IRAK4 degrader in hidradenitis suppurativa and atopic dermatitis: a phase 1 trial.

Toll-like receptor-driven and interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor-driven inflammation mediated by IL-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is involved in the pathophysiology of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and atopic dermatitis (AD). KT-474 (SAR444656), an IRAK4 degrader, was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial where the primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical activity in patients with moderate to severe HS and in patients with moderate to severe AD. KT-474 was administered as a single dose and then daily for 14 d in 105 healthy volunteers (HVs), followed by dosing for 28 d in an open-label cohort of 21 patients. Degradation of IRAK4 was observed in HV blood, with mean reductions after a single dose of ≥93% at 600-1,600 mg and after 14 daily doses of ≥95% at 50-200 mg. In patients, similar IRAK4 degradation was achieved in blood, and IRAK4 was normalized in skin lesions where it was overexpressed relative to HVs. Reduction of disease-relevant inflammatory biomarkers was demonstrated in the blood and skin of patients with HS and patients with AD and was associated with improvement in skin lesions and symptoms. There were no drug-related infections. These results, from what, to our knowledge, is the first published clinical trial using a heterobifunctional degrader, provide initial proof of concept for KT-474 in HS and AD to be further confirmed in larger trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04772885 .

Comparison of pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of secukinumab administered subcutaneously using different delivery systems in healthy volunteers and in psoriasis patients.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of secukinumab with different devices for subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of 2 mL. METHODS: A phase 1 study in healthy subjects with 6 devices to administer 2 mL injection volumes was conducted to evaluate the serum PK, safety and tolerability of secukinumab following single s.c. injection of 300 mg in the abdomen (either side) or in the thigh (either leg). Primary PK endpoints were maximum observed serum concentration and area under the serum concentration-time curve. The impact of device, site and side of injection on serum exposure was evaluated. In a phase 3 study in psoriasis patients, PK of secukinumab was evaluated following multiple s.c. injections of 300 mg by either 2 × 1-mL prefilled syringe or 1 × 2-mL prefilled syringe. RESULTS: Mean serum concentration-time profiles for administration as 2 × 1 mL injections or as 1 × 2 mL injections were similar. With an injection volume of 2 mL, perceived injection pain was not different from 2 × 1 mL injections. A nonclinically significant difference in PK endpoints was observed between thigh and abdomen. Results with a 2 mL prefilled syringe in a 1-year phase 3 study in patients confirmed PK results observed in the phase 1 study. CONCLUSION: Collective evidence from both studies demonstrated that 2-mL injections of secukinumab into the abdomen or thigh using different devices resulted in comparable PK characteristics and were all well tolerated without noticeable local reactions.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results of PrE0102.

Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Phase 1/2 trial of temsirolimus and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study/Alliance N0572.

BACKGROUND: Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR-2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS: Patients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts-of-3 design. The 2-stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)-naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi. RESULTS: The MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression-free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi-naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi-naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients. CONCLUSIONS: The limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single-agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455-63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Implementation of cancer clinical care pathways: a successful model of collaboration between payers and providers.

Despite rising medical costs within the US healthcare system, quality and outcomes are not improving. Without significant policy reform, the cost-quality imbalance will reach unsustainable proportions in the foreseeable future. The rising cost of healthcare in part results from an expanding aging population with an increasing number of life-threatening diseases. This is further compounded by a growing arsenal of high-cost therapies. In no medical specialty is this more apparent than in the area of oncology. Numerous attempts to reduce costs have been attempted, often with limited benefit and brief duration. Because physicians directly or indirectly control or influence the majority of medical care costs, physician behavioral changes must occur to bend the healthcare cost curve in a sustainable fashion. Experts within academia, health policy, and business agree that a significant paradigm change in stakeholder collaboration will be necessary to accomplish behavioral change. Such a collaboration has been pioneered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Physician Resource Management, a highly specialized oncology healthcare consulting firm with developmental and ongoing technical, analytic, and consultative support from Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions, a division of Cardinal Health. We describe a successful statewide collaboration between payers and providers to create a cancer clinical care pathways program. We show that aligned stakeholder incentives can drive high levels of provider participation and compliance in the pathways that lead to physician behavioral changes. In addition, claims-based data can be collected, analyzed, and used to create and maintain such a program.

A phase II open-label randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of selumetinib (AZD6244 [ARRY-142886]) versus capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who have failed first-line gemcitabine therapy.

Selumetinib is a potent, selective MEK inhibitor with efficacy in several tumor models. This study compared selumetinib with capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who had been pretreated with a gemcitabine-based regimen. In this randomized, multicenter phase II study (NCT00372944), patients received either 100 mg oral selumetinib twice daily or 1,250 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine twice daily for 2 weeks followed by a 1-week break, given in 3-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In all 70 patients were randomized. The median survival was 5.4 months in the selumetinib group and 5.0 months in the capecitabine group (hazard ratio 1.03; two-sided 80% confidence interval = 0.68,1.57; P = 0.92). Disease progression events occurred in 84% and 88% of patients in the selumetinib and capecitabine treatment groups, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) were commonly observed in both treatment groups. Other frequently reported adverse events were acneiform dermatitis and peripheral edema with selumetinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia with capecitabine. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between selumetinib and capecitabine as second-line treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Selumetinib was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile.

A phase II, open-label, randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens.

INTRODUCTION: AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) is a potent, selective MEK inhibitor. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 versus pemetrexed as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this randomized phase II study, patients received either 100 mg oral AZD6244 free-base suspension twice daily or 500 mg/m(2) intravenous pemetrexed once every 3 weeks after pretreatment with a corticosteroid, folic acid, and vitamin B12. The primary end point of the study was the disease progression event count. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized. Disease progression events were experienced by 28 (70%) and 26 (59%) patients in the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups, respectively. Median progression-free survival was not statistically significantly different between the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups (67 versus 90 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.08, two-sided 80% confidence interval = 0.75-1.54; p = 0.79). Two patients in the AZD6244 group had a best response to treatment of partial response. In the pemetrexed group, one patient achieved a complete response and one patient a partial response. Dermatitis acneiform, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were the most frequently reported adverse events with AZD6244, compared with fatigue, anemia, nausea, anorexia, and dermatitis acneiform with pemetrexed. CONCLUSIONS: Oral AZD6244 showed clinical activity as second- or third-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. In an unselected NSCLC population, there is no suggestion that AZD6244 monotherapy offers any advantage over standard treatment with pemetrexed. Based on preclinical data and recent clinical observations, further development of AZD6244 in NSCLC should focus on BRAF or RAS mutation-positive patients and/or AZD6244-based combination regimens.

The value of combined-modality therapy in elderly patients with stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the value of combined-modality therapy in elderly patients by comparing the differences in outcome between patients who received radiotherapy (RT) alone and patients who received RT plus chemotherapy for stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group performed 2 recent Phase III trials for stage III NSCLC. The first trial, NCCTG 90-24-51, included 3 arms: once-daily RT (QDRT) alone, twice-daily RT (BIDRT) alone, and concurrent chemotherapy plus BIDRT. The second trial, NCCTG 94-24-52, included 2 arms and compared concurrent chemotherapy with either QDRT or BIDRT. The chemotherapy arms of both trials included etoposide and cisplatin administered concurrently with RT. Only the patients aged >/=65 years (elderly) who participated in those trials were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Of the 166 elderly patients who were included in this analysis, 37 patients received RT alone, and 129 patients received concurrent chemotherapy plus RT. The median and 5-year survival rates were 10.5 months and 5.4% for the RT alone group compared with 13.7 months and 14.7% for the RT plus chemotherapy group (log-rank P = .05). Patients who received RT plus chemotherapy experienced significantly greater severe toxicity (grade >/=3) compared with patients who received RT alone (89.9% vs 32.4%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients who participated in these trials appeared to gain a survival advantage from RT and chemotherapy compared with RT alone. As is the case with younger patients, this benefit came at the cost of additional toxicity.

Smoking behavior of 226 patients with diagnosis of stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer.

There is limited research of smoking cessation following diagnosis of lung cancer. This prospective study assessed cigarette smoking behavior among 226 patients (142 males, 84 females) prior to, at the time of, and after the diagnosis of unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer and entry into a phase III trial examining combined thoracic radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Their mean +/-S.D. age was 62.7+/-9.4 years and 95.6% were Caucasian. Of 215 patients with a history of cigarette smoking, 69% (148/215) stopped smoking prior to entry in the trial, 9% (20/215) stopped smoking at some point during the course of the trial, 11% (24/215) continued smoking throughout the trial, 7% (16/215) were smoking at baseline but did not report subsequent smoking status, and smoking status at study entry was missing for the remaining patients. The majority of lung cancer patients were able to stop smoking. A notable subset of patients continued smoking despite diagnosis of lung cancer, enrollment in a clinical trial, treatment-related toxicity, and encouragement from clinicians to stop smoking. Smoking cessation interventions are needed for lung cancer patients who continue to smoke.

Phase III evaluation of fluoxetine for treatment of hot flashes.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes can be a prominent problem in women with a history of breast cancer. Given concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in such patients, other nonhormonal means for treating hot flashes are required. Based on anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants for treating hot flashes, the present trial was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a double-blinded, randomized, two-period (4 weeks per period), cross-over methodology to study the efficacy of fluoxetine (20 mg/d) for treating hot flashes in women with a history of breast cancer or a concern regarding the use of estrogen (because of breast cancer risk). Eligible patients had to have reported that they averaged at least 14 hot flashes per week; they could have received tamoxifen or raloxifene as long as they were on a stable dose. The major outcome measure was a bivariate construct representing hot flash frequency and hot flash score, analyzed by a classic sums and differences cross-over analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one randomized women began protocol therapy. By the end of the first treatment period, hot flash scores (frequency x average severity) decreased 50% in the fluoxetine arm versus 36% in the placebo arm. Cross-over analysis demonstrated a significantly greater marked hot flash score improvement with fluoxetine than placebo (P =.02). The results were not adjusted for potential confounding influences, including age and tamoxifen use. The fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This dose of fluoxetine resulted in a modest improvement in hot flashes.