Phase I Trial of First-line Bintrafusp Alfa in Patients with Locally Advanced or Persistent/Recurrent/Metastatic Cervical Cancer.

PURPOSE: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGFß receptor II (a TGFß "trap") fused to a human IgG1 mAb blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), was evaluated as treatment in patients with locally advanced or persistent, recurrent, or metastatic (P/R/M) cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase Ib trial (NCT04551950), patients with P/R/M cervical cancer received bintrafusp alfa 2,400 mg once every 3 weeks plus cisplatin or carboplatin plus paclitaxel with (Cohort 1A; n = 8) or without (Cohort 1B; n = 9) bevacizumab; patients with locally advanced cervical cancer received bintrafusp alfa 2,400 mg every 3 weeks plus cisplatin plus radiation, followed by bintrafusp alfa monotherapy maintenance (Cohort 2; n = 8). The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included efficacy (including objective response rate) and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: At the data cutoff of April 27, 2022, patients in Cohorts 1A, 1B, and 2 had received bintrafusp alfa for a median duration of 37.9, 31.1, and 16.7 weeks, respectively. Two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 4 amylase elevation and grade 3 menorrhagia) unrelated to bintrafusp alfa were observed in Cohort 1B and none in other cohorts. Most treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were grades 1-2 in severity, most commonly anemia (62.5%-77.8%) and bleeding events (62.5%-77.8%). Objective response rate was 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 34.9-96.8], 44.4% (95% CI, 13.7-78.8), and 62.5% (95% CI, 24.5-91.5) in Cohorts 1A, 1B, and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bintrafusp alfa had manageable safety and demonstrated clinical activity, further supporting the investigation of TGFß/PD-L1 inhibition in human papillomavirus-associated cancers, including cervical cancer.

Revisiting MET: Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic, MET-Amplified Esophagogastric Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic esophagogastric cancers (EGCs) have a poor prognosis with an approximately 5% 5-year survival. Additional treatment approaches are needed. c-MET gene-amplified tumors are an uncommon but potentially targetable subset of EGC. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated in patients with MET-amplified EGC and compared with those without MET amplification to facilitate identification of these patients and possible treatment approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic MET-amplified EGC at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were identified using fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis, with a gene-to-control ratio of ≥2.2 defined as positive. Non-MET-amplified patients identified during the same time period who had undergone tumor genotyping and treatment at MGH were evaluated as a comparison group. RESULTS: We identified 233 patients evaluated for MET amplification from 2002 to 2019. MET amplification was seen in 28 (12%) patients versus 205 (88%) patients without amplification. Most MET-amplified tumors occurred in either the distal esophagus (n = 9; 32%) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 10; 36%). Of MET-amplified patients, 16 (57%) had a TP53 mutation, 5(18%) had HER2 co-amplification, 2 (7.0%) had EGFR co-amplification, and 1 (3.5%) had FGFR2 co-amplification. MET-amplified tumors more frequently had poorly differentiated histology (19/28, 68.0% vs. 66/205, 32%; p = .02). Progression-free survival to initial treatment was substantially shorter for all MET-amplified patients (5.6 vs. 8.8 months, p = .026) and for those with metastatic disease at presentation (4.0 vs. 7.6 months, p = .01). Overall, patients with MET amplification had shorter overall survival (19.3 vs. 24.6 months, p = .049). No difference in survival was seen between low MET-amplified tumors (≥2.2 and <25 MET copy number) compared with highly amplified tumors (≥25 MET copy number). CONCLUSION: MET-amplified EGC represents a distinct clinical entity characterized by rapid progression and short survival. Ideally, the identification of these patients will provide opportunities to participate in clinical trials in an attempt to improve outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes 233 patients who received MET amplification testing and reports (a) a positivity rate of 12%, similar to the rate of HER2 positivity in this data set; (b) the clinical characteristics of poorly differentiated tumors and nodal metastases; and (c) markedly shorter progression-free survival and overall survival in MET-amplified tumors. Favorable outcomes are reported for patients treated with MET inhibitors. Given the lack of published data in MET-amplified esophagogastric cancers and the urgent clinical importance of identifying patients with MET amplification for MET-directed therapy, this large series is a valuable addition to the literature and will have an impact on future practice.

A phase 2 clinical trial of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP 90) inhibitor ganetespib in patients with refractory advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Subsets of esophagogastric (EG) cancers harbor genetic abnormalities, including amplification of HER2, MET, or FGFR2 or mutations in PIK3CA, EGFR, or BRAF. Ganetespib which is a novel triazolone heterocyclic inhibitor of HSP90, is a potentially biologically rational treatment strategy for advanced EG cancers with these gene amplification. This multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial enrolled patients with histologically confirmed advanced EG cancer with progression on at least one line of systemic therapy. Patients received Ganetespib 200 mg/m2 IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: Progression Free Survival (PFS); to correlate the presence of HSP clients with ORR and PFS; evaluating the safety, tolerability and adverse events profile. In this study 26 eligible patients mainly: male 77%, median age 64 years were enrolled. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), fatigue (65%), elevated ALKP (42%), and elevated AST (38%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs included: leucopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), diarrhea (8%), and elevated ALKP (8%). The ORR of 4% reflects the single patient of 26 who had a complete response and stayed on treatment for more than seventy (70) months. Median PFS and OS was 61 days (2.0 months), 94 days (3.1 months) respectively. Ganetespib showed manageable toxicity. While the study was terminated early due to insufficient evidence of single-agent activity, the durable CR and 2 minor responses suggest that there may be a subset of EG patients who could benefit from this drug.

Best supportive care compared with chemotherapy for unresectable gall bladder cancer: a randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: We designed this study to evaluate efficacy of modified gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (mGEMOX) over best supportive care (BSC) or fluorouracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) in unresectable gall bladder cancer (GBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable GBC were enrolled for single center randomized study. Arm A, BSC; arm B, FU 425 mg/m(2) and FA 20 mg/m(2) intravenous (IV) bolus weekly for 30 weeks (FUFA); arm C, gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 80 mg/m(2) IV infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for maximum of six cycles. Eighty-one patients were randomly assigned, arms A (n = 27), B (n = 28), and C (n = 26). RESULTS: Complete response plus partial response in the three groups was 0 (0%), four (14.3%), and eight (30.8%) respectively (P < .001). Two patients in the mGEMOX arm and one patient in the FUFA arm underwent curative resection after chemotherapy. One patient in the mGEMOX arm had complete pathologic response. Median overall survival (OS) was 4.5, 4.6, and 9.5 months for the BSC, FUFA, and mGEMOX arms (P = .039), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8, 3.5, and 8.5 months for the three groups (P < .001). There was no difference in grade 3/4 toxicities in the chemotherapy arms except transaminitis, which was more prevalent in mGEMOX arm (P = .04). Two patients in the FUFA arm and 10 patients in the mGEMOX arm had grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression. Two patients in the mGEMOX group had neutropenic fever that resolved with antibiotics. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial confirmed the efficacy of chemotherapy (mGEMOX) compared with BSC and FUFA in improving OS and PFS in unresectable GBC.