Comparative efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments in the third-line setting, for chronic-phase chronic myelogenous leukemia after failure of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

We compared the efficacy of ponatinib and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2G-TKIs: bosutinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib) in chronic phase CML resistant/intolerant to ≥1 prior 2G-TKI. Estimated probabilities of CCyR with 2G-TKI ranged from 22% to 26%, compared with 60% (95% CrI 52-68%) with ponatinib. The estimated probability of ponatinib providing higher response rate than all other included treatments was 99% (CCyR) and 97% (MCyR). Use of further 2G-TKI may provide limited benefit in CP-CML patients resistant/intolerant to prior 2G-TKI treatment. Compared with 2G-TKIs, ponatinib is estimated to provide substantially higher probability of achieving CCyR and MCyR; safety was not compared.

A phase 2 trial of ponatinib in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias.

BACKGROUND: Ponatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of unmutated and mutated BCR-ABL, including BCR-ABL with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor-refractory threonine-to-isoleucine mutation at position 315 (T315I). We conducted a phase 2 trial of ponatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) or Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL). METHODS: We enrolled 449 heavily pretreated patients who had CML or Ph-positive ALL with resistance to or unacceptable side effects from dasatinib or nilotinib or who had the BCR-ABL T315I mutation. Ponatinib was administered at an initial dose of 45 mg once daily. The median follow-up was 15 months. RESULTS: Among 267 patients with chronic-phase CML, 56% had a major cytogenetic response (51% of patients with resistance to or unacceptable side effects from dasatinib or nilotinib and 70% of patients with the T315I mutation), 46% had a complete cytogenetic response (40% and 66% in the two subgroups, respectively), and 34% had a major molecular response (27% and 56% in the two subgroups, respectively). Responses were observed regardless of the baseline BCR-ABL kinase domain mutation status and were durable; the estimated rate of a sustained major cytogenetic response of at least 12 months was 91%. No single BCR-ABL mutation conferring resistance to ponatinib was detected. Among 83 patients with accelerated-phase CML, 55% had a major hematologic response and 39% had a major cytogenetic response. Among 62 patients with blast-phase CML, 31% had a major hematologic response and 23% had a major cytogenetic response. Among 32 patients with Ph-positive ALL, 41% had a major hematologic response and 47% had a major cytogenetic response. Common adverse events were thrombocytopenia (in 37% of patients), rash (in 34%), dry skin (in 32%), and abdominal pain (in 22%). Serious arterial thrombotic events were observed in 9% of patients; these events were considered to be treatment-related in 3%. A total of 12% of patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Ponatinib had significant antileukemic activity across categories of disease stage and mutation status. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals and others; PACE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01207440 .).

A phase I trial of oral ridaforolimus (AP23573; MK-8669) in combination with bevacizumab for patients with advanced cancers.

AIMS: This phase I dose-escalation study was designed to evaluate the combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor ridaforolimus with the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumours received oral ridaforolimus (30 or 40 mg) once daily for 5 days per week (QDx5/wk) combined with intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [Q2wk] or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks [Q3wk]). Patients were evaluated for dose-limiting toxicities, safety and anti-tumour activity. RESULTS: A 40 mg dose of ridaforolimus with either bevacizumab dosing schedule was the recommended phase II dose. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported; the most common drug-related adverse events were mucosal inflammation and anorexia. Seven patients, with clinical features that included primary tumour of the abdominal origin (colorectal, pancreatic or gynaecological cancers) and previous abdominal radiotherapy, reported serious adverse events related to bowel perforations. There were no objective responses, but 65% of patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSION: Oral ridaforolimus (40 mg QDx5/wk) is feasible to combine with standard doses of bevacizumab, although careful patient selection would be needed to mitigate the risk of bowel perforation-related adverse events. Combination therapy produced prolonged stable disease in several heavily pretreated patients.