Determination and Confirmation of Recommended Ph2 Dose of Amivantamab in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Insertion Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Amivantamab has demonstrated durable responses with a tolerable safety profile in non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 20 insertions (Ex20ins) who progressed after prior platinum chemotherapy. Data supporting the amivantamab recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in this patient population are presented. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis and population PK (PopPK) modeling were conducted using serum concentration data obtained following amivantamab intravenous administration (140-1,750 mg). Pharmacodynamics (PDs) were evaluated using depletion of soluble EGFR and MET. Exposure-response (E-R) analyses were performed using the primary efficacy end point of objective response rate in patients with EGFR Ex20ins. The E-R relationship for safety was explored for adverse events of clinical interest. Amivantamab exhibited linear PKs at 350-1,750 mg dose levels following administration, with no maximum tolerated dose identified. A two-compartment PopPK model with linear clearance adequately described the observed PKs. Body weight was a covariate of clearance and volume of distribution in the central compartment. PopPK modeling showed that a weight-based, 2-tier (< 80 and ≥ 80 kg) dosing strategy reduces PK variability and provides comparable exposure across 2 weight groups, with 87% of patients achieving exposures above the target threshold. The final confirmed RP2D of amivantamab was 1,050 mg for < 80 kg (1,400 mg for ≥ 80 kg) weekly in cycle 1 (28 days) and every 2 weeks thereafter. No significant exposure-efficacy or safety correlation was observed. In conclusion, the amivantamab RP2D is supported by PK, PD, safety, and efficacy analyses. E-R analyses confirmed that the current regimen provides durable efficacy with tolerable safety.

Amivantamab plus Chemotherapy in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertions.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions who have had disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Phase 1 data showed the safety and antitumor activity of amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy). Additional data on this combination therapy are needed. METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).

Amivantamab plus lazertinib in osimertinib-relapsed EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 1 trial.

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often develop resistance to current standard third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); no targeted treatments are approved in the osimertinib-relapsed setting. In this open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1 trial, the potential for improved anti-tumor activity by combining amivantamab, an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody, with lazertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, was evaluated in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC whose disease progressed on third-generation TKI monotherapy but were chemotherapy naive (CHRYSALIS cohort E). In the dose-escalation phase, the recommended phase 2 combination dose was established; in the dose-expansion phase, the primary endpoints were safety and overall response rate, and key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival. The safety profile of amivantamab and lazertinib was generally consistent with previous experience of each agent alone, with 4% experiencing grade ≥3 events; no new safety signals were identified. In an exploratory cohort of 45 patients who were enrolled without biomarker selection, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate was 36% (95% confidence interval, 22-51). The median duration of response was 9.6 months, and the median progression-free survival was 4.9 months. Next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry analyses identified high EGFR and/or MET expression as potential predictive biomarkers of response, which will need to be validated with prospective assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02609776 .

Management of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients receiving amivantamab in the CHRYSALIS study.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab, a fully humanized EGFR-MET bispecific antibody, has antitumor activity in diverse EGFR- and MET-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a safety profile consistent with associated on-target activities. Infusion-related reaction(s) (IRR[s]) are reported commonly with amivantamab. We review IRR and subsequent management in amivantamab-treated patients. METHODS: Patients treated with the approved dose of intravenous amivantamab (1050 mg, <80 kg; 1400 mg, ≥80 kg) in CHRYSALIS-an ongoing, phase 1 study in advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC-were included in this analysis. IRR mitigations included split first dose (350 mg, day 1 [D1]; remainder, D2), reduced initial infusion rates with proactive infusion interruption, and steroid premedication before initial dose. For all doses, pre-infusion antihistamines and antipyretics were required. Steroids were optional after the initial dose. RESULTS: As of 3/30/2021, 380 patients received amivantamab. IRRs were reported in 256 (67%) patients. Signs/symptoms of IRR included chills, dyspnea, flushing, nausea, chest discomfort, and vomiting. Most of the 279 IRRs were grade 1 or 2; grade 3 and 4 IRR occurred in 7 and 1 patients, respectively. Most (90%) IRRs occurred on cycle 1, D1 (C1D1); median time-to-first-IRR onset during C1D1 was 60 min; and first-infusion IRRs did not compromise subsequent infusions. Per protocol, IRR was mitigated on C1D1 with holding of infusion (56% [214/380]), reinitiating at reduced rate (53% [202/380]), and aborting infusion (14% [53/380]). C1D2 infusions were completed in 85% (45/53) of patients who had C1D1 infusions aborted. Four patients (1% [4/380]) discontinued treatment due to IRR. In studies aimed at elucidating the underlying mechanism(s) of IRR, no pattern was observed between patients with versus without IRR. CONCLUSION: IRRs with amivantamab were predominantly low grade and limited to first infusion, and rarely occurred with subsequent dosing. Close monitoring for IRR with the initial amivantamab dose and early intervention at first IRR signs/symptoms should be part of routine amivantamab administration.

Immune and pathologic responses in patients with localized prostate cancer who received daratumumab (anti-CD38) or edicotinib (CSF-1R inhibitor).

BACKGROUND: The prostate tumor microenvironment (TME) is immunosuppressive, with few effector T cells and enrichment of inhibitory immune populations, leading to limited responses to treatments such as immune checkpoint therapies (ICTs). The immune composition of the prostate TME differs across soft tissue and bone, the most common site of treatment-refractory metastasis. Understanding immunosuppressive mechanisms specific to prostate TMEs will enable rational immunotherapy strategies to generate effective antitumor immune responses. Daratumumab (anti-CD38 antibody) and edicotinib (colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) inhibitor) may alter the balance within the prostate TME to promote antitumor immune responses. HYPOTHESIS: Daratumumab or edicotinib will be safe and will alter the immune TME, leading to antitumor responses in localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this presurgical study, patients with localized prostate cancer received 4 weekly doses of daratumumab or 4 weeks of daily edicotinib prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Treated and untreated control (Gleason score ≥8 in prostate biopsy) prostatectomy specimens and patient-matched pre- and post-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and bone marrow samples were evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoint was pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were treated (daratumumab, n=15; edicotinib, n=10). All patients underwent RP without delays. Grade 3 treatment-related AEs with daratumumab occurred in 3 patients (12%), and no ≥grade 3 treatment-related AEs occurred with edicotinib. No changes in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or pCRs were observed. Daratumumab led to a decreased frequency of CD38+ T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells in prostate tumors, bone marrow, and PBMCs. There were no consistent changes in CSF-1R+ immune cells in prostate, bone marrow, or PBMCs with edicotinib. Neither treatment induced T cell infiltration into the prostate TME. CONCLUSIONS: Daratumumab and edicotinib treatment was safe and well-tolerated in patients with localized prostate cancer but did not induce pCRs. Decreases in CD38+ immune cells were observed in prostate tumors, bone marrow, and PBMCs with daratumumab, but changes in CSF-1R+ immune cells were not consistently observed with edicotinib. Neither myeloid-targeted agent alone was sufficient to generate antitumor responses in prostate cancer; thus, combinations with agents to induce T cell infiltration (eg, ICTs) will be needed to overcome the immunosuppressive prostate TME.

Safety and preliminary immunogenicity of JNJ-64041809, a live-attenuated, double-deleted Listeria monocytogenes-based immunotherapy, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity of JNJ-64041809 (JNJ-809), a live-attenuated, double-deleted Listeria monocytogenes (LADD Lm)-based immunotherapy targeting 4 relevant prostate cancer antigens, was evaluated in a phase 1 study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Men with progressive mCRPC who had received ≥2 prior approved therapies were enrolled. Primary study objectives were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of JNJ-809. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients received JNJ-809 (1 × 108 CFU (n = 6); 1 × 109 CFU (n = 20)). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported, and 1 × 109 CFU was selected as the RP2D. The most common adverse events (AEs) reported were chills (92%), pyrexia (81%), and fatigue (62%). The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were lymphopenia (27%) and hypertension (23%). Serious AEs were reported in 27% of patients including 1 patient with grade 3 intestinal obstruction. JNJ-809 transiently induced peripheral cytokines, including interferon-γ, interleukin-10, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Of the 7 patients evaluable for T cell responses at the 1 × 109 CFU dose, evidence of post-treatment antigenic responses were observed in 6 to the Listeria antigen listeriolysin O and in 5 to ≥1 of the 4 encoded tumor antigens. Best overall response was stable disease in 13/25 response-evaluable patients. The study was terminated early as data collected were considered sufficient to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: JNJ-809 has manageable safety consistent with other LADD Lm-based therapies. Limited antigen-specific immune responses were observed, which did not translate into objective clinical responses.

JNJ-64041757 (JNJ-757), a Live, Attenuated, Double-Deleted Listeria monocytogenes-Based Immunotherapy in Patients With NSCLC: Results From Two Phase 1 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: JNJ-64041757 (JNJ-757) is a live, attenuated, double-deleted Listeria monocytogenes-based immunotherapy expressing human mesothelin. JNJ-757 was evaluated in patients with advanced NSCLC as monotherapy (phase 1) and in combination with nivolumab (phase 1b/2). METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who had received previous therapy were treated with JNJ-757 (1 × 108 or 1 × 109 colony-forming units [CFUs]) alone (NCT02592967) or JNJ-757 (1 × 109 CFU) plus intravenous nivolumab 240 mg (NCT03371381). Study objectives included the assessment of immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: In the monotherapy study, 18 patients (median age 63.5 y; women 61%) were treated with JNJ-757 (1 × 108 or 1 × 109 CFU) with a median duration of 1.4 months (range: 0-29). The most common adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia (72%) and chills (61%), which were usually mild and resolved within 48 hours. Peripheral proinflammatory cytokines and lymphocyte activation were induced posttreatment with transient mesothelin-specific T-cell responses in 10 of 13 biomarker-evaluable patients. With monotherapy, four of 18 response-evaluable patients had stable disease of 16 or more weeks, including one patient with a reduction in target lesions. In the combination study, 12 patients were enrolled (median age 63.5 y; women 33%). The most common AEs with combination therapy were pyrexia (67%) and chills (58%); six patients had grade 3 AEs or greater, including two cases of treatment-related fatal pneumonitis. The best overall response for the combination was stable disease in four of nine response-evaluable patients. CONCLUSIONS: As monotherapy, JNJ-757 was immunogenic and tolerable, with mild infusion-related fever and chills. The limited efficacy of JNJ-757, alone or with nivolumab, did not warrant further investigation of the combination.

Daratumumab Plus Atezolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Brief Report on a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 1b/2 Study (LUC2001 JNJ-54767414).

INTRODUCTION: The programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. Preclinical studies indicate that targeting CD38-positive cells with daratumumab may synergistically enhance atezolizumab's antitumor activity by increasing the effector T-cell activity. METHODS: This phase 1b-2 study included a safety run-in (one cycle of daratumumab plus atezolizumab) and randomized phases (daratumumab plus atezolizumab versus atezolizumab alone). The primary objective of the randomized phase was to compare overall response rates. The secondary objectives included evaluations of safety, clinical benefit rate (stable disease or better), PFS, OS, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: In total, 99 patients were enrolled (safety run-in, n = 7; randomized, n = 46 per arm). In the randomized phase, the overall response rate was 4.3% for daratumumab plus atezolizumab and 13.0% for atezolizumab alone (OR: 0.30; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-1.92). The respective clinical benefit rates were 52.2% and 43.5%. No improvements were observed in the median PFS or median OS for combination therapy. The study was terminated because of the limited efficacy of daratumumab plus atezolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Daratumumab plus atezolizumab therapy did not improve efficacy versus atezolizumab monotherapy for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC.

Amivantamab in EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Progressing on Platinum Chemotherapy: Initial Results From the CHRYSALIS Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (Exon20ins) mutations exhibits inherent resistance to approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Amivantamab, an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody with immune cell-directing activity, binds to each receptor's extracellular domain, bypassing resistance at the tyrosine kinase inhibitor binding site. METHODS: CHRYSALIS is a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study, which included a population with EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC. The primary end points were dose-limiting toxicity and overall response rate. We report findings from the postplatinum EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC population treated at the recommended phase II dose of 1,050 mg amivantamab (1,400 mg, ≥ 80 kg) given once weekly for the first 4 weeks and then once every 2 weeks starting at week 5. RESULTS: In the efficacy population (n = 81), the median age was 62 years (range, 42-84 years); 40 patients (49%) were Asian, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was two (range, 1-7). The overall response rate was 40% (95% CI, 29 to 51), including three complete responses, with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9 to not reached). The median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 10.9). In the safety population (n = 114), the most common adverse events were rash in 98 patients (86%), infusion-related reactions in 75 (66%), and paronychia in 51 (45%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypokalemia in six patients (5%) and rash, pulmonary embolism, diarrhea, and neutropenia in four (4%) each. Treatment-related dose reductions and discontinuations were reported in 13% and 4% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Amivantamab, via its novel mechanism of action, yielded robust and durable responses with tolerable safety in patients with EGFR Exon20ins mutations after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy.

Cardiac safety of trabectedin monotherapy or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with sarcomas and ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: As with other alkylating agents, cardiac dysfunction can occur with trabectedin therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS) or recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) where treatment options for advanced disease are still limited. Cardiac safety for trabectedin monotherapy (T) for STS or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (T+PLD) for ROC was evaluated in this retrospective postmarketing regulatory commitment. METHODS: Patient data for multiple cardiac-related treatment-emergent adverse events (cTEAEs) were evaluated in pooled analyses of ten phase 2 trials, one phase 3 trial in STS (n = 982), and two phase 3 trials in ROC (n = 1231). RESULTS: Multivariate analyses on pooled trabectedin data revealed that cardiovascular medical history (risk ratio [RR (95% CI)]: 1.90 [1.24-2.91]; p = 0.003) and age ≥65 years (RR [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.12-2.83]; p = 0.014) were associated with increased risk for cTEAEs. Multivariate analyses showed increased risk of experiencing cTEAEs with T+PLD compared to PLD monotherapy (RR [95% CI]: 2.70 [1.75-4.17]; p < 0.0001) and with history of prior cardiac medication (RR [95% CI]: 1.88 [1.16-3.05]; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with STS or ROC who still have limited treatment options, trabectedin may be initiated after carefully considering benefit versus risk. Trial Registration (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01343277; NCT00113607; NCT01846611.

Antitumor Activity of Amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), an EGFR-MET Bispecific Antibody, in Diverse Models of EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Driven NSCLC.

EGFR exon 20 insertion driver mutations (Exon20ins) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insensitive to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), a bispecific antibody targeting EGFR-MET, has shown preclinical activity in TKI-sensitive EGFR-mutated NSCLC models and in an ongoing first-in-human study in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the activity of amivantamab in Exon20ins-driven tumors has not yet been described. Ba/F3 cells and patient-derived cells/organoids/xenograft models harboring diverse Exon20ins were used to characterize the antitumor mechanism of amivantamab. Amivantamab inhibited proliferation by effectively downmodulating EGFR-MET levels and inducing immune-directed antitumor activity with increased IFNγ secretion in various models. Importantly, in vivo efficacy of amivantamab was superior to cetuximab or poziotinib, an experimental Exon20ins-targeted TKI. Amivantamab produced robust tumor responses in two Exon20ins patients, highlighting the important translational nature of this preclinical work. These findings provide mechanistic insight into the activity of amivantamab and support its continued clinical development in Exon20ins patients, an area of high unmet medical need. SIGNIFICANCE: Currently, there are no approved targeted therapies for EGFR Exon20ins-driven NSCLC. Preclinical data shown here, together with promising clinical activity in an ongoing phase I study, strongly support further clinical investigation of amivantamab in EGFR Exon20ins-driven NSCLC.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1079.

Data on prior pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) treatment in recurrent ovarian cancer: Post-hoc data analysis from the phase 3 randomized, open-label study comparing trabectedin and PLD versus PLD alone in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

The data presented herein are supplementary to our published primary article "A phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter trial for safety and efficacy of combined trabectedin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer"[1]. The exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of prior pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) therapy in patients who participated in a randomized, open-label study comparing combination therapy of trabectedin and PLD vs PLD alone in third-line recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). These exploratory analyses showed that prior treatment with PLD in ROC does not impact the response and survival rates nor does it increase toxicities or negatively influence survival and response rates in both treatment groups.

A phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter trial for safety and efficacy of combined trabectedin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) of women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) treated with third-line trabectedin (T) + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) vs. PLD monotherapy. METHODS: Women with advanced-relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned 1: 1 to intravenous infusions of either T + PLD (trabectedin 1.1 mg/m2 for 3 h; PLD 30 mg/m2 for 1.5 h, every 3 weeks) or PLD (50 mg/m2 for 1.5 h, every 4 weeks). Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR). At randomization, patients were stratified by time from last dose of first-line platinum therapy to disease progression, ECOG grade 0 or 1, BRCA1/2 germline mutational status, and prior PLD therapy. Exploratory endpoints included OS, PFS, and ORR in the stratified subgroups (PFI, ECOG, BRCA1/2 status, and prior PLD therapy). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01846611. RESULTS: 576 patients were randomized (T + PLD, n = 289; PLD, n = 287). Median OS was 23.8 months with T + PLD vs. 22.2 months with PLD (HR:0.92, 95%CI:0.73-1.18; p = 0.52). Median PFS was 7.52 vs. 7.26 months (HR:0.93, 95%CI:0.76-1.15; p = 0.52); ORR was 46% vs. 35.9% (OR:1.52, 95%CI:1.07-2.16; p = 0.01). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had median OS of 34.2 months with T + PLD vs. 20.9 months with PLD (HR:0.54, 95%CI:0.33-0.90; p = 0.016). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations had median PFS of 10.1 months with T + PLD vs. 7.6 months with PLD (HR:0.72, 95%CI:0.48-1.08; p = 0.039). Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and a 6-12 months platinum-free interval (PFI), median OS was 31.5 vs. 14.9 months, respectively (HR:0.37, 95%CI:0.17-0.82; p = 0.011). Grade 3-4 AEs were higher in T + PLD (79%) vs. PLD (54%). CONCLUSION: Combination of T and PLD did not show favorable OS benefit nor safety; however, patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and/or a PFI of 6-12 months appear to have clinically relevant survival benefit with T + PLD. No new safety signals were identified.

Safety and efficacy of trabectedin when administered in the inpatient versus outpatient setting: Clinical considerations for outpatient administration of trabectedin.

BACKGROUND: The results of the randomized, phase 3 ET743-SAR-3007 trial demonstrated that trabectedin had a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dacarbazine in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma/liposarcoma after the failure of prior chemotherapy. Patients randomized to trabectedin received a 24-hour intravenous infusion either in an inpatient or outpatient setting. Herein, the authors reported the safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes based on first infusion site of care. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to trabectedin (at a dose of 1.5 mg/m2 ) or dacarbazine (1 g/m2 over 20-120 minutes) with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint and PFS, time to disease progression, objective response rate, duration of response, safety, and patient-reported symptom scoring as secondary endpoints. The setting of the trabectedin infusion was based on institutional preference and categorized based on the setting of the first infusion. RESULTS: Of the 378 patients who were treated with trabectedin, 100 (27%) and 277 (73%), respectively, first received trabectedin in the inpatient and outpatient setting. No differences were observed with regard to PFS or OS based on site of care. The median PFS was 4.1 months versus 4.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.90; P = .49) for inpatients versus outpatients, respectively, and the median OS was 14.3 months versus 13.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .40), respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events (classified according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]) were reported in 87 inpatients (87%) compared with 219 outpatients (79%); grade 3/4 serious adverse events were reported in 43 inpatients (43%) and 92 outpatients (33%). Extravasation occurred in 0 inpatients and 5 outpatients (2%), whereas the incidence of catheter-related complications was similar between groups (16% vs 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of patients who were randomized to trabectedin received outpatient therapy, the outcomes of the current study suggested equivalent safety and efficacy in either setting.

Overall survival and histology-specific subgroup analyses from a phase 3, randomized controlled study of trabectedin or dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: We performed a randomized phase 3 study of trabectedin versus dacarbazine in previously-treated patients with liposarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (LPS/LMS). METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to trabectedin (n = 384) or dacarbazine (n = 193) administered intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives were progression-free survival, objective response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes, all previously reported and demonstrating superior disease control with trabectedin. Results of the final OS analysis in preplanned subgroups of patients with LPS/LMS are presented. RESULTS: At the time of the final OS analysis, 577 patients had been assigned randomly, including 423 (73%) with LMS and 154 (27%) with LPS. The median duration of treatment exposure was higher in the trabectedin arm compared with the dacarbazine arm (4 vs 2 cycles), as was the proportion of patients receiving an extended number of therapy courses (≥6 cycles: 42% vs 22%). This pattern was consistent across histological subgroups: the median number of treatment cycles (4 vs 2 for both subgroups) and proportion of patients with ≥6 treatment cycles (LMS, 43% vs 24%; LPS, 40% vs 16%). Despite improved disease control by trabectedin, no improvement in OS was observed; the final median OS for trabectedin versus dacarbazine was 13.7 versus 13.1 months (P = .49). Sensitivity analyses of OS suggest confounding by post-study anticancer therapies, which were utilized in most patients in both treatment arms (71% vs 69%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The final OS results demonstrated comparable survival between LPS/LMS patients receiving trabectedin or dacarbazine, which is consistent with the interim analysis results. Both LPS and LMS demonstrated improved disease control with trabectedin.

Hepatic safety analysis of trabectedin: results of a pharmacokinetic study with trabectedin in patients with hepatic impairment and experience from a phase 3 clinical trial.

Purpose Trabectedin is metabolized by the liver and has been associated with transient, noncumulative transaminase elevation. Two recent studies further characterize hepatic tolerability with trabectedin therapy: a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study (Study #1004; NCT01273493) in patients with advanced malignancies and hepatic impairment (HI), and a phase 3 study (Study #3007; NCT01343277) of trabectedin vs. dacarbazine in patients with advanced sarcomas and normal hepatic function. Methods In Study #1004, patients received a single 3-h intravenous (IV) infusion of trabectedin: control group, trabectedin 1.3 mg/m2; HI group (baseline total bilirubin >1.5 and ≤3× upper limit of normal [ULN]; AST and ALT ≤2.5× ULN), trabectedin 0.58 or 0.9 mg/m2. In Study #3007, the trabectedin group received 1.5 mg/m2 by 24-h IV infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results In Study #1004, dose-normalized trabectedin exposure was higher in HI patients (n = 6) versus controls (n = 9) (geometric mean ratios [90% CI] AUClast: 1.97 [1.20; 3.22]). In Study #3007, following trabectedin administration, 90% of patients had elevated ALT (32% grade 3-4) and 84% had elevated AST (17% grade 3-4). Transaminase elevations were transient and noncumulative. Progression-free survival was similar in patients with grade 3-4 hepatotoxicity (n = 109) versus grade 0-2 hepatotoxicity (n = 231) (median [95% CI]: 4.63 [4.01, 5.85] months versus 3.55 [2.73, 4.63] months; P = 0.545, HR = 0.91 [0.68-1.23]). Conclusion Trabectedin treatment of patients with HI results in higher plasma exposures. Hepatotoxicity in patients with normal liver function can be effectively addressed through dose reductions and delays.

Efficacy and safety of trabectedin or dacarbazine in patients with advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma after failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy: Subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Trabectedin demonstrated significantly improved disease control in leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma patients in a global phase 3 trial (NCT01343277). A post hoc analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of trabectedin or dacarbazine in women with uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS), the largest subgroup of enrolled patients (40%). METHODS: Of 577 patients randomized 2:1 to receive trabectedin 1.5mg/m2 by 24-hour IV infusion or dacarbazine 1g/m2 by 20-120-minute IV infusion once every three weeks, 232 had uLMS (trabectedin: 144; dacarbazine: 88). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR: complete responses+partial responses+stable disease [SD] for at least 18weeks), duration of response (DOR), and safety. RESULTS: PFS for trabectedin was 4.0months compared with 1.5months for dacarbazine (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.81; P=0.0012). OS was similar (trabectedin 13.4months vs. dacarbazine 12.9months, HR=0.89; 95% CI 0.65-1.24; P=0.51) between groups. ORR was 11% with trabectedin vs. 9% with dacarbazine (P=0.82). CBR for trabectedin was 31% vs. 18% with dacarbazine (P=0.05); median DOR was 6.5months for trabectedin vs. 4.1months for dacarbazine (P=0.32). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events observed in ≥10% of patients in the trabectedin group included transient aminotransferase (aspartate/alanine) elevations, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc subset analysis of patients with uLMS who had received prior anthracycline therapy, trabectedin treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS versus dacarbazine, with an acceptable safety profile. There was no difference in OS.

Efficacy and Safety of Trabectedin or Dacarbazine for Metastatic Liposarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma After Failure of Conventional Chemotherapy: Results of a Phase III Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: This multicenter study, to our knowledge, is the first phase III trial to compare trabectedin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after prior therapy with an anthracycline and at least one additional systemic regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trabectedin or dacarbazine intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were disease control-progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as well as safety and patient-reported symptom scoring. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trabectedin (n = 345) or dacarbazine (n = 173). In the final analysis of PFS, trabectedin administration resulted in a 45% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with dacarbazine (median PFS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 4.2 v 1.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; P < .001); benefits were observed across all preplanned subgroup analyses. The interim analysis of OS (64% censored) demonstrated a 13% reduction in risk of death in the trabectedin arm compared with dacarbazine (median OS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 12.4 v 12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .37). The safety profiles were consistent with the well-characterized toxicities of both agents, and the most common grade 3 to 4 adverse effects were myelosuppression and transient elevation of transaminases in the trabectedin arm. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control versus conventional dacarbazine in patients who have advanced liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma after they experience failure of prior chemotherapy. Because disease control in advanced sarcomas is a clinically relevant end point, this study supports the activity of trabectedin for patients with these malignancies.

Phase I study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of trabectedin with docetaxel in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Combination therapy with trabectedin and docetaxel was evaluated in patients with advanced malignancies. METHODS: In this open-label phase 1 study, docetaxel (60 or 75 mg/m(2); 1-h intravenous infusion) was given on day 1 of a 21-day cycle in combination with escalating doses of trabectedin (0.4-1.3 mg/m(2) by 3-h intravenous infusion, 1 h after docetaxel) and prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as primary objective and safety, plasma pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity as secondary objectives were assessed. RESULTS: Patients (N = 49) received a median of four cycles of treatment. MTD was 1.3 mg/m(2) trabectedin and 60 mg/m(2) docetaxel for patients with limited and 1.1 mg/m(2) trabectedin and 60 mg/m(2) docetaxel for patients with unlimited prior chemotherapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (during cycle 1) included elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and fatigue in patients with limited prior chemotherapy and elevated ALT and febrile neutropenia in those with unlimited prior chemotherapy. The most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (65 %), fatigue (63 %), and neutropenia (53 %). One patient achieved a complete response. Thirty patients had stable disease, and 11 had stable disease for ≥6 months. Pharmacokinetic results for trabectedin plus docetaxel were similar to those previously reported for the single agents. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated, advanced malignancies, the combination of therapeutic doses of trabectedin and docetaxel showed clinical activity and was tolerable with prophylactic G-CSF, with no evidence of clinically important drug interactions.

Impact of cytochrome P450 3A4 inducer and inhibitor on the pharmacokinetics of trabectedin in patients with advanced malignancies: open-label, multicenter studies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety and survival of trabectedin, metabolized primarily by cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 enzyme, when coadministered with rifampin (CYP3A4 inducer) or ketoconazole (CYP3A4 inhibitor) in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Two phase 1/2a, 2-way crossover studies were conducted. For rifampin study, 12 patients were randomized (1:1) to sequence of a cycle of trabectedin (1.3 mg/m(2), 3 h, i.v.) coadministered with rifampin (600 mg/day, 6-days), and a cycle of trabectedin monotherapy (1.3 mg/m(2), 3 h, i.v.). In ketoconazole study, eight patients were randomized (1:1) to sequence of a cycle of trabectedin (0.58 mg/m(2), 3 h, i.v.) coadministered with ketoconazole (200 mg, twice-daily, 15-doses), and a cycle of trabectedin monotherapy (1.3 mg/m(2), 3 h, i.v.). RESULTS: The systemic exposure (geometric means) of trabectedin was decreased [22% (C max) and 31% (AUClast)] with rifampin coadministration and increased [22% (C max) and 66% (AUClast)] with ketoconazole coadministration. This correlated with an increased clearance with rifampin (39.6-59.8 L/h) and a decreased clearance with ketoconazole (20.3-12.0 L/h). Consistent with earlier studies, the most common (≥40%) treatment-emergent adverse events in both studies were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatic function abnormal, anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of rifampin or ketoconazole altered the pharmacokinetics of trabectedin, but no new safety signals were observed. Coadministration of trabectedin with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers should be avoided if possible. If coadministration of trabectedin with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor is required, close monitoring for toxicities is recommended, so that appropriate dose reductions can be instituted as warranted.