Systematic review of time to subsequent therapy as a candidate surrogate endpoint in advanced solid tumors.

Aim: Time to subsequent therapy (TST) is an end point that may complement progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in determining the treatment effect of anticancer drugs and may be a potential surrogate for PFS and OS. We systematically reviewed the correlation between TST and both PFS and OS in published phase 2/3 studies in advanced solid tumors. Materials & methods: Trial-level correlational analyses were performed for TST versus PFS (by investigator and/or central review) and TST versus OS. Results: Of 21 included studies, nine (43%) used 'time to first subsequent therapy or death' (TFST) as the TST end point; 11 (57%) used different definitions ('other TST end points'). There was a strong correlation between TFST and PFS by investigator (medians: R2 = 0.88; hazard ratio [HR]: R2 = 0.91) and TFST versus PFS by central review (medians: R2 = 0.86; HRs: R2 = 0.84). For TFST versus OS there was medium/poor correlation for medians (R2 = 0.64) and HRs (R2 = 0.02). Conclusion: TFST strongly correlates with PFS, but not with OS.

In a recent study, researchers investigated how we can measure the effectiveness of cancer drugs. They focused on a specific measure called 'time to next therapy', which is the duration between two treatments patients receive. By analyzing the relationship between time to next therapy and disease progression, they discovered a strong correlation. This suggests that in the future, time to next therapy could potentially help to measure how well a cancer treatment works. However, when it comes to predicting patient survival, the relationship was not as strong. This implies that time to next therapy is not a reliable indicator of patient survival. To fully understand whether time to next therapy can effectively measure the effectiveness of anticancer drugs, further research is necessary.

Phase I study to assess the effect of adavosertib (AZD1775) on the pharmacokinetics of substrates of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP3A in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Adavosertib may alter exposure to substrates of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes. This study assessed its effect on the pharmacokinetics of a cocktail of probe substrates for CYP3A (midazolam), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and CYP1A2 (caffeine). METHODS: Period 1: patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors received 'cocktail': caffeine 200 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, and midazolam 2 mg (single dose); period 2: after 7- to 14-day washout, patients received adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-3 (five doses), with cocktail on day 3. After cocktail alone or in combination with adavosertib administration, 24-h pharmacokinetic sampling occurred for probe substrates and their respective metabolites paraxanthine, 5-hydroxyomeprazole (5-HO), and 1'-hydroxymidazolam (1'-HM). Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: Of 33 patients (median age 60.0 years, range 41-83) receiving cocktail, 30 received adavosertib. Adavosertib co-administration increased caffeine, omeprazole, and midazolam exposure by 49%, 80%, and 55% (AUC0-12), respectively; AUC0-t increased by 61%, 98%, and 55%. Maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) increased by 4%, 46%, and 39%. Adavosertib co-administration increased 5-HO and 1'-HM exposure by 43% and 54% (AUC0-12) and 49% and 58% (AUC0-t), respectively; paraxanthine exposure was unchanged. Adavosertib co-administration decreased Cmax for paraxanthine and 5-HO by 19% and 7%; Cmax increased by 33% for 1'-HM. After receiving adavosertib, 19 (63%) patients had treatment-related adverse events (six [20%] grade ≥ 3). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib (225 mg bid) is a weak inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP3A. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03333824.

Adavosertib (AZD1775) does not prolong the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase I open-label study.

PURPOSE: Adavosertib is a small-molecule, ATP-competitive inhibitor of Wee1 kinase. Molecularly targeted oncology agents have the potential to increase the risk of cardiovascular events, including prolongation of QT interval and associated cardiac arrhythmias. This study investigated the effect of adavosertib on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with advanced solid tumors for which no standard therapy existed. Patients received adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-2 at 12-h intervals and once on day 3. Patients underwent digital 12-lead electrocardiogram and pharmacokinetic assessments pre-administration and time-matched assessments during the drug administration period. The relationship between maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) and baseline-adjusted corrected QT interval by Fridericia (QTcF) was estimated using a prespecified linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received adavosertib. Concentration-QT modeling of ΔQTcF and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval corresponding to the geometric mean of Cmax observed on days 1 and 3 were below the threshold for regulatory concern (not > 10 ms). No significant relationship between ΔQTcF (vs baseline) and adavosertib concentration was identified (P = 0.27). Pharmacokinetics and the adverse event (AE) profile were consistent with previous studies at this dose. Eleven (52.4%) patients experienced 17 treatment-related AEs in total, including diarrhea and nausea (both reported in six [28.6%] patients), vomiting (reported in two [9.5%] patients), anemia, decreased appetite, and constipation (all reported in one [4.8%] patient). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib does not have a clinically important effect on QTc prolongation. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03333824.

Impact of MET status on treatment outcomes in papillary renal cell carcinoma: A pooled analysis of historical data.

BACKGROUND: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) represents 15% of RCCs but has no indicated therapies, with limited biomarker-based data to inform targeted treatment. MET alterations may be key; > 80% of PRCC tumours show MET upregulation. The objective of this study was to assess MET status in PRCC and its impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic PRCC from three international registries. MET status was determined retrospectively by next generation sequencing (NGS) of archival tissue. MET-driven was defined as MET and/or hepatocyte growth factor amplification, chromosome 7 gain, and/or MET kinase domain mutations. Objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by MET status using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of 308 patients, 305 received first-line treatment; most commonly sunitinib (n = 208; 68%), then everolimus (n = 40; 13%). Of 179 patients with valid NGS results, 38% had MET-driven and 49% MET-independent tumours (13% unevaluable). In the MET-driven versus MET-independent subgroups, respectively, of sunitinib-treated patients, median PFS was numerically longer, though not statistically significantly; PFS: 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4-13.2) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.3-7.4), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.41-1.08. There was no difference between the OS of each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: MET-driven PRCC may respond to targeted agents. However, the presence of MET alterations did not appear to be predictive for outcomes in response to current therapies, which are not biomarker-driven, compared with MET-independent tumours.

A Comprehensive Methodology to Systematically Identify Drug Hypersensitivity and Anaphylactic Reactions in Clinical Trial Databases.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of drug hypersensitivity or anaphylactic reactions in clinical trial databases is thought to be underestimated due to variable clinical presentations and lack of clear definitions. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a more comprehensive, systematic methodology for retrospectively identifying potential hypersensitivity or anaphylactic reactions reported in patients treated with investigational drugs in clinical trials and to accurately assess and characterise the risk. METHODS: A three-step approach was developed to identify hypersensitivity or anaphylactic reactions: clinical trial database search, medical review, and adjudication to confirm or rule out cases. The database search strategy consisted of the narrow search for Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) Hypersensitivity, a modified MedDRA query based on SMQ Anaphylactic reaction, and pyrexia-related MedDRA Preferred Terms. The cases identified from the search were further medically reviewed taking into consideration the temporal relationship, seriousness, severity, course, and management of the events, action taken, and outcomes of adverse events. Those cases deemed to have potentially drug-related hypersensitivity were then adjudicated to be confirmed or ruled out. RESULTS: The method was applied to a clinical trial database containing safety data for 421 patients treated with an investigational drug. Application of the methodology led to 19 hypersensitivity cases being identified. Of these, 12 were classified as immediate reactions and 7 as non-immediate reactions. CONCLUSION: This three-step method provided a thorough and robust way to identify hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, in a clinical trial database. This method could be applied to investigational drugs to improve early detection and monitoring of potential safety concerns, subsequent patient safety management strategies, and potentially programme-wide drug development decisions. Algorithmic tools and narrow and/or broad SMQs should be considered when evaluating safety concerns. The authors also recommend a revision of the MedDRA SMQ of Anaphylactic reaction.

Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of the WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib (AZD1775) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To support future dosing recommendations, the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of adavosertib, a first-in-class, small-molecule reversible inhibitor of WEE1 kinase, was assessed in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: In this Phase I, open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence crossover study, the pharmacokinetics of a single 300 mg adavosertib dose were investigated in fed versus fasted states. RESULTS: Compared with the fasted state, a high-fat, high-calorie meal (fed state) decreased adavosertib maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) by 16% and systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]) by 6%; AUC0-t decreased by 7% and time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed by 1.97 h (P = 0.0009). The 90% confidence interval of the geometric least-squares mean treatment ratio for AUC and AUC0-t was contained within the no-effect limits (0.8-1.25), while that of Cmax crossed the lower bound of the no-effect limits. Adverse events (AEs) related to adavosertib treatment were reported by 20 (64.5%) of the 31 patients treated in this study. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported by four (12.9%) patients (one in the fed state, three in the fasted state); two of these AEs were considered treatment-related by the investigator. Three serious AEs were reported in three (9.7%) patients; these were not considered treatment-related. No patients discontinued because of treatment-related AEs, and no new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: A high-fat meal did not have a clinically relevant effect on the systemic exposure of adavosertib, suggesting that adavosertib can be administered without regard to meals.

Efficacy of Savolitinib vs Sunitinib in Patients With MET-Driven Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: The SAVOIR Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC. Because some cases of PRCC are MET-driven, MET inhibition could be a targeted treatment approach. In previous studies, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in this patient group. Objective: To determine whether savolitinib is a better treatment option for this patient population, vs standard of care, sunitinib. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SAVOIR phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial was a multicenter study carried out in 32 centers in 7 countries between July 2017 and the data cutoff in August 2019. Overall, 360 to 450 patients were to be screened to randomize approximately 180 patients. Patients were adults with MET-driven (centrally confirmed), metastatic PRCC, with 1 or more measurable lesions. Exclusion criteria included prior receipt of sunitinib or MET inhibitor treatment. Overall, 254 patients were screened. Interventions: Patients received 600 mg of savolitinib orally once daily (qd), or 50 mg of sunitinib orally qd for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS, assessed by investigator and confirmed by blinded independent central review). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety/tolerability. Results: At data cutoff, 60 patients were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27); most patients had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib, 30 [91%]; sunitinib, 26 [96%]) and no prior therapy (savolitinib, 28 [85%]; sunitinib, 25 [93%]). For savolitinib and sunitinib, 4 (12%) and 10 (37%) patients were women, and the median (range) age was 60 (23-78) and 65 (31-77) years, respectively. Following availability of external data on PFS with sunitinib in patients with MET-driven disease, study enrollment was closed. Progression-free survival, OS, and ORR were numerically greater with savolitinib vs sunitinib. Median PFS was not statistically different between the 2 groups: 7.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-not calculated) for savolitinib and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.37-1.36; P = .31). For savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were reported in 14 (42%) and 22 (81%) of patients and AE-related dose modifications in 10 (30%) and 20 (74%). After discontinuation, 12 (36%) and 5 (19%) of patients on savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Although patient numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy vs sunitinib, with fewer grade 3 or higher AEs and dose modifications. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03091192.

Osimertinib plus savolitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive, MET-amplified, non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: interim results from a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus MET TKIs are a possible treatment for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancers with MET-driven acquired resistance. Phase 1 safety data of savolitinib (also known as AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a potent, selective MET TKI, plus osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, have provided recommended doses for study. Here, we report the assessment of osimertinib plus savolitinib in two global expansion cohorts of the TATTON study. METHODS: In this multi-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic, MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who had progressed on EGFR TKIs. We considered two expansion cohorts: parts B and D. Part B consisted of three cohorts of patients: those who had been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI (B1) and those who had not been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI who were either Thr790Met negative (B2) or Thr790Met positive (B3). In part B, patients received oral osimertinib 80 mg and savolitinib 600 mg daily; after a protocol amendment (March 12, 2018), patients who weighed no more than 55 kg received a 300 mg dose of savolitinib. Part D enrolled patients who had not previously received a third-generation EGFR TKI and were Thr790Met negative; these patients received osimertinib 80 mg plus savolitinib 300 mg. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, which were assessed in all dosed patients. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in all dosed patients and all patients with centrally confirmed MET amplification. Here, we present an interim analysis with data cutoff on March 29, 2019. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02143466. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2015, and Feb 14, 2019, we enrolled 144 patients into part B and 42 patients into part D. In part B, 138 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 600 mg (n=130) or 300 mg (n=8). In part D, 42 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 300 mg. 79 (57%) of 138 patients in part B and 16 (38%) of 42 patients in part D had adverse events of grade 3 or worse. 115 (83%) patients in part B and 25 (60%) patients in part D had adverse events possibly related to savolitinib and serious adverse events were reported in 62 (45%) patients in part B and 11 (26%) patients in part D; two adverse events leading to death (acute renal failure and death, cause unknown) were possibly related to treatment in part B. Objective partial responses were observed in 66 (48%; 95% CI 39-56) patients in part B and 23 (64%; 46-79) in part D. INTERPRETATION: The combination of osimertinib and savolitinib has acceptable risk-benefit profile and encouraging antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive, advanced NSCLC, who had disease progression on a previous EGFR TKI. This combination might be a potential treatment option for patients with MET-driven resistance to EGFR TKIs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A Phase I/II Multicenter Study of Single-Agent Foretinib as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Purpose: This phase I/II single-arm study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of MET, ROS, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2, in the first-line setting in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients.Experimental Design: In the phase I part, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients were dose escalated on foretinib (30-60 mg) every day using the standard 3+3 design. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined, an additional 32 patients were dosed at the MTD in the phase II expansion cohort for assessment of efficacy and safety. Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess potential biomarkers that might correlate with clinical efficacy and survival.Results: The MTD of foretinib was established as 30 mg every day. The most frequent adverse events were hypertension, decreased appetite, ascites, and pyrexia. When dosed at 30 mg every day in the first-line setting, foretinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity. According to the modified mRECIST, the objective response rate was 22.9%, the disease stabilization rate 82.9%, and the median duration of response 7.6 months. The median time to progression was 4.2 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months. Fifteen candidate biomarkers whose levels in the circulation were significantly altered in response to foretinib treatment were elucidated. Multivariate analyses identified IL6 and IL8 as independent predictors of OS.Conclusions: Foretinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity and good tolerability in the first-line setting in Asian advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Baseline plasma levels of IL6 or IL8 might predict the response to foretinib. Clin Cancer Res; 23(10); 2405-13. ©2016 AACR.

Population pharmacokinetics modeling and analysis of foretinib in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

Foretinib is a multikinase inhibitor that inhibits multiple receptor tyrosine kinases, including MET and VEGFR, with the potential for treatment of solid tumors. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) pathogenesis is associated with overexpression of MET, and physiologic changes in the livers of HCC patients may decrease CYP3A isozyme-mediated metabolism of foretinib. A population pharmacokinetic model of foretinib was developed to explore the effect of tumor type, formulation, and other covariates. Data from 1 HCC study in Asia and 3 non-HCC studies in the United States with varying foretinib regimens and formulations were used for analysis. A 2-compartment model with a linear first-order absorption and elimination and lag time in absorption adequately described foretinib pharmacokinetics in 132 advanced non-HCC and HCC patients and identified an effect of formulations on bioavailability. The bisphosphate salt capsules and freebase tablets had a relative bioavailability 37% and 20% higher, respectively, than the solution formulation. HCC patients had ≈19.6% lower mean clearance (70.14 L/h), ≈16% lower mean volume of distribution (1725.6 L), and higher dose-normalized exposure compared with non-HCC patients. This could be a result of differences in metabolism in HCC patients, body weight, or activity of CYP3A isozymes between Asian and Western cancer patients.

A multicenter phase I study of pazopanib in combination with paclitaxel in first-line treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors.

This study was designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of pazopanib combined with paclitaxel to determine the recommended phase II dose in the first-line setting in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients were enrolled in a 3+3 dose-escalation design to determine the maximum tolerated regimen (MTR) of once daily pazopanib plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks at four dose levels (DL1-4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenetics, and disease assessments were performed. Twenty-eight patients received treatment. One patient at DL1 had dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of elevated hepatic enzymes. After pazopanib discontinuation, liver enzyme concentrations remained high until a concurrent medication, simvastatin, was discontinued. This patient had the defective CYP2C8*3*3 genotype. At DL2, 1 patient had DLT of elevated hepatic enzymes with rash and 1 patient had DLT of rash. The MTR was paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) plus pazopanib 800 mg. The most common toxicities were alopecia, fatigue, hypertension, nausea, diarrhea, dysgeusia, neutropenia, myalgia, hair color changes, and peripheral neuropathy. Coadministration of pazopanib and paclitaxel resulted in a 38% increase in systemic exposure to paclitaxel, relative to administration of paclitaxel alone, at the MTR. Of the 28 patients treated with the combination, 10 achieved a partial response and 10 achieved stable disease of ≥12 weeks. Pazopanib 800 mg daily plus paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks was the recommended phase II dose, with a manageable safety profile, and with clinical activity in both melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer that suggest further evaluation of this combination is warranted.

Phase I study of pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic dysfunction: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group study.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is a potent, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor; however, there is limited information regarding the effects of liver function on pazopanib metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The objective of this study was to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetic profile of pazopanib in patients with varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with any solid tumors or lymphoma were stratified into four groups based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria. Pazopanib was given orally once a day on a 21-day cycle. A modified 3+3 design was used. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. Patients in the mild group tolerated 800 mg per day. The moderate and severe groups tolerated 200 mg per day. Pharmacokinetic data in the mild group were similar to the data in the normal group. Comparison of the median Cmax and area under the curve [AUC(0-24)] in the moderate or severe groups at 200 mg per day to the values in the normal and mild groups at 800 mg per day indicated less than dose-proportional systemic exposures in patients with moderate and severe hepatic impairment. This suggests that the lower maximum-tolerated dose in the moderate and severe group is not due to a decrease in drug clearance or alteration in the proportion of metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild liver dysfunction, pazopanib is well tolerated at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of 800 mg per day. Patients with moderate and severe liver dysfunction tolerated 200 mg per day.

Phase Ib trial of the oral angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib administered concurrently with erlotinib.

INTRODUCTION: As angiogenic pathways have become important targets for inhibition of tumor growth, we examined the concept of dual pathway blockade by small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting vascular endothelial and epidermal growth factor receptors. METHODS: Escalating doses of pazopanib (400-800 mg once daily [QD]) plus erlotinib (100-150 mg QD) doses were evaluated in cohorts of 3-6 adults with advanced solid tumors. Twelve additional patients were enrolled in an expansion cohort to confirm the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: The MTD, defined during assessment of 20 patients, was pazopanib 600 mg plus erlotinib 150 mg. Two dose-limiting toxicities, rash and elevated liver enzymes, occurred at pazopanib 800 mg and erlotinib 150 mg. Overall, 30 % and 27 % of patients required dose interruption of pazopanib or erlotinib, respectively; 15 % of patients required a dose reduction of erlotinib to manage toxicities. The most common adverse events in patients treated with any dose regimen of pazopanib plus erlotinib (N = 33) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, and decreased appetite. The adverse-event profile of the combination did not appear to differ from that of each compound administered alone. Coadministration of pazopanib 600 mg QD and erlotinib 150 mg QD did not consistently affect the pharmacokinetics of either compound relative to that observed for either compound administered alone. Of 26 patients evaluated for efficacy, 3 (12 %; all non-small-cell lung cancer) had partial response and 10 (38 %) had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant administration of pazopanib 600 mg and erlotinib 150 mg is feasible, with a manageable toxicity profile. These results support further clinical development of the pazopanib-erlotinib combination.

Phase Ib trial of the oral angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib administered concurrently with pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of pazopanib plus pemetrexed in patients with solid tumors. METHODS: This dose-escalation study used a standard 3 + 3 design to evaluate once daily pazopanib (400-800 mg) plus pemetrexed (400-500 mg/m(2) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle). Eight additional patients were enrolled into an expansion cohort. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) was the MTD. The most common adverse events at all dose levels included fatigue, neutropenia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. The frequencies of non-hematologic adverse events were consistent with those of the individual agents. The rates of all-grade and Grade 4 hematologic toxicities (reversible neutropenia with median duration of 4 days) were higher with the combination regimen than with either monotherapy. Exploratory analyses revealed no association between the plasma levels of 3 biomarkers of vitamin B12 metabolism (cystathionine, homocysteine, and methylmalonic acid) and the risk of Grade 4 neutropenia and Grade 3 febrile neutropenia. Of 20 patients evaluated for efficacy, 2 (10 %) had a partial response. Pazopanib did not affect pemetrexed clearance, but increased pemetrexed maximal concentration by 22 %. In exploratory pharmacogenetic analyses, allelic variants of the VEGFA gene demonstrated weak correlation with development of severe neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant administration of pazopanib 800 mg once daily plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days is feasible, albeit associated with a high frequency of brief, reversible neutropenia. Preliminary activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Phase II and biomarker study of the dual MET/VEGFR2 inhibitor foretinib in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Foretinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, VEGF, RON, AXL, and TIE-2 receptors. Activating mutations or amplifications in MET have been described in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of foretinib in patients with PRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled onto the study in two cohorts with different dosing schedules of foretinib: cohort A, 240 mg once per day on days 1 through 5 every 14 days (intermittent arm); cohort B, 80 mg daily (daily dosing arm). Patients were stratified on the basis of MET pathway activation (germline or somatic MET mutation, MET [7q31] amplification, or gain of chromosome 7). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Overall, 74 patients were enrolled, with 37 in each dosing cohort. ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 was 13.5%, median progression-free survival was 9.3 months, and median overall survival was not reached. The presence of a germline MET mutation was highly predictive of a response (five of 10 v five of 57 patients with and without germline MET mutations, respectively). The most frequent adverse events of any grade associated with foretinib were fatigue, hypertension, gastrointestinal toxicities, and nonfatal pulmonary emboli. CONCLUSION: Foretinib demonstrated activity in patients with advanced PRCC with a manageable toxicity profile and a high response rate in patients with germline MET mutations.

An open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase II study of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed in first-line treatment of patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.

Low or undetectable TPO receptor expression in malignant tissue and cell lines derived from breast, lung, and ovarian tumors.

BACKGROUND: Numerous efficacious chemotherapy regimens may cause thrombocytopenia. Thrombopoietin receptor (TPO-R) agonists, such as eltrombopag, represent a novel approach for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. The TPO-R MPL is expressed on megakaryocytes and megakaryocyte precursors, although little is known about its expression on other tissues. METHODS: Breast, lung, and ovarian tumor samples were analyzed for MPL expression by microarray and/or quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), and for TPO-R protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cell line proliferation assays were used to analyze the in vitro effect of eltrombopag on breast, lung, and ovarian tumor cell proliferation. The lung carcinoma cell lines were also analyzed for TPO-R protein expression by Western blot. RESULTS: MPL mRNA was not detectable in 118 breast tumors and was detectable at only very low levels in 48% of 29 lung tumors studied by microarray analysis. By qRT-PCR, low but detectable levels of MPL mRNA were detectable in some normal (14-43%) and malignant (3-17%) breast, lung, and ovarian tissues. A comparison of MPL to EPOR, ERBB2, and IGF1R mRNA demonstrates that MPL mRNA levels were far lower than those of EPOR and ERBB2 mRNA in the same tissues. IHC analysis showed negligible TPO-R protein expression in tumor tissues, confirming mRNA analysis. Culture of breast, lung, and ovarian carcinoma cell lines showed no increase, and in fact, showed a decrease in proliferation following incubation with eltrombopag. Western blot analyses revealed no detectable TPO-R protein expression in the lung carcinoma cell lines. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple analyses of breast, lung, and ovarian tumor samples and/or cell lines show no evidence of MPL mRNA or TPO-R protein expression. Eltrombopag does not stimulate growth of breast, lung, or ovarian tumor cell lines at doses likely to exert their actions on megakaryocytes and megakaryocyte precursors.

Phase II proof-of-concept study of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with stage I/II resectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with early-stage, resectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are at risk for recurrent disease, and 5-year survival rates do not exceed 75%. Angiogenesis inhibitors have shown clinical activity in patients with late-stage NSCLC, raising the possibility that targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in earlier-stage disease may be beneficial. This proof-of-concept study examined safety and efficacy of short-term, preoperative pazopanib monotherapy in patients with operable stage I/II NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for resection received oral pazopanib 800 mg/d for 2 to 6 weeks preoperatively. Tumor response was measured by high-resolution computed tomography, permitting estimation of change in tumor volume and diameter. Gene-expression profiling was performed on 77 pre- and post-treatment lung samples from 34 patients. RESULTS: Of 35 patients enrolled, 33 (94%) had clinical stage I NSCLC and two (6%) had clinical stage II NSCLC. Median treatment duration was 16 days (range, 3 to 29 days). Thirty patients (86%) achieved tumor-volume reduction after pazopanib treatment. Two patients achieved tumor-volume reduction > or = 50%, and three patients had partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Pazopanib was generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events included grade 2 hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue. One patient developed pulmonary embolism 11 days after surgery. Several pazopanib target genes and other angiogenic factors were dysregulated post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Short-duration pazopanib was generally well tolerated and demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Several target genes were dysregulated after pazopanib treatment, validating target-specific response and indicating a persistent pazopanib effect on lung cancer tissue. Further clinical evaluation of pazopanib in NSCLC is planned.

Plasma cytokine and angiogenic factor profiling identifies markers associated with tumor shrinkage in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with pazopanib.

There is an unmet need for pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarkers for antiangiogenic agents. Recent studies have shown that soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR2), VEGF, and several other soluble factors may be modulated by VEGF pathway inhibitors. We conducted a broad profiling of cytokine and angiogenic factors (CAF) to investigate the relationship between baseline CAF levels, CAF changes during treatment, and tumor shrinkage in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with pazopanib, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting VEGFR, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-kit. Plasma samples were collected before treatment and on the last day of therapy from 33 patients with early-stage NSCLC participating in a single-arm phase II trial. Levels of 31 CAFs were measured by suspension bead multiplex assays or ELISA and correlated with change in tumor volume. Pazopanib therapy was associated with significant changes of eight CAFs; sVEGFR2 showed the largest decrease, whereas placental growth factor underwent the largest increase. Increases were also observed in stromal cell-derived factor-1alpha, IP-10, cutaneous T-cell-attracting chemokine, monokine induced by IFN-gamma, tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, and IFN-alpha. Posttreatment changes in plasma sVEGFR2 and interleukin (IL)-4 significantly correlated with tumor shrinkage. Baseline levels of 11 CAFs significantly correlated with tumor shrinkage, with IL-12 showing the strongest association. Using multivariate classification, a baseline CAF signature consisting of hepatocyte growth factor and IL-12 was associated with tumor response to pazopanib and identified responding patients with 81% accuracy. These data suggest that CAF profiling may be useful for identifying patients likely to benefit from pazopanib, and merit further investigation in clinical trials.

Effect of meal and propranolol on whole body and splanchnic oxygen consumption in patients with cirrhosis.

Our aim was to measure whole body energy expenditure after a mixed liquid meal, with and without simultaneous propranolol infusion, in patients with cirrhosis. We also wanted to investigate the effect of propranolol on substrate fluxes and oxygen uptake in the tissues drained by the hepatic vein and azygos vein in the postprandial period in these patients. Whole-body oxygen uptake, hepatic blood flow, hepatic venous pressure gradient and net-hepatic fluxes of oxygen, lactate, glucose, glycerol, and free fatty acids (FFA) were measured in 12 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis before and for 2 h after ingestion of a mixed liquid meal (700 kcal). Half of the patients (n = 6) were randomized to a treatment group receiving intravenous infusion of propranolol in combination with the meal. The meal-induced energy expenditure was significantly lower in patients given propranolol [15.0 +/- 18.9 vs. 67.0 +/- 26.1 kJ/120 min (means +/- SD), P < 0.01]. Meal-induced whole body oxygen uptake was lower in patients receiving propranolol (19.2 +/- 38 vs. 135.7 +/- 61 mmol/120 min, P < 0.01), and the meal-induced increase in splanchnic oxygen uptake was nonexistent when propranolol was administered in combination (-13.2 +/- 34.8 vs. 110.4 +/- 34.8 mmol/120 min, P = 0.04). Postprandially, the propranolol group had a tendency toward a reduced splanchnic glucose output, and the FFA uptake was significantly reduced. Propranolol reduces meal-induced whole body oxygen uptake and energy expenditure as well as splanchnic oxygen uptake. The splanchnic reduction in oxygen consumption can explain almost the entire reduction in whole body oxygen consumption.