW7 mut (3 pts), 13 (81.3%) showed tumor shrinkage (3 cCR, 3 uPR and 7 SD); clinical benefit rate (pts with CR, PR or SD) was 93.8%; 7 (43.8%) OC pts were on treatment for at least 16 weeks; 4 (25%) OC pts achieved GCIG CA-125 responses. Of 23 pts with a post baseline ctDNA analysis, a MRR of 39% was seen across all DLs. Conclusion: We report the first disclosure of clinical data of the first-in-field synthetic lethal combination of WEE1 and PKMYT1 inhibitors in a molecularly defined pt population. The safety profile of zedo and lunre was expected and manageable. Promising antitumor activity was observed in pts with CCNE1 amp or FBXW7 mut solid tumors, especially pts with OC. Further dose optimization of this combination is ongoing. Citation Format: Timothy A. Yap, Rahul Aggarwal, Elisa Fontana, Martin Hojgaard, Benedito A. Carneiro, Linda Duska, Patricia LoRusso, Siddhartha Yadav, Stephanie Lheureux, Cara Mathews, Ryan H. Moy, Nehal Lakhani, Mia Weiss, Joan Tymon-Rosario, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, Elisabeth K. Lee, Esteban Rodrigo Imedio, Jonathan Wessen, Luke Piggott, Vito Dozio, Noemie Luong, Christophe Mas, Alison M. Schram. First data disclosure of the Phase I trial of the first in class combination of WEE1 inhibitor zedoresertib with PKMYT1 inhibitor lunresertib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring CCNE1, FBXW7, or PPP2R1A genomic alterations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT022.

TPS3164 Background: TUB-030 is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting 5T4, an oncofetal antigen expressed in various solid tumors with limited expression in healthy tissues. TUB-030 leverages optimized biophysical properties, an effector-silenced antibody, and an exatecan payload to maximize the therapeutic index and minimize off-target toxicities. Preclinical studies demonstrated potent anti-tumor activity, including long-lasting tumor regression at doses as low as 1 mg/kg and durable responses even in tumors with low 5T4 expression. Methods: 5-STAR 1-01 is a multicenter, first-in-human dose escalation and dose optimization Phase I/IIa clinical trial designed to investigate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the anti-5T4 ADC TUB-030 in patients with advanced and metastatic solid tumors. Eligible patients have one of the following tumor types: head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, triple-negative breast cancer, HR+/HER2- breast cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, osteosarcoma, or soft tissue sarcomas and must have exhausted available standard-of-care therapies. Phase I is an open-label, single-arm dose escalation trial, with administration every 21 days. Dose escalation follows an accelerated titration design (ATD) transitioning to Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) upon predefined toxicity thresholds. Backfill cohorts are planned in NSCLC and HNSCC to further evaluate the safety and efficacy profile at, or near, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Primary endpoints include safety and tolerability of TUB-030 as monotherapy, determination of the MTD and the recommended phase II doses; secondary endpoints assess pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and preliminary clinical activity using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Exploratory endpoints include analysis of circulating tumor DNA. In phase IIa, dose-optimization will evaluate two dose levels in select indications in order to identify the optimal dose for further development. Enrollment of approximately 130 patients across the US and Canada is planned, with dose escalation currently underway. This study investigates TUB-030, a novel 5T4 targeted ADC as a therapy for advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT06657222 .

Background Novel treatment options are required in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote a hostile tumor microenvironment and are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PROC. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of PY159, an agonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM1) that reprograms immunosuppressive intratumoral myeloid cells, and PY314, an antagonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) that depletes tumor-associated macrophages, as single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab in subjects with PROC. Methods PY159 and PY314 were individually evaluated in patients with PROC. Patients were treated with monotherapy (PY159 3 mg/kg or PY314 10 mg/kg), based on the recommended dose for expansion derived from the phase 1a studies. At the time of first progression, patients could continue study drug and crossover to combination therapy with pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks at the discretion of the investigator. Disease assessment by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor version 1.1 was performed every 6 weeks. Results 17 patients were enrolled in the PY159 study (median age 67, range 22–77; median prior therapies 6, range 2–18) and 16 patients in PY314 (median age 65.5, range 49–81; median prior therapies 4, range 2–10). 7 patients in PY159 and 8 patients in PY314 crossed over to combination therapy. Safety events included the following: treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (88.2%) in PY159 and 9 patients (56.3%) in PY314. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 6 patients (35.3%) in PY159 and 3 patients (18.8%) in PY314. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 13 patients (76.5%) in PY159 (arthralgias) and 1 patient (6.3%) in PY314 (diarrhea). Serious adverse events occurred in 6 patients (36.3%) in PY159 (1 related) and 12 patients (75%) in PY314 (all unrelated). The best radiographic response in PY159 was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 16 weeks, range 9–33), and in PY314, it was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 12 weeks, range 6–36). Median PFS was 2.76 months and 2.69 months in PY159 and PY314, respectively. There were no responses in the crossover arm. Conclusions Both PY159 and PY314 were well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile, as both single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab. Both agents warrant further investigation in heavily pretreated PROC.

3077 Background: ATR protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA defects in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor irinotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in SCLC and GI cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This phase Ia trial assessed elimusertib in combination with irinotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom irinotecan can be considered standard care. Patients with previous irinotecan exposure were excluded. Two dosing schedules were used: 1) Biweekly - irinotecan IV (starting at 150 mg/m2) D1 + elimusertib (starting dose 20 mg PO BID) D1,D2 (cycle=14 days); 2) Weekly - irinotecan (starting at 50 mg/m2) IV on D1,8,15 with elimusertib (starting at 20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3,D9,D10 and D16,D17 (cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity. Results: A total of 21 patients were enrolled in dose escalation (N=9 [Biweekly] and N=12 [Weekly], median age 58 and 2 lines of prior therapy. For the Biweekly cohort: 3/3 patients enrolled at dose level (DL) 1 experienced hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); 6 patients received DL-1 without any DLTs. The weekly regimen escalation comprised of 12 patients: 6 enrolled in DL1 with 2/6 having hematologic DLT and 5/6 unable to complete ≥75% of cycle 1 dosing; 6 enrolled in DL-1 with no DLTs observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized (Table 1). The majority of evaluable patients in both schedules had initial disease control (56% [biweekly] and 67% [weekly]). One confirmed partial response was seen in the biweekly RP2D. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 mo [biweekly] and 2.5 mo [weekly]. PK results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: Both RP2D and MTD of elimusertib in combination with irinotecan were reached for both dosing schedules: irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV D1 + elimusertib 10 mg BID PO D1,D2 (biweekly) and irinotecan 25 mg/m2 IV on D1 + elimusertib (20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3 (weekly). Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansion but the concept of ATR + topo I combination remains scientifically relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

3076 Background: Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA abnormalities in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor topotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY 1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in small cell lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This is phase Ia study of elimusertib combined with topotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom topotecan can be considered as part of standard care. Patients with previous topotecan exposure were excluded. The study combination was assessed starting at Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV (D1-D5) plus elimusertib 20 mg BID (D2, D5) (Cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity of the combinations. Results: Eight patients were treated in dose escalation. Participants were a median of 63 years old and had received 2 median lines of previous therapy. The initial two patients enrolled into dose level (DL) 1 had dose-limiting toxicities with one of patient experiencing respiratory failure and cardiac arrest in setting of pancytopenia related to study drug. Six patients were subsequently enrolled in and received DL-1 (elimusertib decreased from 20 mg BID to 20 mg Daily) and no DLTs were observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized in Table. Disease control rate was 43% among evaluation patient including one unconfirmed partial response. Median progression-free survival in the RP2D cohort was 3.45 months. PK studies are in process and results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: RP2D and MTD was established for elimusertib in combination with Topotecan: Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV [D1-D5] plus elimusertib 20 mg Daily [D2, D5] every 3 weeks. Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansions cohorts but the concept of ATR + topo I inhibition remains relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Genome-wide fragmentation patterns in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma are strongly influenced by cellular origin due to variation in chromatin accessibility across cell types. Such differences between healthy and cancer cells provide the opportunity for development of novel cancer diagnostics. Here, we investigated whether analysis of cfDNA fragment end positions and their surrounding DNA sequences reveals the presence of tumor-derived DNA in blood. We performed genome-wide analysis of cfDNA from 521 samples and analyzed sequencing data from an additional 2147 samples, including healthy individuals and patients with 11 different cancer types. We developed a metric based on genome-wide differences in fragment positioning, weighted by fragment length and GC content [information-weighted fraction of aberrant fragments (iwFAF)]. We observed that iwFAF strongly correlated with tumor fraction, was higher for DNA fragments carrying somatic mutations, and was higher within genomic regions affected by copy number amplifications. We also calculated sample-level means of nucleotide frequencies observed at genomic positions spanning fragment ends. Using a combination of iwFAF and nine nucleotide frequencies from three positions surrounding fragment ends, we developed a machine learning model to differentiate healthy individuals from patients with cancer. We observed an area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.91 for detection of cancer at any stage and an AUC of 0.87 for detection of stage I cancer. Our findings remained robust with as few as 1 million fragments analyzed per sample, demonstrating that analysis of fragment ends can become a cost-effective and accessible approach for cancer detection and monitoring.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Background This phase I multicenter study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and translational effects on the tumor microenvironment of itacitinib (Janus-associated kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor) in combination with epacadostat (indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) inhibitor) or parsaclisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ (PI3Kδ) inhibitor). Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled and received itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus epacadostat (50–300 mg two times per day; group A), or itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus parsaclisib or parsaclisib monotherapy (0.3–10 mg once a day; group B). Results A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached for either the combination of itacitinib plus epacadostat (n=47) or itacitinib plus parsaclisib (n=90). One dose-limiting toxicity of serious, grade 3 aseptic meningitis was reported in a patient receiving itacitinib 300 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 10 mg once a day, which resolved when the study drugs were withdrawn. The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with itacitinib plus epacadostat included fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, and vomiting, and for patients treated with itacitinib plus parsaclisib were fatigue, pyrexia, and diarrhea. In the itacitinib plus epacadostat group, no patient had an objective response. Among patients receiving itacitinib 100 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 0.3 mg once a day, three achieved partial response for an objective response rate (95% CI) of 7.1% (1.50 to 19.48). Treatment with itacitinib plus epacadostat demonstrated some increase in tumor CD8+ T cell infiltration and minor changes in six plasma proteins, whereas treatment with itacitinib plus high-dose parsaclisib resulted in downregulation of 20 plasma proteins mostly involved in immune cell function, with no observed change in intratumoral CD8+ T cell infiltration. Conclusion Adverse events with JAK1 inhibition combined with either IDO1 or PI3Kδ inhibition were manageable, but the combinations demonstrated limited clinical activity or enhancement of immune activation in the tumor microenvironment. Trial registration number NCT02559492.