Use of tamibarotene, a potent and selective RARα agonist, in combination with azacitidine in patients with relapsed and refractory AML with RARA gene overexpression.

Tamibarotene-based therapy is a novel targeted approach for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) gene overexpression. Approximately, 50% of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients and approximately 30% of AML patients are positive for RARA overexpression using a blood-based biomarker test that measures RARA expression in peripheral blasts. A phase 2 study investigating the activity of tamibarotene in patients with RARA overexpression was conducted in patients with AML and MDS (NCT02807558). In 28 patients with R/R AML and RARA overexpression treated with tamibarotene in combination with azacitidine, the median overall survival was 5.9 months. In 21 response-evaluable patients, the complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) rate was 19%, and median time to initial CR/CRi was 1.2 months. The favorable safety profile and preliminary clinical activity support the development of combination therapies with tamibarotene in myeloid malignancies with RARA overexpression.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Targeting RARA overexpression with tamibarotene, a potent and selective RARα agonist, is a novel approach in AML.

A superenhancer at the retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) gene is associated with RARA mRNA overexpression in ∼30% of non-acute promyelocytic leukemia acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and in ∼50% of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). RARA overexpression is an actionable target for treatment with tamibarotene, an oral potent and selective RARα agonist. Sensitivity to the RARα agonist tamibarotene was demonstrated in RARA-high but not RARA-low preclinical AML models. The combination of oral tamibarotene plus azacitidine was evaluated in a phase 2 clinical study in 51 newly diagnosed unfit patients with AML identified as RARA-positive (n = 22) or RARA-negative (n = 29) for RARA mRNA overexpression in peripheral blasts using a blood-based biomarker test. In 18 response-evaluable RARA-positive patients, complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery rate was 61%, CR rate was 50%, and time to initial composite CR was rapid at 1.2 months. Transfusion independence was attained by 72% of RARA-positive patients. In contrast, 28 response-evaluable RARA-negative patients had response rates that were consistent with azacitidine monotherapy. Tamibarotene in combination with azacitidine was well tolerated. The majority of nonhematologic adverse events were low grade and hematologic adverse events were comparable to single-agent azacitidine, demonstrating that there was no additional myelosuppression when tamibarotene was combined with azacitidine. These results support further evaluation of tamibarotene-based treatment strategies in patients with AML or MDS with RARA overexpression to provide a targeted approach with the goal of improving patient outcomes. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02807558.

Belantamab mafodotin in combination with novel agents in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: DREAMM-5 study design.

Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a BCMA-targeted antibody-drug conjugate recently approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received ≥4 prior therapies. Belamaf binds to BCMA and eliminates myeloma cells by multimodal mechanisms of action. The cytotoxic and potential immunomodulatory properties of belamaf have led to novel combination studies with other anticancer therapies. Here, we describe the rationale and design of DREAMM-5, an ongoing Phase I/II platform study evaluating the safety and efficacy of belamaf combined with novel agents, including GSK3174998 (OX40 agonist), feladilimab (an ICOS; GSK3359609), nirogacestat (a gamma-secretase inhibitor; PF-03084014) and dostarlimab (a PD-1 blocker) versus belamaf monotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Clinical trial registration: NCT04126200 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone: impact of dose intensity and administration frequency on safety in the PANORAMA 1 trial.

Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival benefit compared with placebo, bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 PANORAMA 1 (Panobinostat Oral in Multiple Myeloma 1) trial. Despite this benefit, patients in the panobinostat arm experienced higher rates of adverse events (AEs) and higher rates of discontinuation due to AEs. This PANORAMA 1 subanalysis examined AEs between 2 treatment phases of the study (TP1 and TP2), in which administration frequency of bortezomib and dexamethasone differed per protocol. The incidences of several key AEs were lower in both arms following the planned reduction of bortezomib dosing frequency in TP2. In the panobinostat arm, rates of thrombocytopenia (grade 3/4: TP1, 56·7%; TP2, 6·0%), diarrhoea (grade 3/4: TP1, 24·1%; TP2, 7·1%), and fatigue (grade 3/4: TP1, 16·3%; TP2, 1·8%) were lower in TP2 compared with TP1. Dose intensity analysis of panobinostat and bortezomib by cycle in the panobinostat arm showed reductions of both agent doses during cycles 1-4 due to dose adjustments for AEs. Exposure-adjusted analysis demonstrated a reduction in thrombocytopenia frequency in TP1 following dose adjustment. These results suggest that optimization of dosing with this regimen could improve tolerability, potentially leading to improved patient outcomes.

A phase I dose-escalation study of intravenous panobinostat in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, is a promising anti-cancer agent that increases acetylation of proteins associated with growth and survival pathways of malignant cells. The primary objective of this phase I dose-escalation study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of intravenous (i.v.) panobinostat administered on different dosing schedules in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma. Secondary objective was to characterize safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetic profiles, and activities of the i.v. formulation. METHODS: i.v. panobinostat was administered at escalating doses on a daily (days 1-3 and 8-10 of a 21-day cycle; days 1-3 and 15-17 of a 28-day cycle) or weekly (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle; days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) schedule, and safety and tolerability were monitored. Serial blood samples were collected following dosing for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses. RESULTS: The MTD for the daily administration schedule was 7.2 g/m(2), whereas the MTD for the weekly schedule was 20.0 mg/m(2). In addition to fatigue and cardiac arrhythmias, including prolonged QTcF, DLTs associated with the study drug were principally due to myelosuppressive effects. Maximum concentrations and bioavailability of i.v. panobinostat increased dose-proportionally across all doses evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study and others, the i.v. formulation of panobinostat was well tolerated in many patients, but concerns remain regarding its potential suitability outside the study setting due to potential electrocardiogram abnormalities. Therefore, further development will focus on the panobinostat oral formulation.

The type I error and power of non-parametric logrank and Wilcoxon tests with adjustment for covariates--a simulation study.

Time-to-event outcomes are common for oncology clinical trials. Conventional methods of analysis for these endpoints include logrank or Wilcoxon tests for treatment group comparisons, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the treatment group hazard ratio (both unadjusted and adjusted for relevant covariates). Adjusting for covariates reduces bias and may increase precision and power (Statist. Med. 2002; 21:2899-2908). However, the appropriateness of the Cox proportional hazards model depends on parametric assumptions. One way to address these issues is to use non-parametric analysis of covariance (J. Biopharm. Statist. 1999; 9:307-338). Here, we carry out simulations to investigate the type I error and power of the unadjusted and covariate-adjusted non-parametric logrank test and Wilcoxon test, and the Cox proportion hazards model. A comparison between the covariate-adjusted and unadjusted methods is also illustrated with an oncology clinical trial example.

Survival without common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 toxicity for pemetrexed compared with docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a risk-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: In a recent large phase III study, previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who received pemetrexed demonstrated a survival time similar to patients who received docetaxel (median, 8.3 months with pemetrexed versus 7.9 months with docetaxel), with a more favorable toxicity profile, and significantly fewer Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4 toxicities. This is a retrospective risk-benefit analysis of survival without grade 3/4 toxicity, defined as the time to the first occurrence of Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 or 4 toxicity or death, in the prospective phase III study comparing pemetrexed with docetaxel. METHODS: A total of 541 patients (of 571 randomized) received either pemetrexed (500 mg/m intravenously [IV]) supplemented with vitamin B12 injections and oral folic acid or docetaxel (75 mg/m IV) on day 1 of 21-day cycles. Survival without grade 3/4 toxicity was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS: Pemetrexed demonstrated a statistically significantly longer survival without grade 3/4 toxicity compared with docetaxel (hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.72; p < 0.0001). A supportive analysis based on selected grade 3/4 toxicities (neutropenia lasting >5 days, febrile neutropenia, infection with neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomatitis, and neurosensory events) also demonstrated an advantage for pemetrexed (hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.64; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This analysis of survival without grade 3/4 toxicity suggests a benefit-to-risk profile that favors pemetrexed over docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Elderly patients benefit from second-line cytotoxic chemotherapy: a subset analysis of a randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Numerous prospective and retrospective studies have concluded that elderly patients (> or = 70 years old) achieve a similar survival benefit, with acceptable toxicity, from first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with their younger counterparts. However, few published data exist on the efficacy and tolerability of second-line cytotoxic therapy in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a large second-line trial was performed. Data from 571 patients randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 3 weeks were analyzed for efficacy and toxicity comparisons between age groups and treatment arms. RESULTS: Eighty-six of 571 patients (15%) were > or = 70 years old, similar to rates of elderly observed in the first-line setting. Elderly patients receiving pemetrexed (n = 47) or docetaxel (n = 39) had a median survival of 9.5 and 7.7 months compared with 7.8 and 8.0 months for younger patients receiving pemetrexed (n = 236) or docetaxel (n = 249), respectively. Elderly patients treated with pemetrexed had a longer time to progression and a longer survival than their counterpart patients treated with docetaxel (not statistically significant). Febrile neutropenia was less frequent in elderly patients treated with pemetrexed (2.5%) compared with docetaxel (19%; P = .025), with only one death as a result of toxicity (docetaxel arm). CONCLUSION: Elderly patient participation was similar to rates observed in the first-line setting. There was no significant difference in outcome or toxicity between elderly and younger patients. For elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and good performance status, second-line cytotoxic therapy is appropriate. In this subset, pemetrexed produced a more favorable toxicity profile.

Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P =.105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P =.004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P <.001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P =.092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P <.001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P <.001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.