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.     

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of SCB01A,a Microtubule Inhibitor with Vascular Disrupting Activity,in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• SCB01A is a novel microtubule inhibitor with vascular disrupting activity.
• This first‐in‐human study demonstrated SCB01A safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity.
• SCB01A is safe and well tolerated in patients with advanced solid malignancies with manageable neurotoxicity.

BackgroundSCB01A, a novel microtubule inhibitor, has vascular disrupting activity.MethodsIn this phase I dose‐escalation and extension study, patients with advanced solid tumors were administered intravenous SCB01A infusions for 3 hours once every 21 days. Rapid titration and a 3 + 3 design escalated the dose from 2 mg/m² to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). SCB01A‐induced cellular neurotoxicity was evaluated in dorsal root ganglion cells. The primary endpoint was MTD. Safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and tumor response were secondary endpoints.ResultsTreatment‐related adverse events included anemia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, fever, and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy. DLTs included grade 4 elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in the 4 mg/m² cohort; grade 3 gastric hemorrhage in the 6.5 mg/m² cohort; grade 2 thromboembolic event in the 24 mg/m² cohort; and grade 3 peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy, grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and grade 3 hypertension in the 32 mg/m² cohort. The MTD was 24 mg/m², and average half‐life was ~2.5 hours. The area under the curve‐dose response relationship was linear. Nineteen subjects were stable after two cycles. The longest treatment lasted 24 cycles. SCB01A‐induced neurotoxicity was reversible in vitro.ConclusionThe MTD of SCB01A was 24 mg/m² every 21 days; it is safe and tolerable in patients with solid tumors.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS‐16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met.
• Median progression‐free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS‐16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107–2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment
• The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS‐16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm.
• These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

BackgroundAGS‐16C3F is a novel antibody‐drug conjugate that targets cell‐surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS‐16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).MethodsPatients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS‐16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator‐assessed progression‐free survival (PFS) of AGS‐16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1).ResultsIn the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS‐16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107–2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS‐16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681–1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS‐16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS‐16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS‐16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%).ConclusionThe investigational compound, AGS‐16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 II study of ipilimumab in adolescents with unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma

BackgroundIpilimumab is approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in adults; however, little information on the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in younger patients is available.MethodsPatients aged 12 to <18 years with previously treated or untreated, unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma received ipilimumab 3 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary end-points were 1-year overall survival and safety.ResultsOver a period of 3.5 years, 12 patients received ipilimumab at either 3 mg/kg (n = 4) or 10 mg/kg (n = 8). The median number of ipilimumab doses was four for 3 mg/kg and three for 10 mg/kg. At 1 year, three of four patients on 3 mg/kg and five of eight patients on 10 mg/kg were alive. Two patients on 10 mg/kg had partial response, and one on 3 mg/kg had stable disease. One patient had durable partial response at 3 years without further treatment, at time of this report. There was one grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse reaction with 3 mg/kg and five with 10 mg/kg. There were no treatment-related deaths. The study was stopped due to slow accrual.ConclusionsAt >1 year follow-up, ipilimumab demonstrated activity in melanoma patients aged 12 to <18 years, with a similar safety profile as that seen in adults. Our trial highlights the difficulties of enrolling younger patients with rare diseases in clinical trials for treatments that are approved in adults, suggesting adolescents with cancer types occurring predominantly in adults should be considered for inclusion in adult trials of promising new drugs.Clinical trial registration: NCT01696045.     

Salvage Treatment Using Anti–PD-1/CTLA-4 Immunotherapy After Failure of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Microsatellite Instable Gastroesophageal Carcinoma

Perioperative chemotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early high‐risk gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma independent of molecular subtype. Approximately 8% of gastroesophageal cancers have a microsatellite instable phenotype (MSI‐H), and retrospective analyses of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy trials suggests no survival benefit in this patient population compared with surgery alone. Patients with advanced MSI‐H malignancies obtain durable responses with immunotherapy using anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) checkpoint blockade. We describe a case of a patient with an early MSI‐H gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who progressed on neoadjuvant chemotherapy precluding subsequent surgical resection. The patient was subsequently treated with immunotherapy using the anti–PD‐1 antibody nivolumab and the anti–cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA‐4) antibody ipilimumab leading to a complete remission with biopsies of the residual tumor mass and regional lymph nodes revealing no residual tumor. This case highlights the lack of benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with MSI‐H gastroesophageal cancers and suggests that perioperative anti–PD‐1–based immunotherapy should be further investigated in this patient population.Key Points

• This report describes the successful salvage treatment of a patient with an early high‐risk MSI‐H gastroesophageal carcinoma who progressed through neoadjuvant chemotherapy using combination immunotherapy of the anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) antibody nivolumab and the anti–cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA‐4) antibody ipilimumab, leading to an ongoing complete remission.
• The case is in keeping with retrospective analyses of perioperative treatment trials demonstrating a lack of chemotherapy benefit in patients with MSI‐H gastroesophageal carcinoma and supports the further investigation of anti–PD‐1–based immunotherapy as a treatment modality in this patient population.
• The case highlights the potential difficulties that may be encountered in the surgical management of patients treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy with reactive dense fibrotic changes precluding surgical resection.

     

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.     

A Phase II Study of Apatinib in Patients with Chemotherapy-Refractory Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESO-Shanghai 11)

Lessons Learned

• Apatinib has potential as an effective and safe second‐line or higher treatment for patients with chemotherapy‐refractory esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
• Clinical safety is of potential concern when administering apatinib to patients with uncontrolled esophageal lesions or severe invasion of trachea, bronchi, or major blood vessels.
• To the best of the authors'' knowledge, this is the first prospective phase II study to investigate apatinib for patients with chemotherapy‐refractory ESCC. Apatinib could provide an alternative option for ESCC after first‐line or higher therapy in carefully selected patients.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of the oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR‐2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor apatinib in patients with chemotherapy‐refractory esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).MethodsWe enrolled patients with chemotherapy‐refractory ESCC. All patients received continuous apatinib 500 mg once daily.ResultsBetween July 2017 and August 2018, 40 patients were recruited, of whom 5 (12.5%) had uncontrolled primary tumors. Additionally, three patients with partial response (PR) and 23 with stable disease (SD) were observed for overall response rate (ORR) of 7.5% and disease control rate (DCR) of 65.0%. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2–5.4); median overall survival (OS) was 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.2–8.4). Common adverse effects were fatigue (15%), hypertension (12.5%), and palmar‐plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (10%). Two cases of death from massive bronchopulmonary hemorrhage were observed, and esophageal fistula occurred in another two patients. Notably, both patients with esophageal fistula and one patient with massive fatal bronchopulmonary hemorrhage were individuals with uncontrolled primary tumors (3/5, 60%). Fatal bronchopulmonary hemorrhage in a second patient was associated with major blood vessel invasion.ConclusionApatinib has potential as an effective and safe treatment for patients with chemotherapy‐refractory ESCC whose primary tumors are controlled and without severe invasion of trachea, bronchi, or major blood vessels.     

Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with pre-treated,uveal melanoma

BackgroundPatients with advanced uveal melanoma have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Ipilimumab is approved for pre-treated adult patients with advanced melanoma. However, because previous clinical trials with ipilimumab have excluded patients with uveal melanoma, data in this patient population are limited.Patients and methodsPre-treated patients with advanced uveal melanoma received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg through an expanded access programme, every 3 weeks for four doses. Tumour assessments were conducted at baseline and after completion of treatment and patients were monitored throughout for adverse events.ResultsAmong 82 assessable patients, 4 (5%) had an immune-related objective response and 24 (29%) had immune-related stable disease lasting ≥3 months for an immune-related disease control rate of 34%. With a median follow-up of 5.6 months, median overall survival (OS) was 6.0 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The 1-year rates of OS and PFS were 31% and 11%, respectively. The safety profile of ipilimumab was similar to that in patients with cutaneous melanoma.ConclusionsThese data suggest ipilimumab 3 mg/kg is a feasible option in pre-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Evidence of disease control and a 1-year survival rate of 31% indicate the need for further investigation in randomised, controlled trials to determine the optimal timing and use of ipilimumab in this 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.