Neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation-positive, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: exploration of tumor BRCA mutational status.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) showed activity in the neoadjuvant setting in the phase II NEOTALA study (NCT03499353). These biomarker analyses further assessed the mutational landscape of the patients enrolled in the NEOTALA study. METHODS: Baseline tumor tissue from the NEOTALA study was tested retrospectively using FoundationOne®CDx. To further hypothesis-driven correlative analyses, agnostic heat-map visualizations of the FoundationOne®CDx tumor dataset were used to assess overall mutational landscape and identify additional candidate predictive biomarkers of response. RESULTS: All patients enrolled (N = 61) had TNBC. In the biomarker analysis population, 75.0% (39/52) and 25.0% (13/52) of patients exhibited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Strong concordance (97.8%) was observed between tumor BRCA and germline BRCA mutations, and 90.5% (38/42) of patients with tumor BRCA mutations evaluable for somatic-germline-zygosity were predicted to exhibit BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH). No patients had non-BRCA germline DNA damage response (DDR) gene variants with known/likely pathogenicity, based on a panel of 14 non-BRCA DDR genes. Ninety-eight percent of patients had TP53 mutations. Genomic LOH, assessed continuously or categorically, was not associated with response. CONCLUSION: The results from this exploratory biomarker analysis support the central role of BRCA and TP53 mutations in tumor pathobiology. Furthermore, these data support assessing germline BRCA mutational status for molecular eligibility for talazoparib in patients with TNBC.

SEAMARK: phase II study of first-line encorafenib and cetuximab plus pembrolizumab for MSI-H/dMMR BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Patients with both BRAF V600E mutations and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have poor prognosis. Currently, there are no specifically targeted first-line treatment options indicated for patients with mCRC whose tumors harbor both molecular aberrations. Pembrolizumab is a checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, and the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, is approved for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Combination of pembrolizumab with encorafenib and cetuximab may synergistically enhance antitumor activity in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant, MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. SEAMARK is a randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy of the combination of pembrolizumab with encorafenib and cetuximab versus pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant, MSI-H/dMMR mCRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) occurs when there is an abnormal growth of cells (known as a tumor) in the colon or rectum. Some people with CRC have changes in their tumor genes (known as gene mutations). A gene is a piece of DNA that tells the cell to make specific molecules, such as proteins. Mutations in a gene called BRAF can turn on signals that help the cancer cells grow. Gene mutations that impair DNA repair mechanisms can also make the cancer cells grow more quickly and allow the immune system to detect the cancer cells as being foreign to the body. Targeted therapy is a type of cancer treatment that turns off specific genes and proteins involved in cancer cell survival and growth. BRAF and EGFR inhibitors are targeted therapies that work well together in treating people with BRAF-mutant CRC. BRAF proteins can help cancer cells grow, and BRAF inhibitors block these proteins to prevent, slow, or stop the growth of the cancer cells. Immunotherapy is a type of cancer treatment that helps a person's immune system fight cancer. Immunotherapy is effective for treating CRC that has mutations in the DNA repair mechanisms. By combining targeted therapy and immunotherapy, patients may be able to live longer without their disease getting worse. In the SEAMARK study, we will use a treatment combination including a BRAF inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab) and an immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) in patients with CRC who have a BRAF mutation and deficiencies in the DNA repair mechanism. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05217446 (ClinicalTrials.gov), 2021-003715-26 (EudraCT).

Neoadjuvant Talazoparib in Patients With Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive, Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03499353.

Factors Associated With Developing Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Lorlatinib After Progression on Other Targeted Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profile of lorlatinib includes neurocognitive adverse events (NAEs). Baseline factors associated with developing NAEs remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Records from patients who received lorlatinib through prospective studies at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH, n = 124) or the phase 1/2 B7461001 (NCT01970865; n = 248) study were reviewed to identify potential associations between comorbidities, baseline medications, and NAEs. RESULTS: Most patients experienced a NAE (MGH: 60%, B7461001: 49%). Cognitive effects occurred in 40% and 29% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain metastases (p = 0.008), brain radiation (p = 0.033), psychiatric illness (p = 0.008), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), antiepileptics (p < 0.001), and stimulants (p = 0.026) were associated with developing cognitive effects in B7461001. Mood effects occurred in 36% and 23% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. In the MGH cohort, psychiatric illness (p = 0.02) and stimulants (p = 0.01) were associated with developing mood effects whereas brain surgery (p = 0.020), psychiatric medications (p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (p = 0.002), and sedatives (p = 0.034) were associated with developing mood effects in B7461001. Psychotic effects were infrequent (MGH: 3%, B7461001: 9%) and were associated with brain surgery in the MGH cohort (p = 0.001) and age in B7461001 (p = 0.014). Speech effects were observed in 23% and 11% of patients in the MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively. Brain radiation (p = 0.012) and antiepileptics (p < 0.001) were associated with speech effects in B7461001. Dose reductions were implemented for 52% and 18% of patients with NAEs in MGH and B7461001 cohorts, respectively, with mitigating effect. CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive effects from lorlatinib are common. Lorlatinib-related NAEs may be influenced by multiple factors, including brain metastases, brain radiation, psychiatric illness, and use of neurotropic medications.

Efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Subgroup analysis of a global phase 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a phase 1/2 study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2 part of the trial, patients with ALK- or ROS1-positive, advanced NSCLC enrolled into six expansion cohorts (EXP1-6), based on ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and received lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response and intracranial response. Post hoc analyses of activity were conducted in Asian and non-Asian (based on race) ALK-positive patients who received either previous crizotinib with or without chemotherapy (EXP2-3A) or at least one second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor with any number of chemotherapy regimens (EXP3B-5). Analysis of safety (adverse events [AEs]) was in the phase 1 and 2 study population who started lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. RESULTS: 17 Asian patients were enrolled in EXP2-3A and 53 in EXP3B-5; 33 non-Asian patients were enrolled in EXP2-3A and 73 in EXP3B-5. Objective response rates in the Asian and non-Asian subgroups were 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56.6-96.2) and 63.6% (95% CI: 45.1-79.6) in EXP2-3A, and 47.2% (95% CI: 33.3-61.4) and 30.1% (95% CI: 19.9-42.0) in EXP3B-5, and median progression-free survival was 13.6 and 12.5 months (EXP2-3A) and 6.9 and 5.5 months (EXP3B-5). Lorlatinib exhibited antitumor activity across ALK resistance mutations, while no differences according to the EML4-ALK variant could be detected. The most common treatment-related AEs were hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, edema, and peripheral neuropathy in both Asian and non-Asian subgroups. CONCLUSION: Lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity in pretreated patients with ALK-positive NSCLC in both Asian and non-Asian patients. AE profiles were similar between Asian and non-Asian patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT01970865.

Continuation of Lorlatinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC Beyond Progressive Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a potent, selective third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), exhibited overall and intracranial antitumor activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses in the ongoing phase 2 trial (NCT01970865) investigated the clinical benefit of continuing lorlatinib beyond progressive disease (LBPD). Patients with previous crizotinib treatment as the only ALK TKI were group A (n = 28); those with at least one previous second-generation ALK TKIs were group B (n = 74). LBPD was defined as greater than 3 weeks of lorlatinib treatment after investigator-assessed progressive disease. Only patients with the best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease were included. RESULTS: There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median duration of treatment for patients who continued LBPD was 32.4 months (group A) and 16.4 months (group B) versus 12.5 months (group A) and 7.7 months (group B) for patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival in group A was not reached (NR) in patients who continued LBPD versus 24.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-NR); group B's median was 26.5 months (95% CI: 18.7-35.5) in patients who continued LBPD versus 14.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-38.5) in patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival postprogression for groups A and B was NR (95% CI: 21.4-NR) and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.2-19.2) in patients who continued LBPD and 8.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) versus 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-14.3) in patients who did not continue LBPD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LBPD is a viable treatment strategy for select patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on lorlatinib.

Impact of lorlatinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a phase 1/2 study (NCT01970865) in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- or ROS1-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRO measures, including global quality of life (QoL), functioning domains and symptoms, were assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the 13-item Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13) module. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline were assessed. Percentages of patients showing improvement, stability or worsening on each scale were reported, with a change of ≥10 points considered clinically meaningful (CM). RESULTS: 255 patients completed baseline and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment. Most patients had CM improvement (42.4 %) or stable (38.0 %) scores for global QoL. Functioning domains with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were role (37.6 %) and emotional (36.9 %); only one domain had more patients showing worsening than improving function (cognitive [24.3 % vs 22.4 %]). Most patients showed improved or stable scores for disease-related symptoms. No QLQ-C30 symptom domains had more patients worsening than improving. Symptoms on the QLQ-C30 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were fatigue (49.4 %) and insomnia (46.3 %). Four QLQ-LC13 domains had more patients worsening than improving (two most affected were peripheral neuropathy [37.3 % vs 13.7 %] and alopecia [19.2 % vs 13.3 %]). Symptoms on the QLQ-LC13 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were cough (42.7 %) and pain in other parts (32.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib treatment showed CM improvement from baseline in global QOL that was maintained over time. Additionally, there were improvements in physical, emotional, social, and role functioning. Improvements were shown in appetite loss and key symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, cough and fatigue; a worsening in peripheral neuropathy was noted.

Brain Penetration of Lorlatinib: Cumulative Incidences of CNS and Non-CNS Progression with Lorlatinib in Patients with Previously Treated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, third-generation ALK/ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) designed to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. OBJECTIVE: We report the cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS progression with lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with ALK TKIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an ongoing phase II study (NCT01970865), 198 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC with ≥ 1 prior ALK TKI were enrolled into expansion cohorts (EXP) based on treatment history. Patients received lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. Patients were analyzed for progressive disease, categorized as CNS or non-CNS progression, by independent central review. Cumulative incidence probabilities were calculated adopting a competing risks approach. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients received crizotinib as their only prior ALK TKI (EXP2-3A); cumulative incidence rates (CIRs) of CNS and non-CNS progression were both 22% at 12 months in patients with baseline CNS metastases (n = 37), and CIR of non-CNS progression at 12 months was higher versus that for CNS progression in patients without baseline CNS metastases [43% vs. 9% (n = 22)]. In patients who received ≥ 1 prior second-generation ALK TKI [EXP3B-5 (n = 139)], CIR of non-CNS progression at 12 months was higher versus that for CNS progression in patients both with and without baseline CNS metastases (35% vs. 23% (n = 94) and 55% vs. 12% (n = 45), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib showed substantial intracranial activity in patients with pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC, with or without baseline CNS metastases, whose disease progressed on crizotinib or second-generation ALK TKIs. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01970865.

Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets ALK and ROS1 with preclinical activity against most known resistance mutations in ALK and ROS1. We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less (≤1 for phase 1 only) from 28 hospitals in 12 countries worldwide. Lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (escalating doses of 10 mg once daily to 100 mg twice daily in phase 1 only) was given orally in continuous 21-day cycles until investigator-determined disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response, assessed by independent central review. Activity endpoints were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2014, and Oct 2, 2016, we assessed 364 patients, of whom 69 with ROS1-positive NSCLC were enrolled. 21 (30%) of 69 patients were TKI-naive, 40 (58%) had previously received crizotinib as their only TKI, and eight (12%) had previously received one non-crizotinib ROS1 TKI or two or more ROS1 TKIs. The estimated median duration of follow-up for response was 21·1 months (IQR 15·2-30·3). 13 (62%; 95% CI 38-82) of 21 TKI-naive patients and 14 (35%; 21-52) of 40 patients previously treated with crizotinib as their only TKI had an objective response. Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%; 95% CI 31-89) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%; 29-71) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertriglyceridaemia (13 [19%] of 69 patients) and hypercholesterolaemia (ten [14%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in five (7%) of 69 patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Lorlatinib showed clinical activity in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases and those previously treated with crizotinib. Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent. FUNDING: Pfizer.

ALK Resistance Mutations and Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with robust clinical activity in advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, including in patients who have failed prior ALK TKIs. Molecular determinants of response to lorlatinib have not been established, but preclinical data suggest that ALK resistance mutations may represent a biomarker of response in previously treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline plasma and tumor tissue samples were collected from 198 patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer from the registrational phase II study of lorlatinib. We analyzed plasma DNA for ALK mutations using Guardant360. Tumor tissue DNA was analyzed using an ALK mutation-focused next-generation sequencing assay. Objective response rate, duration of response, and progression-free survival were evaluated according to ALK mutation status. RESULTS: Approximately one quarter of patients had ALK mutations detected by plasma or tissue genotyping. In patients with crizotinib-resistant disease, the efficacy of lorlatinib was comparable among patients with and without ALK mutations using plasma or tissue genotyping. In contrast, in patients who had failed 1 or more second-generation ALK TKIs, objective response rate was higher among patients with ALK mutations (62% v 32% [plasma]; 69% v 27% [tissue]). Progression-free survival was similar in patients with and without ALK mutations on the basis of plasma genotyping (median, 7.3 months v 5.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.81) but significantly longer in patients with ALK mutations identified by tissue genotyping (median, 11.0 months v 5.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.47). CONCLUSION: In patients who have failed 1 or more second-generation ALK TKIs, lorlatinib shows greater efficacy in patients with ALK mutations compared with patients without ALK mutations. Tumor genotyping for ALK mutations after failure of a second-generation TKI may identify patients who are more likely to derive clinical benefit from lorlatinib.

Lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a global phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation inhibitor of ALK and ROS1 tyrosine kinases with broad coverage of ALK mutations. In a phase 1 study, activity was seen in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, most of whom had CNS metastases and progression after ALK-directed therapy. We aimed to analyse the overall and intracranial antitumour activity of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, patients with histologically or cytologically ALK-positive or ROS1-positive, advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Patients were enrolled into six different expansion cohorts (EXP1-6) on the basis of ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and were given lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response by independent central review, assessed in pooled subgroups of ALK-positive patients. Analyses of activity and safety were based on the safety analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib) as assessed by independent central review. Patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline by independent central review were included in the intracranial activity analyses. In this report, we present lorlatinib activity data for the ALK-positive patients (EXP1-5 only), and safety data for all treated patients (EXP1-6). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2015, and Oct 3, 2016, 276 patients were enrolled: 30 who were ALK positive and treatment naive (EXP1); 59 who were ALK positive and received previous crizotinib without (n=27; EXP2) or with (n=32; EXP3A) previous chemotherapy; 28 who were ALK positive and received one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy (EXP3B); 112 who were ALK positive with two (n=66; EXP4) or three (n=46; EXP5) previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with or without chemotherapy; and 47 who were ROS1 positive with any previous treatment (EXP6). One patient in EXP4 died before receiving lorlatinib and was excluded from the safety analysis set. In treatment-naive patients (EXP1), an objective response was achieved in 27 (90·0%; 95% CI 73·5-97·9) of 30 patients. Three patients in EXP1 had measurable baseline CNS lesions per independent central review, and objective intracranial responses were observed in two (66·7%; 95% CI 9·4-99·2). In ALK-positive patients with at least one previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP2-5), objective responses were achieved in 93 (47·0%; 39·9-54·2) of 198 patients and objective intracranial response in those with measurable baseline CNS lesions in 51 (63·0%; 51·5-73·4) of 81 patients. Objective response was achieved in 41 (69·5%; 95% CI 56·1-80·8) of 59 patients who had only received previous crizotinib (EXP2-3A), nine (32·1%; 15·9-52·4) of 28 patients with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 43 (38·7%; 29·6-48·5) of 111 patients with two or more previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EXP4-5). Objective intracranial response was achieved in 20 (87·0%; 95% CI 66·4-97·2) of 23 patients with measurable baseline CNS lesions in EXP2-3A, five (55·6%; 21·2-86·3) of nine patients in EXP3B, and 26 (53·1%; 38·3-67·5) of 49 patients in EXP4-5. The most common treatment-related adverse events across all patients were hypercholesterolaemia (224 [81%] of 275 patients overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4) and hypertriglyceridaemia (166 [60%] overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (7%) of 275 patients and seven patients (3%) permanently discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Consistent with its broad ALK mutational coverage and CNS penetration, lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity both in treatment-naive patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and in those who had progressed on crizotinib, second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or after up to three previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Thus, lorlatinib could represent an effective treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in first-line or subsequent therapy. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Lorlatinib in non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK or ROS1 rearrangement: an international, multicentre, open-label, single-arm first-in-man phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged or ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, but resistance invariably develops, commonly within the CNS. This study aimed to analyse the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic properties of lorlatinib, a novel, highly potent, selective, and brain-penetrant ALK and ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against most known resistance mutations, in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC. METHODS: In this international multicentre, open-label, single-arm, first-in-man phase 1 dose-escalation study, eligible patients had advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC and were older than 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate end-organ function. Lorlatinib was administered orally to patients at doses ranging from 10 mg to 200 mg once daily or 35 mg to 100 mg twice daily, with a minimum of three patients receiving each dose. For some patients, tumour biopsy was done before lorlatinib treatment to identify ALK resistance mutations. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib; efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had either ALK or ROS1 rearrangement). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities during cycle 1 according to investigator assessment; secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, and overall response. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2014, and July 10, 2015, 54 patients received at least one dose of lorlatinib, including 41 (77%) with ALK-positive and 12 (23%) with ROS1-positive NSCLC; one patient had unconfirmed ALK and ROS1 status. 28 (52%) patients had received two or more TKIs, and 39 (72%) patients had CNS metastases. The most common treatment-related adverse events among the 54 patients were hypercholesterolaemia (39 [72%] of 54 patients), hypertriglyceridaemia (21 [39%] of 54 patients), peripheral neuropathy (21 [39%] of 54 patients), and peripheral oedema (21 [39%] of 54 patients). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at 200 mg (the patient did not take at least 16 of 21 prescribed total daily doses in cycle 1 because of toxicities attributable to study drug, which were grade 2 neurocognitive adverse events comprising slowed speech and mentation and word-finding difficulty). No maximum tolerated dose was identified. The recommended phase 2 dose was selected as 100 mg once daily. For ALK-positive patients, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 19 (46%) of 41 patients (95% CI 31-63); for those who had received two or more TKIs, the proportion of patients with an objective response was 11 (42%) of 26 patients (23-63). In ROS1-positive patients, including seven crizotinib-pretreated patients, an objective response was achieved by six (50%) of 12 patients (95% CI 21-79). INTERPRETATION: In this phase 1, dose-escalation study, lorlatinib showed both systemic and intracranial activity in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC, most of whom had CNS metastases and had previously had two or more TKI treatments fail. Therefore, lorlatinib might be an effective therapeutic strategy for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who have become resistant to currently available TKIs, including second-generation ALK TKIs, and is being investigated in a phase 3 randomised controlled trial comparing lorlatinib to crizotinib (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608). FUNDING: Pfizer.

A Phase I Study of the Anti-Activin Receptor-Like Kinase 1 (ALK-1) Monoclonal Antibody PF-03446962 in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Objectives of this dose-finding study were to determine the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the first-in-class anti-activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK-1) monoclonal antibody PF-03446962, and assess safety and antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This open-label, multicenter study was based on a 3+3 design. PF-03446962 was administered biweekly by intravenous infusion, at doses ranging from 0.5 to 15 mg/kg. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received treatment with PF-03446962. Dose-limiting toxicities observed during dose escalation included grade 3 increased amylase, grade 3/4 increased lipase, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. The MTD was determined to be 10 mg/kg. The RP2D was set at 7 mg/kg for patients with advanced solid tumors, based on the observed safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity. The most-frequent treatment-related, all-grade adverse events included thrombocytopenia (20.5%), fatigue (15.9%), and nausea, increased amylase, and increased lipase (each 11.4%). Treatment-related telangiectasia was noted in 7% of patients, suggesting in vivo inhibition of the ALK-1 pathway. None of the deaths was deemed to be treatment-related. Three (6.8%) patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer achieved a partial response, and 12 (27.3%) patients had stable disease, across dose levels. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound analysis of tumor vascularity showed reduction in tumor perfusion in 2 patients with stable disease following treatment with PF-03446962. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical activity demonstrated in this study points to PF-03446962 as a novel approach to antiangiogenic therapy, with manageable safety profile and single-agent, antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2146-54. ©2015 AACR.

A phase II study of the potent PARP inhibitor, Rucaparib (PF-01367338, AG014699), with temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma demonstrating evidence of chemopotentiation.

PURPOSE: poly(ADP ribose) polymerase inhibition has been shown to potentiate the cytotoxicity of DNA damaging agents. A phase I study of rucaparib and temozolomide showed that full-dose temozolomide could be given during PARP inhibition. We report the results of a phase II study of intravenous rucaparib 12 mg/m(2) and oral temozolomide 200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 every 28 days in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Patients with chemotherapy naïve measurable metastatic melanoma, performance status ≤2 and good end-organ function were recruited. Treatment was given until progression. A two stage phase II design was used, with response rate the primary endpoint. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were also explored. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were recruited with 37 patients receiving at least 2 cycles and 17 patients at least 6 cycles. Myelosuppression occurred with 25 patients (54 %) requiring a 25 % dose reduction in temozolomide. The response rate was 17.4 %, median time to progression 3.5 months, median overall survival 9.9 months, and 36 % of patients were progression-free at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that temozolomide (150-200 mg/m(2)/day) can safely be given with a PARP inhibitory dose of rucaparib, increasing progression-free survival over historical controls in metastatic melanoma patients.

Treatment of advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with exemestane alone or in combination with celecoxib.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data showed that the combination of exemestane and celecoxib has synergistic effects. Therefore, a study was undertaken to explore the efficacy and tolerability of this combination in postmenopausal patients with advanced, hormone-sensitive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized phase II study was conducted in postmenopausal patients with hormone-sensitive breast cancer and measurable disease who had progressive disease after treatment with tamoxifen. Patients were randomly assigned to either exemestane 25 mg daily or the combination of exemestane 25 mg daily with celecoxib 400 mg twice daily. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria were used to determine antitumor efficacy. Primary end point was the rate of clinical benefit. Secondary end points were tolerability, objective response rate, time to progression (TTP), and duration of clinical benefit. A pharmacodynamic and a pharmacokinetic study were conducted in parallel. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients (exemestane, n = 55; combination, n = 56) were enrolled in 2002. The demographic characteristics and prognostic factors were similar in both arms. In the assessable population, 24 of 51 patients in the combination arm and 24 of 49 patients in the exemestane arm achieved clinical benefit. TTP was similar in both groups. Duration of clinical benefit was longer in the combination group (median, 96.6 v 49.1 weeks). The addition of celecoxib did not change the tolerability profile of exemestane alone. CONCLUSION: Similar rates of clinical benefit were achieved in both groups.

Pain measurement in cancer patients: a comparison of six methods.

A consecutive sample of 53 chronic cancer pain patients were administered 5 different pain intensity scales: a visual analogue scale (VAS), a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 (NRS), a verbal rating scale (VRS), the Italian Pain Questionnaire (Italian version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire) (PRI), and the Integrated Pain Score (IPS) which is an instrument designed at the Pain Therapy and Palliative Care Division of the National Cancer Institute of Milan to integrate pain intensity and duration in a single measure. These scales were administered before and after a definite therapy change. At the time of the second evaluation the patients were also administered a pain relief scale (IRS). A factor analysis of the scoring properties of these instruments revealed a high degree of association between the variables. A single factor clearly emerged explaining most of the different scales variability. A logistic regression analysis showed that VAS, NRS, VRS were more strongly associated with IRS than PRI and IPS.