Phase II study of ceralasertib (AZD6738) in combination with durvalumab in patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma who have failed prior anti-PD-1 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Modulating the DNA damage response and repair (DDR) pathways is a promising strategy for boosting cancer immunotherapy. Ceralasertib (AZD6738) is an oral inhibitor of the serine/threonine protein kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein, which is crucial for DDR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II trial evaluated ceralasertib plus durvalumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma who had failed anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy. RESULTS: Among the 30 patients, we observed an overall response rate of 31.0% and a disease control rate of 63.3%. Responses were evident across patients with acral, mucosal, and cutaneous melanoma. The median duration of response was 8.8 months (range, 3.8-11.7 months). The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval, 3.6-10.6 months), and the median overall survival was 14.2 months (95% confidence interval, 9.3-19.1 months). Common adverse events were largely hematologic and manageable with dose interruptions and reductions. Exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that tumors with an immune-enriched microenvironment or alterations in the DDR pathway were more likely to respond to the study treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that ceralasertib in combination with durvalumab has promising antitumor activity among patients with metastatic melanoma who have failed anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy, and constitute a population with unmet needs.

A multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II study to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II trial evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum-tolerated-dose (MTD) per dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). METHODS: Phase I: Patients were stratified into two groups per baseline aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase and Child-Pugh score; MTD was determined. Phase II: Patients were randomised 2:1 to nintedanib (MTD) or sorafenib (400-mg bid) in 28-day cycles until intolerance or disease progression. Time-to-progression (TTP, primary endpoint), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. RESULTS: Phase-I: no DLTs observed; nintedanib MTD in both groups was 200 mg bid. Phase-II: patients (N = 93) were randomised to nintedanib (n = 62) or sorafenib (n = 31); TTP was 5.5 vs. 4.6 months (HR = 1.44 [95% CI, 0.81-2.57]), OS was 11.9 vs. 11.4 months (HR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52-1.47]), PFS was 5.3 vs. 3.9 months (HR = 1.35 [95% CI, 0.78-2.34]), respectively (all medians). Dose intensity and tolerability favoured nintedanib. Fewer patients on nintedanib (87.1%) vs. sorafenib (96.8%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) or grade ≥ 3 AEs (67.7% vs. 90.3%), but more patients on nintedanib (28 [45.2%]) had AEs leading to drug discontinuation than did those on sorafenib (7 [22.6%]). CONCLUSIONS: Nintedanib may have similar efficacy to sorafenib in aHCC.

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory study evaluated the safety/efficacy of nintedanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Ninety-six patients were randomised (2:1) to either nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or sunitinib (50 mg kg(-1) once daily (4 weeks on treatment; 2 weeks off)). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. P-values reported are descriptive only; the study was not powered for such comparisons. RESULTS: Progression-free survival at 9 months was comparable between nintedanib and sunitinib (43.1% vs 45.2%, respectively; P=0.85). Median PFS was 8.4 months in each group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.80; P=0.64). Median overall survival was 20.4 and 21.2 months for nintedanib and sunitinib, respectively (HR, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.56; P=0.76). Overall incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was comparable (90.6% vs 93.8%); AEs grade ⩾ 3 were lower with nintedanib than sunitinib (48.4% vs 59.4%). Nintedanib was associated with lower incidences of some AEs typical of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, cardiac disorders and haematological abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced RCC, nintedanib has promising efficacy and similar tolerability to sunitinib, and a manageable safety profile with fewer TKI-associated AEs.