Targeting FGFR3 alterations with adjuvant infigratinib in invasive urothelial carcinoma: the phase III PROOF 302 trial.

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptible FGFR3 alterations (activating mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements), ≤120 days following radical surgery and ineligible for/or refusing cisplatin-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receive either oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary end point: centrally determined disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival and safety/tolerability; exploratory end points: correlative biomarker analysis, quality-of-life and infigratinib pharmacokinetics.

Cancers of the bladder and other parts in the urinary system, especially those that are invasive and grow into the muscle layer, may need extra treatment after surgical removal of the tumor, particularly if there is a high risk of the cancer coming back. Chemotherapy regimens that include cisplatin are often used postoperatively, although some patients are unable to tolerate this treatment or refuse it. FGFR3, a protein that is encoded by the FGFR3 gene, is often changed in these cancers. This helps the tumor grow. Infigratinib is an investigational drug that targets FGFR3 and inhibits the abnormal growth of the tumor. In the PROOF 302 study, patients are randomly assigned to treatment with infigratinib or a placebo pill for 1 year after surgery to see if the drug is effective. The aim is to see if patients who take infigratinib have a longer time free from the disease than those who receive a placebo. The study will also look at how long patients remain free from cancer spread and how long they live overall. The study will also investigate how safe the treatment is and how easy it is to live with it. PROOF 302 is an important study as it will define the role of infigratinib in patients with cancers of the bladder and urinary system who also have FGFR3 changes, for whom more treatment choices are needed. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04197986 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Infigratinib in Early-Line and Salvage Therapy for FGFR3-Altered Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the efficacy of infigratinib, a potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, across lines of therapy (LOT) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mUC and prior platinum-based chemotherapy, unless contraindicated, and activating FGFR3 mutation/fusion. Patients received infigratinib 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) in a single-arm, open-label study. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response (BOR) that included unconfirmed responses, and overall survival (OS) were also assessed. Subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes by LOT was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 13 (19.4%) received infigratinib as early-line therapy for mUC due to ineligibility to receive platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall, ORR was 25.4% (95% CI 15.5-37.5) and DCR was 64.2% (95% CI 51.5-75.5). ORR was 30.8% (95% CI 9.1-61.4) with early-line infigratinib and 24.1% (95% CI 13.5-37.6) for ≥2 LOT. DCR was 46.2% (95% CI 19.2-74.9) for early-line and 68.5% (95% CI 54.4-80.5) for ≥2 LOT. PFS and OS appeared similar in both groups. Thirteen of 59 patients with a bladder primary tumor received early-line treatment with an ORR of 30.5% (95% CI 9.1-61.4), and 46 received ≥2 LOT with an ORR of 20.3% (95% CI 9.4-33.9); BOR was 38.5% (95% CI: 13.9-68.4%) and 42.6% (95% CI: 29.2-56.8%) in the early-line and salvage settings, respectively. Eight patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma received salvage therapy (ORR, 50.0%; DCR, 100.0%). No significant differences in toxicities between LOT were observed. CONCLUSION: Infigratinib has notable activity in patients with mUC regardless of LOT. The findings support the evaluation of infigratinib across different settings in mUC.

Phase 1b study of lenvatinib (E7080) in combination with temozolomide for treatment of advanced melanoma.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this phase 1b study, patients with stage 4 or unresectable stage 3 melanoma were treated with escalating doses of lenvatinib (once daily) and temozolomide (TMZ) (days 1-5) in 28-day cycles, to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. Dose Level (DL)1: lenvatinib 20 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m2; DL2: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m2; DL3: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 150 mg/m2. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and tumor response assessed per RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 1 of 32 treated patients (DL1); MTD was not reached. The highest dose administered was lenvatinib 24 mg + TMZ 150 mg/m2. Most common treatment-related AEs included fatigue (56.3%), hypertension (53.1%), and proteinuria (46.9%). Overall objective response rate was 18.8% (6 patients), all partial response; (DL1, n = 1; DL3, n = 5). Stable disease (SD) ≥ 16 weeks was observed in 28.1% of patients (DL1 and DL2, n = 1 each; DL3, n = 7); 12.5% of patients had SD ≥ 23 weeks. Single and repeat-dose pharmacokinetics of lenvatinib were comparable across cycles and with concomitant TMZ administration. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib 24 mg/day + TMZ 150 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) demonstrated modest clinical activity, an acceptable safety profile, and was administered without worsening of either lenvatinib- or TMZ-related toxicities in this patient group.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Multikinase Inhibitor Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors and in an Expanded Cohort of Patients with Melanoma.

PURPOSE: This "3+3" phase I study evaluated the safety, biologic, and clinical activity of lenvatinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Ascending doses of lenvatinib were administered per os twice daily in 28-day cycles. Safety and response were assessed for all patients. Angiogenic and apoptotic factors were tested as possible biomarkers in an expanded melanoma cohort. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were treated in 3 cohorts: 18 with intermittent twice-daily dosing (7 days on, 7 days off) of 0.1-3.2 mg; 33 with twice-daily dosing of 3.2-12 mg; and 26 with twice-daily dosing of 10 mg (expanded melanoma cohort). Maximum tolerated dose was established at 10 mg per os twice daily. Prominent drug-related toxicities included hypertension (43%), fatigue (42%), proteinuria (39%), and nausea (25%); dose-limiting toxicities included hypertension, fatigue, and proteinuria. Twelve patients (15.6%) achieved partial response (PR, n = 9) or unconfirmed PR (uPR, n = 3), and 19 (24.7%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥23 weeks. Total PR/uPR/SD ≥23 weeks was 40.3% (n = 31). Responses (PR/uPR) by disease were as follows: melanoma, 5 of 29 patients (includes 1 patient with NRAS mutation); thyroid, 3 of 6 patients; pancreatic, 1 of 2 patients; lung, 1 of 1 patients; renal, 1 of 1 patients; endometrial, 1 of 4 patients; and ovarian, 1 of 5 patients. AUC(0-24) and C(max) increased dose proportionally. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses, increased baseline systolic blood pressure and decreased angiopoietin-1 ratio (2 hours:baseline) were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the expanded melanoma cohort (P = 0.041 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of lenvatinib are encouraging. Decreases in the angiopoietin-1 ratio correlated with longer PFS in melanoma patients.

A phase 2 trial of lenvatinib (E7080) in advanced, progressive, radioiodine-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer: A clinical outcomes and biomarker assessment.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1 through 3 (VEGFR1-VEGFR3), fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4 (FGFR1-FGFR4), platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα), ret proto-oncogene (RET), and v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) signaling networks implicated in tumor angiogenesis. Positive phase 1 results in solid tumors prompted a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced, radioiodine-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with RR-DTC who had disease progression during the previous 12 months received lenvatinib 24 mg once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unmanageable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Previous VEGFR-targeted therapy was permitted. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) based on independent imaging review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Serum levels of 51 circulating cytokines and angiogenic factors also were assessed. RESULTS: After ≥14 months of follow-up, patients had an ORR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-63%) with only partial responses reported. The median time to response was 3.6 months, the median response duration was 12.7 months, and the median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.9-16.1 months). The ORR for patients who had received previous VEGF therapy (n = 17) was 59% (95% CI, 33%-82%). Lower baseline levels of angiopoietin-2 were suggestive of tumor response and longer PFS. Grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of their relation to treatment, occurred in 72% of patients and most frequently included weight loss (12%), hypertension (10%), proteinuria (10%), and diarrhea (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with and without prior exposure to VEGF therapy, the encouraging response rates, median time to response, and PFS for lenvatinib have prompted further investigation in a phase 3 trial. Cancer 2015;121:2749-2756. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Phase I comparability of recombinant human albumin and human serum albumin.

Recombinant human albumin (rHA) is a highly purified animal-, virus-, and prion-free product developed as an alternative to human serum albumin (HSA), to which it is structurally equivalent. The present investigation compared the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of rHA with HSA. Two double-blind, randomized trials were performed in healthy volunteers using intramuscular (IM) and intravenous (IV) administration. The IM trial included 500 volunteers, each receiving 5 repeat doses of 5 mg (100 subjects), 15 mg (100 subjects), or 65 mg (300 subjects) of rHA or HSA. Thirty volunteers participated in the IV trial, each receiving ascending doses (10 g, 20 g, and 50 g) of either rHA or HSA. In both trials, all adverse events were recorded and conventionally classified; potential allergic responses were also monitored. Blood samples were taken in both studies to test for IgG or IgE antibodies against test products and potential impurities. For the IV study, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments were performed, including measurement of serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and hematocrit pre- and postinfusion. Nine subjects in the IM study (4 recipients of rHA and 5 of HSA) reported drug-related, potentially allergic events; all but 2 of these were skin related. No serious or potentially allergic events were reported with either product in the IV study. There was no immunological response to either product, and dose level did not influence the study outcomes. Serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure changes, and hematocrit ratio were as expected, with no differences between rHA and HSA. rHA and HSA exhibited similar safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles, with no evidence of any immunological response.

Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil regarding hypnosis, tolerance of laryngoscopy, bispectral index, and electroencephalographic approximate entropy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to describe the pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil for probability of no response to shaking and shouting, probability of no response to laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and electroencephalographic approximate entropy (AE). METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers received either propofol or remifentanil alone and then concurrently with a fixed concentration of remifentanil or propofol, respectively, via a target-controlled infusion. Responses to shaking and shouting and to laryngoscopy were assessed multiple times after allowing for plasma effect site equilibration. The raw electroencephalogram and BIS were recorded throughout the study, and AE was calculated off-line. Response surfaces were fit to the clinical response data using logistic regression or hierarchical response models. Response surfaces were also estimated for BIS and AE. Surfaces were visualized using three-dimensional rotations. Model parameters were estimated with NONMEM. RESULTS: Remifentanil alone had no appreciable effect on response to shaking and shouting or response to laryngoscopy. Propofol could ablate both responses. Modest remifentanil concentrations dramatically reduced the concentrations of propofol required to ablate both responses. The hierarchical response surface described the data better than empirical logistic regression. BIS and AE are more sensitive to propofol than to remifentanil. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil alone is ineffective at ablating response to stimuli but demonstrates potent synergy with propofol. BIS and AE values corresponding to 95% probability of ablating response are influenced by the combination of propofol and remifentanil to achieve this endpoint, with higher propofol concentrations producing lower values for BIS and AE.

Mixed-effects modeling of the intrinsic ventilatory depressant potency of propofol in the non-steady state.

BACKGROUND: Despite the ubiquitous use of propofol for anesthesia and conscious sedation and numerous publications about its effect, a pharmacodynamic model for propofol-induced ventilatory depression in the non-steady state has not been described. To investigate propofol-induced ventilatory depression in the clinically important range (at and below the metabolic hyperbola while carbon dioxide is accumulating because of drug-induced ventilatory depression), the authors applied indirect effect modeling to Paco2 data at a fraction of inspired carbon dioxide of 0 during and after administration of propofol. METHODS: Ten volunteers underwent determination of their carbon dioxide responsiveness by a rebreathing design. The parameters of a power function were fitted to the end-expiratory carbon dioxide and minute ventilation data. The volunteers then received propofol in a stepwise ascending pattern with use of a target-controlled infusion pump until significant ventilatory depression occurred (end-tidal pressure of carbon dioxide > 65 mmHg and/or imminent apnea). Thereafter, the concentration was reduced to 1 microg/ml. Propofol pharmacokinetics and the Paco2 were determined from frequent arterial blood samples. An indirect response model with Bayesian estimates of the pharmacokinetics and carbon dioxide responsiveness in the absence of drug was used to describe the Paco2 time course. Because propofol reduces oxygen requirements and carbon dioxide production, a correction factor for propofol-induced decreasing of carbon dioxide production was included. RESULTS: The following pharmacodynamic parameters were found to describe the time course of hypercapnia after administration of propofol (population mean and interindividual variability expressed as coefficients of variation): F (gain of the carbon dioxide response), 4.37 +/- 36.7%; ke0, CO2, 0.95 min-1 +/- 59.8%; baseline Paco2, 40.9 mmHg +/- 12.8%; baseline minute ventilation, 6.45 l/min +/- 36.3%; kel, CO2, 0.11 min-1 +/- 34.2%; C50,propofol, 1.33 microg/ml +/- 49.6%; gamma, 1.68 +/- 21.3%. CONCLUSION: Propofol at common clinical concentrations is a potent ventilatory depressant. An indirect response model accurately described the magnitude and time course of propofol-induced ventilatory depression. The indirect response model can be used to optimize propofol administration to reduce the risk of significant ventilatory depression.

A model of the ventilatory depressant potency of remifentanil in the non-steady state.

BACKGROUND: The C50 of remifentanil for ventilatory depression has been previously determined using inspired carbon dioxide and stimulated ventilation, which may not describe the clinically relevant situation in which ventilatory depression occurs in the absence of inspired carbon dioxide. The authors applied indirect effect modeling to non-steady state Paco2 data in the absence of inspired carbon dioxide during and after administration of remifentanil. METHODS: Ten volunteers underwent determination of carbon dioxide responsiveness using a rebreathing design, and a model was fit to the end-expiratory carbon dioxide and minute ventilation. Afterwards, the volunteers received remifentanil in a stepwise ascending pattern using a computer-controlled infusion pump until significant ventilatory depression occurred (end-tidal carbon dioxide [Peco2] > 65 mmHg and/or imminent apnea). Thereafter, the concentration was reduced to 1 ng/ml. Remifentanil pharmacokinetics and Paco2 were determined from frequent arterial blood samples. An indirect response model was used to describe the Paco2 time course as a function of remifentanil concentration. RESULTS: The time course of hypercarbia after administration of remifentanil was well described by the following pharmacodynamic parameters: F (gain of the carbon dioxide response), 4.30; ke0 carbon dioxide, 0.92 min-1; baseline Paco2, 42.4 mmHg; baseline minute ventilation, 7.06 l/min; kel,CO2, 0.08 min-1; C50 for ventilatory depression, 0.92 ng/ml; Hill coefficient, 1.25. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil is a potent ventilatory depressant. Simulations demonstrated that remifentanil concentrations well tolerated in the steady state will cause a clinically significant hypoventilation following bolus administration, confirming the acute risk of bolus administration of fast-acting opioids in spontaneously breathing patients.