Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS, 16.4 vs 9.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.553) and overall survival (OS, 46.7 vs 37.3 months; HR 0.757) compared with placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients who were endocrine therapy (ET) resistant, regardless of menopausal status. Here, we report findings in the premenopausal subgroup of the MONARCH 2 trial. METHODS: The premenopausal subgroup included patients with natural menstrual bleeding who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist at least 4 weeks prior to study treatment start date and for the entire study duration. Of the 669 patients enrolled in the MONARCH 2 trial, 114 were premenopausal (abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, n = 72; placebo plus fulvestrant, n = 42), and were included in this analysis. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS and secondary objectives were OS, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Exploratory analyses included time to second disease progression (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS). RESULTS: At the primary objective cutoff (February 14, 2017), median PFS was not reached for the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm versus 10.52 months for the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.415; 95% CI 0.246-0.698). At the pre-specified OS interim cutoff (20-June-2019), median PFS was 28.6 months in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm compared with 10.26 months in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.477; 95% CI 0.302-0.755). A numerical OS benefit was observed with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone (HR 0.689; 95% CI 0.379-1.252, median, not reached vs 47.3 months). Improvements were also observed for the exploratory outcomes of PFS2 (HR 0.599), TTC (HR 0.674), and CFS (HR 0.642) with the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant. The safety profile was generally consistent with results disclosed previously. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the premenopausal subgroup in the MONARCH 2 trial were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes observed in the intent-to-treat population. The analysis provides support for the use of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (with ovarian suppression) as an effective treatment option for premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- ABC who are ET-resistant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02107703. Registered April 08, 2014- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703 .

MONARCH 2: Subgroup Analysis of Patients Receiving Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant as First-Line and Second-Line Therapy for HR+, HER2--Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2- advanced breast cancer. This exploratory analysis assessed the efficacy of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant across subgroups of patients receiving study therapy as first- or second-line treatment for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Improvements were estimated using Cox models, and a test of interactions of subgroups with treatment was performed. RESULTS: The benefit in PFS [first-line, HR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.73; second-line, HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.64] and OS (first-line, HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.14; second-line, HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.94) was observed across both subgroups, consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In first-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 265; placebo arm, n = 133), the numerically largest effect on PFS and OS was observed in patients with primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET; PFS, HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63; OS, HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.97) and visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73; OS, HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). In second-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 170; placebo arm, n = 86), a numerical benefit in PFS and OS was observed across primary and secondary ET resistance, with numerically more pronounced effects observed in patients with visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; OS, HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81). Prolongation of time to second disease progression, time to chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-free survival was observed in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the ITT population, a benefit in PFS and OS was observed across the first- and second-line subgroups in MONARCH 2.

A Randomized Phase III Study of Abemaciclib Versus Erlotinib in Patients with Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With a Detectable KRAS Mutation Who Failed Prior Platinum-Based Therapy: JUNIPER.

INTRODUCTION: JUNIPER compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, with erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring a Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutation. METHODS: JUNIPER was a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of abemaciclib versus erlotinib in patients with stage IV NSCLC and a detectable mutation in codons 12 or 13 of the KRAS oncogene, who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and 1 additional therapy (could include immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy). Randomized patients (3:2) received either 200 mg abemaciclib twice daily or 150 mg erlotinib once daily with best supportive care until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. RESULTS: Between December 2014 and April 2017, 453 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib (N = 270) or erlotinib (N = 183). Median OS was 7.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.5, 8.8) with abemaciclib and 7.8 months (95% CI: 6.4, 9.5) with erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.968 [95% CI: 0.768, 1.219]; p = .77). Median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) with abemaciclib and 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.9, 2.0) with erlotinib (HR = 0.583 [95% CI: 0.470, 0.723]; p <.000001). ORR was 8.9% and 2.7% (p = .010), and the disease control rate was 54.4% and 31.7% (p <.001) with abemaciclib and erlotinib, respectively. Safety results reflected the known safety profiles of abemaciclib and erlotinib. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the primary endpoint of OS was not met; PFS and ORR were improved with manageable toxicity in the abemaciclib arm. The increases in response rates and PFS support further investigation of abemaciclib in other NSCLC subpopulations or in combination with other agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02152631.

The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on Overall Survival in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer That Progressed on Endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02. RESULTS: Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703.

A randomized, phase 2 evaluation of the CHK1 inhibitor, LY2603618, administered in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

This phase 2 portion of a phase 1/2 study examined the efficacy and safety of LY2603618, a selective checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin (LY+Pem+Cis) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT01139775) enrolled patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized (2:1) to LY+Pem+Cis or pemetrexed and cisplatin (Pem+Cis). Induction therapy comprised four 21-day cycles of 500 mg/m2 pemetrexed and 75mg/m2 cisplatin on Day 1 (both arms) and 275mg LY2603618 on Day 2 (LY+Pem+Cis arm). Maintenance therapy comprised 500mg/m2 pemetrexed on Day 1 (both arms) and 275mg LY2603618 on Day 2 (LY+Pem+Cis arm) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Enrollment was permanently halted before target enrollment was met due to a greater number of thromboembolic events in the LY+Pem+Cis arm. Sixty-two patients were enrolled (LY+Pem+Cis, n=39; Pem+Cis, n=23). Bayesian and frequentist analysis demonstrated superior PFS in the LY+Pem+Cis arm vs the Pem+Cis arm (median [90% confidence interval]: LY+Pem+Cis, 4.7 months [4.-7.1]; Pem+Cis, 1.5 months [1.3-2.9]; P=0.022). Seven patients in the LY+Pem+Cis arm (vs 0 in the Pem+Cis arm) experienced serious thromboembolic events: pulmonary embolism (n=5), ischemic stroke (n=1), and cerebrovascular accident (n=1). Although the primary endpoint was met, the combination of LY2603618+Pem+Cis will not be further developed for treating advanced nonsquamous NSCLC due to the potential increased risk of thromboembolic events with this combination. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01139775.

A phase II study to evaluate LY2603618 in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether checkpoint kinase 1 inihibitor (CHK1), LY2603618, and gemcitabine prolong overall survival (OS) compared to gemcitabine alone in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with Stage II-IV locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized (2:1) to either 230 mg of LY2603618/1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine combined or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone. OS was assessed using both a Bayesian augment control model and traditional frequentist analysis for inference. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [AEs] v 3.0) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (n = 65, LY2603618/gemcitabine; n = 34, gemcitabine) were randomized (intent-to-treat population). The median OS (months) was 7.8 (range, 0.3-18.9) with LY2603618/gemcitabine and 8.3 (range, 0.8-19.1+) with gemcitabine. Similarly, in a Bayesian analysis, the study was not positive since the posterior probability that LY2603618/gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine in improving OS was 0.3, which did not exceed the prespecified threshold of 0.8. No significant improvements in PFS, ORR, or duration of response were observed. Drug-related treatment-emergent AEs in both arms included nausea, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and neutropenia. The severity of AEs with LY2603618/gemcitabine was comparable to gemcitabine. The LY2603618 exposure targets (AUC(0-∞) ≥21,000 ng∙hr/mL and Cmax ≥2000 ng/mL) predicted for maximum pharmacodynamic response were achieved after 230 mg of LY2603618. CONCLUSIONS: LY2603618/gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00839332 . Clinicaltrials.gov. Date of registration: 6 February 2009.

Phase I Study of CHK1 Inhibitor LY2603618 in Combination with Gemcitabine in Patients with Solid Tumors.

OBJECTIVE: LY2603618, a selective inhibitor of checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) and key regulator of the DNA damage checkpoint, may enhance the effects of antimetabolites. This phase I study defined the recommended phase II dose of LY2603618 combined with gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced/metastatic disease were administered doses of LY2603618 (70-250 mg/m2 or flat-fixed doses of 200 or 230 mg) after gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2). Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 50 patients enrolled, frequent adverse events possibly related to study drug treatment included fatigue (44%), decreased platelets (42%), decreased neutrophils (32%), nausea (26%), and decreased hemoglobin (20%). Systemic exposure of LY2603618 increased dose dependently, while clearance was relatively dose independent. The mean LY2603618 half-life varied; however, the durations were still suitable for maintaining human exposures while minimizing accumulation. LY2603618 PK were not altered by gemcitabine administration. Plasma exposures that correlate with the maximal pharmacodynamic effect in nonclinical models were achieved for all doses. One patient with non-small cell lung cancer carcinoma achieved a partial response; 22 patients had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose of LY2603618 combined with gemcitabine was 200 mg/m2, but a fixed LY2603618 dose of 230 mg combined with gemcitabine was selected as the recommended phase II dose.

Treatment Rationale and Study Design for the JUNIPER Study: A Randomized Phase III Study of Abemaciclib With Best Supportive Care Versus Erlotinib With Best Supportive Care in Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With a Detectable KRAS Mutation Whose Disease Has Progressed After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for the JUNIPER study (NCT02152631). JUNIPER is a randomized study of abemaciclib (200 mg orally every 12 hours) with best supportive care (BSC) versus erlotinib (150 mg orally every 24 hours) with BSC in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have detectable Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations and whose disease has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and 1 other previous therapy, or who are not eligible for further chemotherapy. Approximately 550 patients will be randomized in a 3:2 ratio and stratified according to number of previous chemotherapy regimens (1 vs. 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs. 1), sex (male vs. female), and KRAS mutation (G12C vs. others). Erlotinib was chosen as the control arm, because it is the only agent indicated for second- and third-line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs, with assessments every 28 days, followed by short-term and long-term follow-up. The coprimary efficacy objectives of this study are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary objectives are overall response rate, changes in patient-reported pain and disease-related symptoms, changes in health status, resource utilization, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. This design has 80% power to detect OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (type I error 0.045) and PFS HR of 0.67 (type I error 0.005). If the coprimary objectives (OS and PFS) are achieved, this study will provide a new alternative third-line treatment option for patients with NSCLC whose tumors have detectable KRAS mutations.

A randomised phase 2 study combining LY2181308 sodium (survivin antisense oligonucleotide) with first-line docetaxel/prednisone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is partially characterised by overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins, such as survivin. In this phase 2 study, patients with metastatic CRPC (n=154) were randomly assigned (1:2 ratio) to receive standard first-line docetaxel/prednisone (control arm) or the combination of LY2181308 with docetaxel/prednisone (experimental arm). The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) for LY2181308 plus docetaxel. Secondary efficacy measures included overall survival (OS), several predefined prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-derived end points, and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scores. The median PFS of treated patients for the experimental arm (n=98) was 8.64 mo (90% confidence interval [CI], 7.39-10.45) versus 9.00 mo (90% CI, 7.00-10.09) in the control arm (n=51; p=0.755). The median OS for the experimental arm was 27.04 mo (90% CI, 19.94-33.41) compared with 29.04 mo (90% CI, 20.11-39.26; p=0.838). The PSA responses (≥ 50% PSA reduction), BPI, and FACT-P scores were similar in both arms. In the experimental arm, patients had a numerically higher incidence of grades 3-4 neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and sensory neuropathy. In conclusion, this study failed to detect a difference in efficacy between the two treatment groups.

Phase I dose-escalation study to examine the safety and tolerability of LY2603618, a checkpoint 1 kinase inhibitor, administered 1 day after pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I study aims at assessing the safety and tolerability of LY2603618, a selective inhibitor of Checkpoint Kinase 1, in combination with pemetrexed and determining the maximum tolerable dose and the pharmacokinetic parameters. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was an open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced solid tumors. Increasing doses of LY2603618 (40-195 mg/m(2)) were combined with 500 mg/m(2) of pemetrexed. LY2603618 was administered on Days 1 and 9 and pemetrexed on Day 8 in a 28-day cycle. For all subsequent 21-day cycles, pemetrexed was administered on Day 1 and LY2603618 on Day 2. Antitumor activity was evaluated as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were enrolled into six cohorts (three at 40 mg/m(2) over 4.5-hour infusion, 1-hour infusion in subsequent cohorts: three each at 40 mg/m(2), 70 mg/m(2), and 195 mg/m(2); 13 at 105 mg/m(2); six at 150 mg/m(2)). Four patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity: diarrhea (105 mg/m(2)); reversible infusion-related reaction (150 mg/m(2)); thrombocytopenia (195 mg/m(2)); and fatigue (195 mg/m(2)). The maximum tolerated dose was defined as 150 mg/m(2). The pharmacokinetic data demonstrated that the exposure of LY2603618 increased in a dose-dependent manner, displayed a suitable half-life for maintaining required human exposures while minimizing the intra- and inter-cycle accumulation, and was unaffected by the pemetrexed administration. The pharmacokinetic-defined biologically efficacious dose was achieved at doses ≥105 mg/m(2). CONCLUSION: LY2603618 administered approximately 24 h after pemetrexed showed acceptable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles.

Withholding/withdrawal of life support in trauma patients: is there an age bias?

Our objective was to examine patterns of withholding/withdrawal (WH/WD) of life support in trauma patients and to determine whether WD/WH of life support is used more frequently in elderly patients. This is a retrospective cohort study of injured elderly (> or = 65 years) and young patients (< 65 years) from 1994 through 1998 treated at a surgical intensive care unit in a community tertiary-care hospital. We studied the cases of 82 patients (30 elderly and 52 young patients) with WH/WD of life support after injury. Our main outcome measures were demographic and clinical characteristics of elderly and young patients undergoing WH/WD of life support after injury with an association between age and WH/WD of life support. Of 102 total trauma patient deaths 82 had WH/WD of life support. This mode was chosen in 52 (80%) patients under the age of 65 and in 30 (81%) patients age 65 or greater. Patients in the younger cohort had a higher mean Injury Severity Score and Abbreviated Injury Score of 5 (P < 0.05). The elderly cohort had a higher incidence of pre-existing disease (< 0.001). Length of stay was similar between the populations. We conclude that the elderly were no more likely to have WH/WD of life support than were younger patients. However, the older patients were less severely injured as measured by Injury Severity Score and percentage with Abbreviated Injury Score head of 5. Other factors such as the presence of pre-existing disease may influence the decision to withhold or withdraw life support to a greater degree than the actual severity of injuries.