Randomized Phase III Study of Ganetespib, a Heat Shock Protein 90 Inhibitor, With Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (GALAXY-2).

PURPOSE: Ganetespib, a highly potent heat shock protein 90 inhibitor, blocks multiple oncogenic pathways, resulting in antitumor activity. We evaluated the combination of ganetespib and docetaxel for second-line therapy of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this international phase III trial, patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma diagnosed > 6 months before study entry and 1 prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to ganetespib 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or to docetaxel alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 677 enrolled patients, 335 were randomly assigned to ganetespib and docetaxel and 337 were assigned to docetaxel. The trial was stopped early as a result of futility at a planned interim analysis. The median OS time was 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 12.3 months) in the ganetespib and docetaxel arm compared with 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.6 to 12.2 months) in docetaxel arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.899 to 1.372; P = .329). Median progression-free survival was 4.2 months in the ganetespib and docetaxel arm and 4.3 months in the docetaxel arm (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.403; P = .119). The addition of ganetespib did not improve outcomes compared with docetaxel alone for any secondary end point, including survival in the elevated lactate dehydrogenase or EGFR and ALK wild-type populations. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms was neutropenia (30.9% with ganetespib and docetaxel v 25% with docetaxel). CONCLUSION: The addition of ganetespib to docetaxel did not result in improved survival for salvage therapy of patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinoma.

A phase II open-label study of ganetespib, a novel heat shock protein 90 inhibitor for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ganetespib is a small molecule, nongeldanamycin HSP90 inhibitor with potent inhibitory effects on HSP90-dependent oncoproteins of relevance to breast cancer pathogenesis. We therefore tested ganetespib in an unselected cohort of patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with single agent ganetespib at 200 mg/m(2) once weekly for 3 weeks, on a 28-day cycle. Therapy was continued until disease progression. The primary end point was ORR using Reponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled with a median age of 51(range, 38-70) years and a median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (range, 0-1). Most patients had at least 2 previous lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Most common toxicities, largely grade 1/2, were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and hypersensitivity reaction. The ORR in this unselected population was 9%, with all responses coming from the subset of patients with HER2-positive MBC (2/13; 15%). One patient with TNBC had objective tumor regression in the lung metastases. The clinical benefit rate (complete response + partial response + stable disease > 6 months) was 9%, median progression-free survival was 7 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-19), and median overall survival was 46 weeks (95% CI, 27-not applicable). CONCLUSION: The study did not meet the prespecified criteria for ORR in the first stage of the Simon 2-stage model in this heavily pretreated unselected population of MBC. However, activity was observed in trastuzumab-refractory HER2-positive and TNBC. Ganetespib was well tolerated and responses in more targeted populations harboring specific HSP90-dependent oncoproteins justifies its further study, particularly as part of rational combinations.

A multicenter phase II study of ganetespib monotherapy in patients with genotypically defined advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Ganetespib is a novel inhibitor of the heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90), a chaperone protein critical to tumor growth and proliferation. In this phase II study, we evaluated the activity and tolerability of ganetespib in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were enrolled into cohort A (mutant EGFR), B (mutant KRAS), or C (no EGFR or KRAS mutations). Patients were treated with 200 mg/m(2) ganetespib by intravenous infusion once weekly for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest, until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included objective response (ORR), duration of treatment, tolerability, median PFS, overall survival (OS), and correlative studies. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a median of 2 prior systemic therapies were enrolled; 98 were assigned to cohort A (n = 15), B (n = 17), or C (n = 66), with PFS rates at 16 weeks of 13.3%, 5.9%, and 19.7%, respectively. Four patients (4%) achieved partial response (PR); all had disease that harbored anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement, retrospectively detected by FISH (n = 1) or PCR-based assays (n = 3), in crizotinib-naïve patients enrolled to cohort C. Eight patients (8.1%) experienced treatment-related serious adverse events (AE); 2 of these (cardiac arrest and renal failure) resulted in death. The most common AEs were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and anorexia. CONCLUSIONS: Ganetespib monotherapy showed a manageable side effect profile as well as clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced NSCLCs, particularly in patients with tumors harboring ALK gene rearrangement.

A first in human, safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity phase I study of once weekly administration of the Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib (STA-9090) in patients with solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of ganetespib in patients with solid malignancies. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in cohorts of escalating ganetespib doses, given as 1 hour IV infusion, once weekly for 3 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and preliminary clinical activity. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were treated at doses escalating from 7 to 259 mg/m(2). The most common adverse events were Grade 1 and 2 diarrhea, fatigue, nausea or vomiting. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) observed were: one Grade 3 amylase elevation (150 mg/m(2)), one Grade 3 diarrhea and one Grade 3 and one Grade 4 asthenia (259 mg/m(2)). The MTD was 216 mg/m(2) and the recommended phase 2 dose was established at 200 mg/m(2) given IV at Days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. There was a linear relationship between dose and exposure. Plasma HSP70 protein levels remained elevated for over a week post treatment. Disease control rate (objective response and stable disease at ≥ 16 weeks) was 24.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Ganetespib is well tolerated as a weekly infusion for 3 of every 4 weeks cycle. The recommended phase II dose is 200 mg/m(2), and is associated with an acceptable tolerability profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00687934.

Final results of phase III SYMMETRY study: randomized, double-blind trial of elesclomol plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as treatment for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE: Elesclomol, an investigational first-in-class compound, induces oxidative stress, triggers mitochondrial-induced apoptosis in cancer cells, and shows synergy with taxanes in tumor models. Following completion of a phase II trial of elesclomol in combination with paclitaxel that met its primary end point of progression-free survival (PFS), this randomized, double-blind, controlled phase III study was conducted to confirm the efficacy and tolerability of elesclomol in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV chemotherapy-naive melanoma (n = 651) were randomly assigned 1:1 to paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) either alone or in combination with elesclomol 213 mg/m(2) administered weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Patients were stratified by prior systemic treatment, M1 subclass, and baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The primary end point was PFS. RESULTS: The study did not achieve its PFS end point (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .23). The study was stopped when an early overall survival data analysis indicated an imbalance in total deaths favoring paclitaxel, predominantly in patients with high LDH levels. A prospectively defined subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in median PFS for the combination in patients with normal baseline LDH. CONCLUSION: The addition of elesclomol to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. The association between baseline LDH and clinical outcomes suggests that LDH may be a predictive factor for treatment with this combination, consistent with recent findings on the association between elesclomol anticancer activity and cellular metabolic state.