A randomized phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine with tarextumab or placebo in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Notch signaling dysregulation is implicated in the development of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Tarextumab is a fully human IgG2 antibody that inhibits Notch2/3 receptors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Aphase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the activity of tarextumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic PDAC. Patients were stratified based on ECOG performance score and Ca 19-9 level and randomized 1:1 to nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine with either tarextumab or placebo. Based on preclinical and phase Ib results suggesting a positive correlation between Notch3 gene expression and tarextumab anti-tumor activity, patients were also divided into subgroups of low, intermediate, and high Notch3 gene expression. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in all and in patients with the three Notch3 gene expression subgroups (≥25th, ≥50% and ≥75% percentiles); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 12-month OS, overall response rate (ORR), and safety and biomarker investigation. RESULTS: Median OS was 6.4 months in the tarextumab group vs 7.9 months in the placebo group (HR = 1.34 [95% CI = 0.95, 1.89], P = .0985). No difference observed in OS in the Notch3 gene expression subgroups. PFS in the tarextumab-treated group (3.7 months) was significantly shorter compared with the placebo group (5.5 months) (hazard ratio was 1.43 [95% CI = 1.01, 2.01]; P = .04). Grade 3 diarrhea and thrombocytopenia were more common in the tarextumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of tarextumab to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, or ORR in first-line metastatic PDAC, and PFS was specifically statistically worse in the tarextumab-treated patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NO: NCT01647828.

A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First-Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

Phase II study of the antibody-drug conjugate TAK-264 (MLN0264) in patients with metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction expressing guanylyl cyclase C.

Background The first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate TAK-264 (formerly MLN0264) consists of an antibody targeting guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a peptide linker. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAK-264 in patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction expressing GCC, who had progressed on ≥1 line of prior therapy. Methods This study used a two-stage design, with an interim analysis conducted after stage I to determine whether to continue to stage II or discontinue on the grounds of futility. Adult patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma expressing low, intermediate, or high GCC levels received TAK-264 1.8 mg/kg as a 30-min intravenous infusion once every 21 days, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Radiographic assessments of tumor burden were performed every 2 cycles (6 weeks). Results A total of 38 patients participated in the study. Patients received a median of 2 (range 1-14) cycles; 8 (21%) received at least 6 cycles. The most common adverse events were nausea (53%), fatigue (32%), and decreased appetite (29%). Grade ≥3 events including anemia, diarrhea, and neutropenia were seen in 14 (37%) patients. Systemic exposure to TAK-264 was maintained throughout each treatment cycle. Two patients (6%) with intermediate GCC expression had objective responses. Conclusions TAK-264 demonstrated a manageable safety profile in this patient population. The stage I interim analysis did not support continuation to stage II of the study.

Pazopanib and liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer: a phase Ib study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute.

PURPOSE: To investigate the combination of liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib in advanced relapsed/refractory ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients received liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib. Initial doses (liposomal doxorubicin, 40 mg/m2 monthly; pazopanib, 400 mg daily) were too toxic; three subsequent groups received lower doses/altered schedules. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated doses (MTD) were liposomal doxorubicin, 30 mg/m2, and pazopanib, 400 mg daily. Severe toxicity included neutropenia (18%), rash/desquamation (14%), hypertension (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). Five of the eight patients treated with MTD had grade 3 toxicity during the first two cycles. Dose reductions were frequently required. CONCLUSIONS: Further development of the liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib combination is not recommended.

A randomized phase II trial of vismodegib versus placebo with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Vismodegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, has preclinical activity in colorectal cancer (CRC) models. This trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of adding vismodegib to first-line treatment for metastatic CRC (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive vismodegib (150 mg/day orally) or placebo, in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary objectives included evaluation of predictive biomarkers and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with mCRC were treated on protocol (124 FOLFOX, 75 FOLFIRI). The median PFS hazard ratio (HR) for vismodegib treatment compared with placebo was 1.25 (90% CI: 0.89-1.76; P = 0.28). The overall response rates for placebo-treated and vismodegib-treated patients were 51% (90% CI: 43-60) and 46% (90% CI: 37-55), respectively. No vismodegib-associated benefit was observed in combination with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Increased tumor tissue Hedgehog expression did not predict clinical benefit. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events reported for more than 5% of patients that occurred more frequently in the vismodegib-treated group were fatigue, nausea, asthenia, mucositis, peripheral sensory neuropathy, weight loss, decreased appetite, and dehydration. Vismodegib did not alter the pharmacokinetics of FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib does not add to the efficacy of standard therapy for mCRC. Compared with placebo, treatment intensity was lower for all regimen components in vismodegib-treated patients, suggesting that combined toxicity may have contributed to lack of efficacy.

A phase II study of sequential neoadjuvant gemcitabine and paclitaxel, radiation therapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil and surgery in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and surgery in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 29 patients who received paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 3000 mg/m2 2 weeks apart. Two weeks later, patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 1000 mg/m2/d continuous infusion for 4 days with concurrent radiotherapy in 15 fractions to a total dose of 4000 cGy. After 6 weeks, cisplatin and 5-FU were repeated at the above doses. After 4 to 6 weeks, patients were restaged and underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: All 29 patients completed the prescribed gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and radiation therapy. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1 patient and 4 patients received growth factor support. After neoadjuvant treatment, 1 patient refused surgery, 23 underwent R0 resection (82%), while 5 developed progressive disease. Four patients developed anastomotic leaks (17%). Four patients had complete pathologic responses (14%) and 4 (14%) had only residual microscopic disease. Nine patients remain alive at a median follow-up of 48 months. Three-year survival for the entire cohort was 36%. CONCLUSION: This regimen was associated with a high rate of compliance and induction therapy had an acceptable toxicity profile. The R0 resection rate and 3-year survival data are similar to recently reported studies. While active, gemcitabine and paclitaxel induction therapy was associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications, but no increase in survival. Patterns of failure continue to demonstrate the need for regimens incorporating greater emphasis on systemic therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.