Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Ramucirumab in Combination with FOLFOX4 in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized,Open‐Label,Phase Ib Study

Lessons Learned

• The combination of ramucirumab (8 mg/kg intravenous, day 1 every 2 weeks) and FOLFOX4 as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was not sufficiently tolerated.
• Preliminary efficacy data suggest that the combination may provide clinical benefit to patients with HCC.
• Dose modification and patient selection should be considered for the future development of ramucirumab plus FOLFOX chemotherapy for advanced HCC.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to investigate the safety, preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of ramucirumab plus FOLFOX4 as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsPatients received ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously (IV) on day 1, followed by FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² IV on day 1, folinic acid 200 mg/m² IV, bolus fluorouracil [5‐FU] 400 mg/m², and a continuous infusion of 5‐FU 600 mg/m² over 22 hours, on days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination therapy.ResultsEight patients (6 men, 2 women) were treated; all eight patients experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE) of grade ≥3. Dose‐limiting toxicities occurred in three patients (37.5%): hepatic hemorrhage (grade 4), blood bilirubin increased (grade 3), and febrile neutropenia (grade 3). Two patients discontinued study because of hepatic hemorrhage (grade 4) and blood bilirubin increase (grade 3). Six deaths occurred due to progressive disease, and no deaths due to TEAEs.ConclusionThere were no unexpected safety findings with ramucirumab plus FOLFOX4 based on the known safety and toxicity of this regimen. The combination was not sufficiently tolerated in patients with advanced HCC at the specified dose and schedule.     

Phase I/II Study of Cisplatin plus Nab‐Paclitaxel with Concurrent Thoracic Radiotherapy for Patients with Locally Advanced Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of cisplatin plus nab‐paclitaxel with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in unresectable stage III non‐small cell lung cancer is a promising therapeutic strategy.
• Further investigation is warranted.

BackgroundWe conducted a phase I/II trial of cisplatin plus nab‐paclitaxel with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine the recommended dose (RD) of nab‐paclitaxel and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this regimen.MethodsIn the phase I study, escalating doses of weekly nab‐paclitaxel were administered together with cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks and concurrent radiotherapy. In the phase II study, nab‐paclitaxel was administered at the RD.ResultsIn the phase I study, whereas no dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed with nab‐paclitaxel at 50 or 60 mg/m², one of six patients experienced DLT (esophagitis of grade 3) at 70 mg/m², determined as the RD. Twenty‐four patients at RD were evaluable for safety and efficacy in phase II. Common toxicities included esophagitis (87.5%) and leukopenia (79.2%). Pneumonitis and treatment‐related deaths were not observed, but 20 patients (83.3%) experienced radiation pneumonitis, with one case of grade 3 and four of grade 2, after completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The 2‐year overall survival and progression‐free survival rates were 73.9% and 56.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.3%–74.7%), respectively.ConclusionConcurrent chemoradiation with nab‐paclitaxel at 70 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks showed encouraging feasibility and activity for locally advanced NSCLC.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Phase Ib Study of Enzalutamide with or Without Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• Androgen receptor as assessed by immunohistochemistry is expressed in a high proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Enzalutamide at 160 mg orally daily is safe and tolerable in patients with advanced HCC but has no single‐agent antitumor activity.
• Enzalutamide, a CYP3A4 inducer, at a standard dose of 160 mg reduces the exposure of sorafenib, a CYP3A4 substrate.
• Enzalutamide and sorafenib is safe and tolerable in patients with advanced HCC, but the addition of enzalutamide to sorafenib did not enhance the antitumor activity of sorafenib.

BackgroundAndrogen receptor (AR) interference is deleterious to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in preclinical models.MethodsThis is a multicenter, phase Ib study of enzalutamide ± sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. In part 1, a 3 + 3 dose de‐escalation design with expansion established the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of enzalutamide in patients in whom sorafenib treatment had failed. In part 2, a 3 + 3 dose escalation with expansion established the safety of enzalutamide with sorafenib in treatment‐naive patients with HCC. Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of AR expression by immunohistochemistry. A 7‐day run‐in with sorafenib alone in part 2 allowed assessment of the impact of enzalutamide on sorafenib pharmacokinetics.ResultsIn part 1, 16 patients received enzalutamide 160 mg daily. No dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred; 1 patient required dose reduction. Responses were not observed; median PFS and OS were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–3.6) and 7 (95% CI: 3.6 to not reached [NR]) months, respectively. In part 2, patients received sorafenib 400 mg daily (4) or twice a day (8) both with enzalutamide at the recommended phase II dose—no DLTs were observed. ORR was 10% (95% CI: 0.3–44.5), and median PFS and OS were 2.9 (95% CI: 1.6 to NR) and 6.7 (95% CI: 4.6 to NR) months, respectively. Enzalutamide reduced sorafenib exposure by 60%. Tumor AR expression did not associate with outcome.ConclusionEnzalutamide is ineffective in HCC; further development is not supported by this study.     

First-in-Class Selective HDAC6 Inhibitor (ACY-1215) Has a Highly Favorable Safety Profile in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoma

Lessons Learned

• Oral selective HDAC6 inhibitors could allow for decreased toxicity compared to pan‐class inhibitors, and increased ease of use.
• ACY‐1215 is well tolerated and led to disease stabilization in 50% of patients treated on a twice‐daily dosing schedule.
• Rational drug combinations with ACY‐1215 improve efficacy in patients with lymphoma.
• Biomarkers such as XBP‐1 level or HDAC6‐score may improve patient selection.

BackgroundACY‐1215, ricolinostat, is an oral, first‐in‐class isoform‐selective HDAC6 inhibitor. HDAC6 is a class IIb deacetylase and plays a critical role in protein homeostasis via the unfolded protein response (UPR). Lymphocytes generate a large repertoire of antibodies and depend on an activated UPR to maintain proteostasis. Lymphomas utilize this biology to evade programmed cell death. In preclinical models of lymphoma, ACY‐1215 disrupted proteostasis, triggering apoptosis.MethodsWe translated these findings into a multi‐institution, open‐label, dose‐escalation phase Ib/II study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed and refractory lymphoma.ResultsTwenty‐one patients with heavily pretreated lymphoma were accrued. Patients in the phase Ib portion were enrolled on one of two dose cohorts [Arm A: 160 mg daily (n = 3) or Arm B: 160 mg twice daily (n = 10)]. ACY‐1215 was well tolerated. There were no dose limiting toxicities. Most adverse events were grade 1–2, including diarrhea (57%), nausea (57%), and fatigue (43%). Grade 3–4 toxicities were rare and included anemia (9.5%) and hypercalcemia (9.5%). An additional 8 patients were enrolled on the phase II portion, at 160 mg twice daily. Sixteen patients were evaluable for response. ACY‐1215 did not result in any complete or partial responses in patients treated. Eight patients had stable disease (50%) lasting a median duration of 4.5 months, all of whom were treated twice daily. Disease progressed in eight patients (50%) at cycle 2. Five patients were not evaluable due to disease progression prior to cycle 2. The median PFS was 56 days.ConclusionACY‐1215 is an oral selective HDAC6 inhibitor that was safe in patients with relapsed and refractory lymphoid malignancies and led to disease stabilization in half of the evaluable patients.     

Phase Ib/II Study of Biweekly TAS-102 in Combination with Bevacizumab for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Therapies (BiTS Study)

Lessons Learned

• A biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV schedule in patients with heavily pretreated mCRC showed equivalent efficacy with less toxicity compared with the current schedule of TAS‐102 plus BEV combination.
• Biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV combination could reduce unnecessary dose reduction of TAS‐102, maintain higher doses, and possibly be effective even in cases without chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia (CIN).
• The prespecified subgroup analysis of this study showed an obvious association between CIN within the first two cycles and prognosis of biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV.

BackgroundTAS‐102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) plus bevacizumab (BEV) combination therapy has shown promising activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the previously reported dose and schedule for the TAS‐102 (70 mg/m²/day on days 1–5 and 8–12, every 4 weeks) plus BEV (5 mg/kg on day 1, every 2 weeks) regimen is complicated by severe hematological toxicities and difficult administration schedules. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a more convenient biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV combination.MethodsPatients with mCRC who were refractory or intolerant to standard chemotherapies were enrolled. Patients received biweekly TAS‐102 (twice daily on days 1–5, every 2 weeks) with BEV (5mg/kg on day 1, every 2 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival rate at 16 weeks (16‐w PFS rate).ResultsFrom October 2017 to January 2018, 46 patients were enrolled. The recommended phase II dose was determined to be TAS‐102 (70 mg/m²/day). Of the 44 eligible patients, the 16‐w PFS rate was 40.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3%–56.8%), and the null hypothesis was rejected (p < .0001). Median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 4.29 months and 10.86 months, respectively. Disease control rate was 59.1%. Common grade 3 or higher adverse events were hypertension (40.9%), neutropenia (15.9%), and leucopenia (15.9%).ConclusionBiweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV showed promising antitumor activity with safety.     

Metastatic Low-Grade Sarcoma with CARS-ALK Fusion Dramatically Responded to Multiple ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Case Report with Comprehensive Genomic Analysis

This article reports a case of advanced metastatic low‐grade sarcoma. The patient was diagnosed with an inoperable large (14 × 12 cm) lesion on his neck in September 2015 and underwent two ineffective chemotherapies in the following 4 months. Interestingly, although several pathologists could not agree on the histopathological diagnosis, the precise molecular pathological diagnosis was obtained using next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and finally brought excellent therapeutic effects. The patient was detected to have CARS‐ALK fusion by NGS and then was successfully treated with crizotinib orally. He received surgical resection of primary and metastatic lesions after tumor shrinkage. The combined treatment brought a durable response for 40 months. Although the tumor recurred in July 2019, the patient has been responding well to the second‐line ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor alectinib to date. We performed whole genome sequencing on the patient''s primary, metastatic, and recurrent tumors and did comprehensive genomic analysis. Furthermore, our analysis results revealed that a whole genome duplication event might have happened during tumorigenesis of this case.Key Points

• To our best knowledge, this is the first report of a very successful treatment with first‐ and second‐line ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors for CARS‐ALK fusion–positive metastatic low‐grade sarcoma.
• Molecular pathological result can guide precision treatment for sarcoma, even when the exact histopathology cannot be obtained.
• Multiple samples from this patient were analyzed using whole genome sequencing. Results provided detailed genomic characteristics and showed tumor evolution of this low‐grade sarcoma case.
• A whole genome duplication event might have happened during tumorigenesis of this low‐grade sarcoma case.

     

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal,Non-Small Cell Lung,and Pancreatic Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d.
• Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined.

BackgroundAntitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS‐mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3‐kinase–AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan‐HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild‐type tumors.MethodsAfatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsTwenty‐six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose‐limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response.ConclusionAfatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.     

Apatinib in Combination with S-1 as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Results from an Open,Exploratory, Single-Arm,Phase II Trial

Lessons Learned

• Apatinib combined with S‐1 was not superior to other chemotherapy regimens as first‐line therapy for advanced gastric cancer.
• There was a tendency for patients with lymph node metastasis to have prolonged median progression‐free survival and median overall survival, compared with patients with liver metastasis.

BackgroundThe best choice of first‐line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic gastric cancer is still debated. We combined apatinib and S‐1 as a new first‐line therapy to treat advanced gastric cancer. The efficacy and safety of the combination were assessed, with the goal of determining the most appropriate subgroup of patients who could benefit from this new regimen.MethodsThis study was an open, exploratory single‐arm, phase II trial. Enrolled patients received apatinib plus S‐1 treatment (apatinib, 500 mg, once a day [qd], days 1–21; S‐1, 40 mg/m², bid, days 1–14). The primary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety of this new regimen. Next‐generation sequencing was used to explore potential biomarkers.ResultsA total of 30 patients were enrolled. The median progression‐free survival (mPFS) was 4.21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29–6.13 months). The median overall survival (mOS) was 7.49 months (95% CI, 4.81–10.17 months). Patients with lymph node metastasis had prolonged mPFS and mOS when compared with those with liver metastasis (mPFS, 4.21 vs. 1.84 months; mOS, 8.21 vs. 6.31 months, p = .08). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were abdominal pain, dizziness, and diarrhea. Gene mutation profiles between the two subgroups were significantly different.ConclusionApatinib combined with S‐1 was not superior to other chemotherapy regimens as first‐line therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Toxicity was consistent with known profiles when given as monotherapy. There was a tendency toward prolonged mPFS and mOS in patients with lymph node metastasis compared with patients with liver metastasis, which could support the need to design a future clinical trial with a better defined patient population.     

Activity of Sorafenib Plus Capecitabine in Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) typically involves multiple lines of therapy with eventual development of treatment resistance.
• In this single‐arm, phase II study involving heavily pretreated patients, the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine yielded a clinically meaningful progression‐free survival of 6.2 months with an acceptable toxicity profile.
• This oral doublet therapy is worthy of continued investigation for clinical use in patients with mCRC.

BackgroundCapecitabine (Cape) is an oral prodrug of the antimetabolite 5‐fluorouracil. Sorafenib (Sor) inhibits multiple signaling pathways involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. SorCape has been previously studied in metastatic breast cancer.MethodsThis single‐arm, phase II study was designed to evaluate the activity of SorCape in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients received Sor (200 mg p.o. b.i.d. max daily) and Cape (1,000 mg/m² p.o. b.i.d. on days 1–14) on a 21‐day treatment cycle. Primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS) with preplanned comparison with historical controls.ResultsForty‐two patients were treated for a median number of 3.5 cycles (range 1–39). Median PFS was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–7.9) months, and overall survival (OS) was 8.8 (95% CI, 4.3–12.2) months. One patient (2.4%) had partial response (PR), and 22 patients (52.4%) had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 54.8% (95% CI, 38.7%–70.2%). Hand‐foot syndrome was the most common adverse event seen in 36 patients (85.7%) and was grade ≥ 3 in 16 patients (38.1%). One patient (2.4%) had a grade 4 sepsis, and one patient (2.4%) died while on treatment.ConclusionSorCape in this heavily pretreated population yielded a reasonable PFS with manageable but notable toxicity. The combination should be investigated further.     

A Phase II Single Arm Pilot Study of the CHK1 Inhibitor Prexasertib (LY2606368) in BRCA Wild-Type,Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Monotherapy with prexasertib demonstrated modest activity in BRCA wild‐type, recurrent triple‐negative breast cancer, highlighting the unmet need for combination treatment strategies.
• Neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia are common with the use of prexasertib but are manageable with supportive care measures. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor should be considered to avoid dose reductions or treatment delays.
• Pharmacodynamic studies showed prexasertib treatment induced DNA damage in peripheral immune cells.

BackgroundCell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) is a major G2/M cell cycle regulator in tumors with p53 dysfunction, such as triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). We hypothesized the second‐generation CHK1 inhibitor, prexasertib, would yield clinical activity in sporadic TNBC.MethodsThis single arm, phase II trial evaluated prexasertib at 105 mg/m² IV every 2 weeks in patients with metastatic/recurrent TNBC. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR).ResultsAll nine patients enrolled were germline BRCA wild‐type (BRCAwt) and had at least one prior treatment. One partial response (PR) was observed (ORR of 11.1%). Four patients experienced stable disease. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 86 days (range 17 to 159 days). Grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events included afebrile neutropenia (n = 8; 88.9%), anemia (n = 3; 33.3%), and thrombocytopenia (n = 1; 11.1%). Pharmacodynamic studies showed prexasertib treatment induced DNA damage in peripheral immune cells and demonstrated a decrease in activated/reinvigorated CD8 T cells; however, the one patient with a PR showed evidence of T‐cell recovery.ConclusionPrexasertib monotherapy had modest clinical efficacy in BRCAwt TNBC. Further studies of prexasertib in combination with other agents are needed.     

Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab with Modified FOLFOX7 in Patients with Stage II and III Rectal Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Neoadjuvant bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX7 without radiation failed to meet the goal of pathological complete response rate; however, the low number of recurrence and disease‐free survival in this population, with predominantly stage III, is encouraging and worth further exploration.
• The racial distribution of the patient population, as well as a wait time of more than 4 weeks after last chemotherapy, may have contributed to the findings.

BackgroundCombination chemotherapy in lieu of radiation in rectal adenocarcinoma is under exploration in multiple trials. We evaluated the efficacy of neoadjuvant FOLFOX + bevacizumab in patients (pts) with clinical stage II and III disease.MethodsPts received six cycles of bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) and modified FOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 20 mg/m², and fluorouracil [5‐FU] 2,400 mg/m²). Surgical resection was performed 6–8 weeks after completion of treatment and upon confirmation of nonmetastatic disease. We employed a Simon two‐stage design and required three pathological complete responses (pCR) in the first 18 pts, with a prespecified pCR rate of 25% before moving to the next stage.ResultsSeventeen pts enrolled; 65% at stage III. Median age was 57 (35–79), 65% were male, 47% were Hispanic, 35% were white, and 18% were Asian. All pts but one completed six cycles of therapy. One pCR was observed (6%), and 11 of 17 (65%) pts had pathological downstaging. One patient experienced systemic recurrence and remains on treatment. Probability of disease‐free survival (DFS) at 5 years is 0.94 (SE, 0.06).ConclusionThe study failed to meet the required three pCRs in the first 18 pts. The DFS in this population is encouraging and supports the hypothesis that select pts with rectal cancer may be spared from radiation.     

A Phase II Study of Fulvestrant 500 mg as Maintenance Therapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive,Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer After First-Line Chemotherapy

Lessons Learned

• Fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy showed a clinical benefit rate of 76% and median progression‐free survival of 16.1 months in patients who achieved objective responses or disease control after first‐line chemotherapy.
• Adverse events with fulvestrant maintenance therapy were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug.

BackgroundEvidence for maintenance hormonal therapy after chemotherapy for estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer is scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy in patients after first‐line chemotherapy.MethodsWe enrolled postmenopausal women with ER‐positive/HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer who attained tumor responses or disease control with four to eight cycles of chemotherapy as first‐line treatment. Fulvestrant 500 mg was injected on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); the secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), and safety.ResultsWe included 58 patients; the median follow‐up duration was 32.6 months. The CBR since commencing fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%–86%), and ORR was 14% (95% CI, 6%–25%); eight patients achieved partial response. The median PFS for fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 16.1 months (95% CI, 10.3–21.0 months). Thirty‐nine patients (67%) reported at least one adverse event, of which most were grade 1/2, whereas three patients (5%) reported grade 3 adverse events.ConclusionFulvestrant 500 mg is a feasible and promising hormonal maintenance strategy in patients with ER‐positive/HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer who have no disease progression after first‐line chemotherapy.     

KRAS-Mutated,Estrogen Receptor-Positive Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Unraveling an Exceptional Response Mystery

We report on a woman with aggressive estrogen receptor‐positive, KRAS‐mutated ovarian cancer who achieved a remarkable response to combination therapy with the MEK inhibitor (trametinib) and the aromatase inhibitor (letrozole), even though the disease had failed to respond to a combination of a PI3K inhibitor and different MEK inhibitor, as well as to trametinib and the estrogen modulator, tamoxifen, and to letrozole by itself. The mechanism of action for exceptional response was elucidated by in vitro experiments that demonstrated that the fact that tamoxifen can have an agonistic effect in addition to antagonist activity, whereas letrozole results only in estrogen depletion was crucial to the response achieved when letrozole was combined with an MEK inhibitor. Our current observations indicate that subtle variations in mechanisms of action of outwardly similar regimens may have a major impact on outcome and that such translational knowledge is critical for optimizing a precision medicine strategy.Key Points

• This report describes the remarkable response of a patient with KRAS‐mutated, estrogen receptor‐positive low‐grade serous ovarian cancer treated with trametinib (MEK inhibitor) and letrozole (aromatase inhibitor), despite prior progression on similar agents including tamoxifen (estrogen modulator).
• In vitro investigation revealed that tamoxifen can have agonistic in addition to antagonistic effects, which could be the reason for the patient not responding to the combination of trametinib and tamoxifen.
• The current observations suggest that drugs with different mechanisms of action targeting the same receptor may have markedly different anticancer activity when used in combinations.

     

A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of the Safety,Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Ipilimumab in Chinese Patients with Select Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• The overall safety profiles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks, were consistent between Chinese patients with solid tumors in the current study and patients from previous U.S. ipilimumab monotherapy studies. No new safety signals were identified.
• The mean systemic exposures to ipilimumab (assessed by first dose area under the curve during the dosing interval and maximum serum concentration) were numerically lower in the Chinese patient population than in U.S. patients for both 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses; however, the range of serum concentrations in the Chinese and U.S. populations overlapped (3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg), suggesting that ipilimumab pharmacokinetics was ethnically insensitive in this study.

BackgroundThis phase I, open‐label study assessed ipilimumab safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, and antitumor activity in Chinese patients with unresectable, metastatic, recurrent malignant melanoma (MM) or nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).MethodsOf 39 patients enrolled, 25 received ipilimumab (11 patients received 3 mg/kg, and 14 patients received 10 mg/kg). Reasons for not receiving treatment were withdrawal of consent (3 patients), no longer meeting the criteria (10 patients), and one recorded as “other.” During the induction phase, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.), on day 1 of a 3‐week cycle, to a maximum of four doses or progressive disease (PD). During the maintenance phase at week 24, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.) on day 1 of a 12‐week cycle, to a maximum of 3 years or PD. Considering the co‐primary safety and PK endpoints, the successive dosing required nine patients with two or fewer dose‐limiting toxicities during the 42‐day observation period to proceed with a new cohort of nine patients at 10 mg/kg.ResultsIpilimumab safety and PK profiles were similar in Chinese and predominantly White populations. Ipilimumab was well tolerated. Most adverse events (AEs) were grades 1–2 and experienced by 11 patients treated with 3 mg/kg and 14 patients treated with 10 mg/kg. There were no new safety concerns. Incidence of anti‐ipilimumab antibodies was low (1 of 10 in the 3 mg/kg patients and 2 of 13 in the 10 mg/kg patients) and without safety implications. In the 3 mg/kg group, 8 of 11 patients had PD. In the 10 mg/kg group (all NPC, 0 MM patients), 11 of 14 patients had PD. Three patients had stable disease (one at 3 mg/kg and two at 10 mg/kg).ConclusionIpilimumab was well tolerated in Chinese patients, showing similar safety and PK to previous studies in predominantly White populations.     

A Phase II Clinical Trial on the Combination Therapy of PHY906 Plus Capecitabine in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• A PHY906 and capecitabine combination could be effective as a salvage therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with multiple systemic therapies.
• This traditional Chinese medicine formulation can work with Western cancer chemotherapeutic agents to improve clinical outcomes or alleviate side effects for patients with advanced HCC.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of capecitabine combined with a PHY906 (a pharmaceutical‐grade formulation of four traditional Chinese herbs) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Asian patients who were positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV).MethodsThis study was an open‐label, phase II safety and efficacy clinical trial of PHY906 and capecitabine in patients with advanced HCC. Patients received 750 mg/m² capecitabine b.i.d. 14 days plus 800 mg of PHY906 b.i.d. on days 1–4 and days 8–11 every 21‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6‐month survival rate, and secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, overall survival, disease control rate, and safety.ResultsThirty‐nine subjects completed the study with a 46.2% stable disease rate. The median progression‐free survival was 1.5 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was 6 months with a 51.3% 6‐month survival rate. The most common adverse events included lower hemoglobin, diarrhea, pain, abdomen (not otherwise specified), fatigue, increased aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin. Patients who (a) had not received previous chemotherapies or targeted therapy or (b) had lower starting alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) levels or (c) had HBV infection showed better clinical outcome.ConclusionOur data showed that PHY906 increases the therapeutic index of capecitabine by enhancing its antitumor activity and reduces its toxicity profile in advanced HCC.     

Acquired MET D1228N Mutations Mediate Crizotinib Resistance in Lung Adenocarcinoma with ROS1 Fusion: A Case Report

Patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) containing ROS1 fusions can have a marked response to the ROS1‐targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as crizotinib. Common resistance mechanisms of ROS1‐fusion targeted therapy are acquired mutations in ROS1. Along with the use of next‐generation sequencing in the clinical management of patients with NSCLC during sequential targeted therapy, many mechanisms of acquired resistance have been discovered in patients with activated tyrosine kinase receptors. Besides acquired resistance mutations, bypass mechanisms of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐TKI treatment are common in patients with EGFR mutations. Here we describe a patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with CD74‐ROS1 fusion who initially responded to crizotinib and then developed resistance by the acquired mutation of D1228N in the MET kinase domain, which showed short‐term disease control for cabozantinib.Key Points

• The D1228N point mutation of MET is an acquired mutation for crizotinib resistance.
• The patient obtained short‐term clinical benefit from cabozantinib therapy after resistance to crizotinib.
• The clinical use of next‐generation sequencing could maximize the benefits of precision medicine in patients with cancer.

     

Single-Agent Versus Double-Agent Chemotherapy in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Prospective,Randomized, Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial

Lessons Learned

• The efficacy of single‐agent chemotherapy was not significantly different from that of double‐agent chemotherapy in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
• Single‐agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy had lower gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicity.
• Overall survival and progression‐free survival were not significantly different between single‐ and double‐agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

BackgroundThis multicenter, randomized, phase II trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of single‐agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy using the oral fluoropyrimidine S‐1 with those of double‐agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy using S‐1 and cisplatin in patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsPatients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (clinical stages I to III) were randomly allocated to the single‐agent group (S‐1) or the double‐agent group (S‐1/cisplatin). The concurrent intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plan was similar for both groups: planning target volume 1.8 Gy/f*30–33f and planning gross target volume of 2 Gy/f*30–33f. The primary outcome measure was the endoscopic complete response rate.ResultsOf the 105 patients randomized, 89 were assessable. The endoscopic complete response rate was 46.9% (23/49) in the single‐agent group and 52.5% (21/40) in double‐agent group. The median progression‐free survival within a median follow‐up of 23 months was 20 and 21 months, respectively. The median overall survival was 26 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 4.1% and 27.5% of the patients in the single‐ and the double‐agent group, respectively.ConclusionSingle‐agent chemotherapy in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has good efficacy and safety, thus warranting a phase III trial.