Phase II Study of the Dual EGFR/HER3 Inhibitor Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) versus Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI in Second-Line RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Purpose: Duligotuzumab is a dual-action antibody directed against EGFR and HER3.Experimental Design: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with KRAS ex2 wild-type received duligotuzumab or cetuximab and FOLFIRI until progression or intolerable toxicity. Mandatory tumor samples underwent mutation and biomarker analysis. Efficacy analysis was conducted in patients with RAS exon 2/3 wild-type tumors.Results: Of 134 randomly assigned patients, 98 had RAS ex2/3 wild-type. Duligotuzumab provided no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) benefit compared with cetuximab, although there was a trend for a lower objective response rate (ORR) in the duligotuzumab arm. No relationship was seen between PFS or ORR and ERBB3, NRG1, or AREG expression. There were fewer skin rash events for duligotuzumab but more diarrhea. Although the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was similar, the frequency of serious AEs was higher for duligotuzumab.Conclusions: Duligotuzumab plus FOLFIRI did not appear to improve the outcomes in patients with RAS exon 2/3 wild-type mCRC compared with cetuximab + FOLFIRI. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2276-84. ©2018 AACR.

Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (LOTUS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719). FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5-14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0-13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8-9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6-5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37-0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6-9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9-7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26-1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

A Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Cobimetinib and Duligotuzumab in Patients with Previously Treated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Cancers with Mutant KRAS.

LESSONS LEARNED: Cobimetinib and duligotuzumab were well tolerated as single agents and in combination with other agents.The cobimetinib and duligotuzumab combination was associated with increased toxicity, most notably gastrointestinal, and limited efficacy in the patient population tested. BACKGROUND: KRAS-mutant tumors possess abnormal mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) pathway signaling, leading to dysregulated cell proliferation. Cobimetinib blocks MAPK signaling. The dual-action antibody duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) inhibits ligand binding to both epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3). Blockade of EGFR/HER3 and inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) in KRAS-mutant tumors may provide additive benefit. METHODS: Patients with KRAS-mutant solid tumors were eligible for this phase Ib dose-escalation study with a planned expansion phase. Duligotuzumab was given intravenously (IV) at 1,100 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), while cobimetinib was given orally in a standard 3 + 3 design to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of this combination. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included grade 4 hypokalemia and grade 3 mucosal inflammation, asthenia, and dermatitis acneiform. Seventy percent of patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events (AEs). Five (22%) and 12 (52%) patients missed at least 1 dose of duligotuzumab and cobimetinib, respectively, and 9 (39%) patients required a cobimetinib dose reduction. Three (13%) patients discontinued due to an AE. Best response was limited to 9 patients with stable disease and 13 patients with progressive disease. CONCLUSION: Given the limited tolerability and efficacy of this combination, the study did not proceed to expansion stage and closed for enrollment.

Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study).

BACKGROUND: Duligotuzumab, a novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody that blocks ligand binding to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), inhibits signaling from all ligand-dependent HER dimers, and can elicit antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. High tumor-expression of neuregulin 1 (NRG1), a ligand to HER3, may enhance sensitivity to duligotuzumab. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study (MEHGAN) evaluated drug efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) progressive on/after chemotherapy and among patients with NRG1-high tumors. Patients received duligotuzumab (1100 mg IV, q2w) or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 load, 250 mg/m2 IV, q1w) until progression or intolerable toxicity. Tumor samples were assayed for biomarkers [NRG1, ERBB3, and human papillomavirus (HPV) status]. RESULTS: Patients (N = 121) were randomized (duligotuzumab:cetuximab; 59:62), median age 62 years; ECOG 0-2. Both arms (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) showed comparable progression-free survival [4.2 vs. 4.0 months; HR: 1.23 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.70)], overall survival [7.2 vs. 8.7 months; HR 1.15 (90% CI: 0.81-1.63)], and objective response rate (12 vs. 14.5%), with no difference between patients with NRG1-high tumors or ERBB3-low tumors. Responses in both arms were confined to HPV-negative patients. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) included infections (22 vs. 11.5%) and GI disorders (17 vs. 7%), contributing to higher rates of serious AEs (41 vs. 29.5%). Metabolic disorders were less frequent with duligotuzumab (10 vs. 16%); any grade rash-related events were less with duligotuzumab (49 vs. 67%). CONCLUSION: While several lines of preclinical evidence had supported the premise that the blockade of HER3 in addition to that of EGFR may improve outcomes for patients with R/M SCCHN overall or specifically in those patients whose tumors express high levels of NRG1, this study provided definitive clinical evidence refuting this hypothesis. Duligotuzumab did not improve patient outcomes in comparison to cetuximab despite frequent expression of NRG1. These data indicate that inhibition of EGFR alone is sufficient to block EGFR-HER3 signaling, suggesting that HER2 plays a minimal role in this disease. Extensive biomarker analyses further show that HPV-negative SCCHN but not HPV-positive SCCHN are most likely to respond to EGFR blockage by cetuximab or duligotuzumab.

Phase Ib study of duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) plus cisplatin/5-fluorouracil or carboplatin/paclitaxel for first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: This open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study assessed the safety and preliminary activity of duligotuzumab, a dual-action antibody that blocks ligand binding to human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) and epidermal growth factor receptor, in combination with chemotherapy, in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. METHODS: On day 1, duligotuzumab at a dose of 1650 mg intravenously was combined with cisplatin at a dose of 100 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 /day on days 1 to 4 in treatment arm A, or carboplatin (area under the curve, 6 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (at a dose of 200 mg/m2 ) in treatment arm B. Up to 6 cycles (21 days/cycle) were followed by duligotuzumab maintenance until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Nine patients in arm A and 15 patients in arm B received a median of 6 cycles of chemotherapy, and a median of 11 cycles (arm A) and 9 cycles (arm B) of duligotuzumab. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 3 patients in arm A and 1 patient in arm B. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (graded according to graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]) in ≥ 3 patients were neutropenia (5 patients), hypokalemia (4 patients), dehydration (3 patients), anemia (3 patients), and diarrhea (3 patients) in arm A, and neutropenia (8 patients), anemia (5 patients), febrile neutropenia (4 patients), leukopenia (3 patients), thrombocytopenia (3 patients), and hypomagnesemia (3 patients) in arm B. The chemotherapy dose was reduced in 19 of 24 patients. Sixteen patients (67%) demonstrated objective responses regardless of human papillomavirus status or neuregulin 1 (NRG1) mRNA expression (arm A: 2 confirmed complete responses and 4 confirmed partial responses; arm B: 2 confirmed complete responses and 8 confirmed partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: Duligotuzumab in combination with cisplatin/5-fluorouracil or carboplatin/paclitaxel demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck; an association with increased frequency and severity of select adverse events relative to historical data was suggestive of the potentiation of chemotherapy-related adverse events. Cancer 2016;122:3803-3811. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Dulanermin with rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent B-cell lymphoma: an open-label phase 1b/2 randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Dulanermin-a non-polyhistidine-tagged soluble recombinant human apoptosis ligand 2 (Apo2L) or tumour-necrosis-factor-related apoptosis-inducing-ligand (TRAIL)-has pro-apoptotic activity in a range of cancers and synergistic preclinical activity with rituximab against lymphoma in vivo. We aimed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of dulanermin and rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: We did an open-label phase 1b/2 randomised study. Four study centres in the USA enrolled patients into phase 1b, and 27 study centres in the USA, Italy, Australia, France, Czech Republic, New Zealand, and Poland enrolled patients into phase 2. In phase 1b, patients (age ≥18 years) with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with stable disease or better lasting at least 6 months after the most recent rituximab-containing regimen were included. In phase 2, patients (age ≥18 years) with follicular lymphoma grades 1-3a were included. In phase 1b, patients received 4 mg/kg or 8 mg/kg intravenous dulanermin on days 1-5 of up to four 21-day cycles and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for up to eight doses. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system to dulanermin (8 mg/kg for a maximum of four 21-day cycles), rituximab (375 mg/m(2) weekly for up to eight doses), or both in combination, stratified by baseline follicular lymphoma International Prognostic Index (0-3 vs 4-5) and geographic site (USA vs non-USA). The primary endpoints of the phase 1b study were the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of dulanermin with rituximab. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response. All patients who received any dose of study drug were included in safety analyses. Efficacy analyses were per protocol. Treatment was open label; all patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00400764. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2006, and Feb 15, 2007, 12 patients were enrolled in phase 1b, and between April 4, 2007, and April 20, 2009, 60 patients were enrolled in phase 2, of whom 59 were included in safety analyses and 58 in efficacy analyses. No dose-limiting toxic effects were noted in phase 1b. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events in phase 1b were fatigue (nine; 75%), rash (five; 42%), and chills, decreased appetite, diarrhoea, and nausea (four each; 33%). 19 grade 3 or higher adverse effects were noted in five (42%) patients, with 14 occurring in one patient. After treatment with 8 mg/kg of dulanermin, in six patients the mean serum peak concentration was 80 µg/mL, dropping below the minimum detectable concentration (2 ng/mL) within 24 h after the dose. The mean steady state peak and trough concentrations of rituximab were 461 µg/mL (SD 97.5) and 303 µg/mL (92.8), respectively. In phase 2, eight (14%) of 59 patients experienced 12 grade 3 or higher adverse events. In phase 2, objective responses were noted in 14 of 22 (63.6%, 95% CI 41.8-81.3) patients treated with rituximab only, 16 of 25 (64.0%, 43.1-81.5) treated with dulanermin and rituximab, and one of 11 (9.1%, 0.5-39.0) treated with dulanermin only. The study was terminated early, on May 5, 2010, because of an absence of efficacy in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of dulanermin to rituximab in patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma was tolerable but did not lead to increased objective responses. This combination is not being developed further in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. FUNDING: Genentech and Amgen.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of the First-in-Class Dual Action HER3/EGFR Antibody MEHD7945A in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Epithelial Tumors.

PURPOSE: The novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody MEHD7945A targeting HER3 and EGFR inhibits ligand-dependent HER dimer signaling. This phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of MEHD7945A. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic epithelial tumors received escalating doses of MEHD7945A (1-30 mg/kg) every 2 weeks (q2w) until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. An expansion cohort was enrolled at the recommended phase II dose (14 mg/kg, q2w). Plasma samples, tumor biopsies, FDG-PET were obtained for assessment of pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic modulation downstream of EGFR and HER3. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities or MEHD7945A-related grade ≥ 4 adverse events (AE) were reported in dose-escalation (n = 30) or expansion (n = 36) cohorts. Related grade 3 AEs were limited to diarrhea and nausea in the same patient (30 mg/kg). Related AEs in ≥20% of patients ≤24 hours after the first infusion included grade 1/2 headache, fever, and chills, which were managed with premedication and/or symptomatic treatment. Pharmacodynamic data indicated target inhibition in 25% of evaluable patients. Best response by RECIST included 2 confirmed partial responses in squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck (SCCHN) patients with high tumor tissue levels of the HER3 ligand heregulin; 14 patients had stable disease ≥8 weeks, including SCCHN (n = 3), colorectal cancer (n = 6), and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: MEHD7945A was well-tolerated as single agent with evidence of tumor pharmacodynamic modulation and antitumor activity in SCCHN. Phase II studies were initiated with flat (nonweight-based) dosing at 1,100 mg q2w in SCCHN and colorectal cancer.

A phase 1B study of dulanermin in combination with modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of multiple doses of dulanermin in combination with modified FOLFOX6 and bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 23 patients received dulanermin at dosages of 4.5 or 9 mg/kg/d given on days 1 to 3 of each 14-day cycle along with standard dosing of modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab. Dose-limiting toxicities, adverse events (AEs), maximum tolerated dose, and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were assessed. RESULTS: In the first cohort (3 patients given dulanermin at 4.5 mg/kg/d) and second cohort (6 patients given dulanermin at 9 mg/kg/day), no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The subsequent 14 patients were treated with a dulanermin dosage of 9 mg/kg/d. Patients (N = 23) received 2 to 42 cycles of dulanermin (median 15). The most common grade 3 or 4 AEs were neutropenia (39%), hypertension (17%), peripheral neuropathy (17%), hand-foot syndrome (13%), and pulmonary embolism (13%). Three patients (13%) discontinued the study because of serious AEs. Overall, a best response of partial response was observed in 13 patients (57%) (9 confirmed, 4 unconfirmed), stable disease was observed in 7 patients (30%), and disease progression was observed in 3 patients (13%). The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval, 7.0-12.7). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the addition of dulanermin to first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab was well tolerated in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, with similar AEs that would be expected from FOLFOX plus bevacizumab. A randomized study is required to assess the clinical efficacy of dulanermin in this patient population.

Development of the Asthma Control Composite outcome measure to predict omalizumab response.

BACKGROUND: Previous assessments of response to omalizumab were based on diary-based data rather than standard validated instruments. A composite instrument that translates diary-based data into standard validated asthma control measures would characterize patient response to treatment in terms of current asthma control definitions. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Asthma Control Composite (ACC) tool, using real-time diary-based data to predict treatment response in terms of asthma control. METHODS: The ACC tool was derived retrospectively using pooled data from two phase 3 studies in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma. Patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous omalizumab or placebo for 16 weeks plus stable beclomethasone dipropionate therapy, followed by a 3-month corticosteroid reduction period and 5-month double-blind safety extension. Control was assessed as "complete," "good," or "not controlled," based on a composite score of 4 elements: rescue medication (puffs/day), total asthma symptom score, average number of awakening nights/28 days, and activity limitation. RESULTS: The ACC was mapped to standard validated measures of patient-reported outcomes, with results consistent with clinical outcomes. The proportion of patients with baseline uncontrolled asthma achieving "good" or "complete" asthma control was 48% with omalizumab and 32% with placebo at approximately 4 months. The mean composite score also was improved with omalizumab (3.52) vs placebo (2.56) at approximately 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: The ACC tool accurately reflects asthma control in moderate to severe asthma patients eligible for biological therapy. Unlike the ACT, which has not been validated in this patient population, the ACC shows promise as an asthma control assessment tool in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Microvessel density and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma subtypes.

Angiogenesis is known to play a major role in neoplasia, including hematolymphoid neoplasia. We assessed the relationships among angiogenesis and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors in the context of clinically and biologically relevant subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma using immunohistochemical evaluation of tissue microarrays. We found that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma specimens showing higher local vascular endothelial growth factor expression showed correspondingly higher microvessel density, implying that lymphoma cells induce local tumor angiogenesis. In addition, local vascular endothelial growth factor expression was higher in those specimens showing higher expression of the receptors of the growth factor, suggesting an autocrine growth-promoting feedback loop. The germinal center-like and nongerminal center-like subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were biologically and prognostically distinct. Interestingly, only in the more clinically aggressive nongerminal center-like subtype were microvessel densities significantly higher in specimens showing higher vascular endothelial growth factor expression; the same was true for the finding of higher vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 expression in conjunction with higher vascular endothelial growth factor expression. These differences may have important implications for the responsiveness of the two diffuse large B-cell lymphoma subtypes to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and anti-angiogenic therapies.

Are clusters found in one dataset present in another dataset?

In many microarray studies, a cluster defined on one dataset is sought in an independent dataset. If the cluster is found in the new dataset, the cluster is said to be "reproducible" and may be biologically significant. Classifying a new datum to a previously defined cluster can be seen as predicting which of the previously defined clusters is most similar to the new datum. If the new data classified to a cluster are similar, molecularly or clinically, to the data already present in the cluster, then the cluster is reproducible and the corresponding prediction accuracy is high. Here, we take advantage of the connection between reproducibility and prediction accuracy to develop a validation procedure for clusters found in datasets independent of the one in which they were characterized. We define a cluster quality measure called the "in-group proportion" (IGP) and introduce a general procedure for individually validating clusters. Using simulations and real breast cancer datasets, the IGP is compared to four other popular cluster quality measures (homogeneity score, separation score, silhouette width, and weighted average discrepant pairs score). Moreover, simulations and the real breast cancer datasets are used to compare the four versions of the validation procedure which all use the IGP, but differ in the way in which the null distributions are generated. We find that the IGP is the best measure of prediction accuracy, and one version of the validation procedure is the more widely applicable than the other three. An implementation of this algorithm is in a package called "clusterRepro" available through The Comprehensive R Archive Network (http://cran.r-project.org).

Discovery and validation of breast cancer subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated breast cancer tumor tissue samples could be classified into different subtypes based upon DNA microarray profiles. The most recent study presented evidence for the existence of five different subtypes: normal breast-like, basal, luminal A, luminal B, and ERBB2+. RESULTS: Based upon the analysis of 599 microarrays (five separate cDNA microarray datasets) using a novel approach, we present evidence in support of the most consistently identifiable subtypes of breast cancer tumor tissue microarrays being: ESR1+/ERBB2-, ESR1-/ERBB2-, and ERBB2+ (collectively called the ESR1/ERBB2 subtypes). We validate all three subtypes statistically and show the subtype to which a sample belongs is a significant predictor of overall survival and distant-metastasis free probability. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the statistical validation procedure we have a set of centroids which can be applied to any microarray (indexed by UniGene Cluster ID) to classify it to one of the ESR1/ERBB2 subtypes. Moreover, the method used to define the ESR1/ERBB2 subtypes is not specific to the disease. The method can be used to identify subtypes in any disease for which there are at least two independent microarray datasets of disease samples.