Early-drug development in the era of immuno-oncology: are we ready to face the challenges?

The classical development of drugs has progressively faded away, and we are currently in an era of seamless drug-development, where first-in-human trials include unusually big expansion cohorts in the search for early signs of activity and rapid regulatory approval. The fierce competition between different pharmaceutical companies and the hype for immune combinations obliges us to question the current way in which we are evaluating these drugs. In this review, we discuss critical issues and caveats in immunotherapy development. A particular emphasis is put on the limitations of pre-clinical toxicology studies, where both murine models and cynomolgus monkeys have underpredicted toxicity in humans. Moreover, relevant issues surrounding dose determination during phase I trials, such as dose-escalation methods or flat versus body-weight dosing, are discussed. A proposal of how to face these different challenges is offered, in order to achieve maximum efficacy with minimum toxicity for our patients.

Clinical research in small genomically stratified patient populations.

The paradigm of early drug development in cancer is shifting from 'histology-oriented' to 'molecularly oriented' clinical trials. This change can be attributed to the vast amount of tumour biology knowledge generated by large international research initiatives such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the use of next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques developed in recent years. However, targeting infrequent molecular alterations entails a series of special challenges. The optimal molecular profiling method, the lack of standardised biological thresholds, inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity, availability of enough tumour material, correct clinical trials design, attrition rate, logistics or costs are only some of the issues that need to be taken into consideration in clinical research in small genomically stratified patient populations. This article examines the most relevant challenges inherent to clinical research in these populations. Moreover, perspectives from the Academia point of view are reviewed as well as initiatives to be taken in forthcoming years.

Serum lactate dehydrogenase as an early marker for outcome in patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies is associated with high response rates in patients with advanced melanoma. Reliable markers for early response and outcome are still sparse. METHODS: We evaluated 66 consecutive patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab between 2013 and 2014. The main objectives of this study were to investigate whether, first, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) at baseline (normal vs above the upper limit of normal) correlates with overall survival (OS), and, second, whether the change of LDH during treatment predicts response before the first scan and OS in patients with an elevated baseline LDH. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 9 months, patients with an elevated baseline LDH (N=34) had a significantly shorter OS compared with patients with normal LDH (N=32; 6-month OS: 60.8% vs 81.6% and 12-month OS: 44.2% vs 71.5% (log-rank P=0.0292). In those 34 patients with elevated baseline LDH, the relative change during treatment was significantly associated with an objective response on the first scan: the 11 (32%) patients with partial remission had a mean reduction of -27.3% from elevated baseline LDH. In contrast, patients with progressive disease (N=15) had a mean increase of +39%. Patients with a relative increase over 10% from elevated baseline LDH had a significantly shorter OS compared with patients with ⩽ 10% change (4.3 vs 15.7 months, log-rank P<0.00623). CONCLUSIONS: LDH could be a useful marker at baseline and during treatment to predict early response or progression in patients with advanced melanoma who receive anti-PD-1 therapy.

Targeting protein kinase C in sarcoma.

Protein kinase C (PKC) is a family of serine/threonine tyrosine kinases that regulate many cellular processes including division, proliferation, survival, anoikis and polarity. PKC is abundant in many human cancers and aberrant PKC signalling has been demonstrated in cancer models. On this basis, PKC has become an attractive target for small molecule inhibition within oncology drug development programmes. Sarcoma is a heterogeneous group of mesenchymal malignancies. Due to their relative insensitivity to conventional chemotherapies and the increasing recognition of the driving molecular events of sarcomagenesis, sarcoma provides an excellent platform to test novel therapeutics. In this review we provide a structure-function overview of the PKC family, the rationale for targeting these kinases in sarcoma and the state of play with regard to PKC inhibition in the clinic.

Reversion of Hormone Treatment Resistance with the Addition of an mTOR Inhibitor in Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma.

Background. Endometrial stromal sarcomas (ESS) are a subtype of gynaecological sarcomas characterized by the overexpression of hormone receptors. Hormone treatment is widely used in ESS but primary or acquired resistance is common. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway has been suggested to play a key role in the mechanisms of hormone resistance. Recent studies in breast and prostate cancer demonstrate that this resistance can be reversed with the addition of an mTOR inhibitor. This phenomenon has never been reported in ESS. Methods. We report the outcome of one patient with pretreated, progressing low grade metastatic ESS treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate in combination with the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus. Results. Partial response was achieved following the addition of sirolimus to the hormone treatment. Response has been maintained for more than 2 years with minimal toxicity and treatment is ongoing. Conclusion. This case suggests that the resistance to the hormone manipulation in ESS can be reversed by the addition of an mTOR pathway inhibitor. This observation is highly encouraging and deserves further investigation.

Phase I study and preclinical efficacy evaluation of the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase I study in patients with advanced solid tumours to identify the recommended dose, assess pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamic activity and preclinical antitumour efficacy of the combination of sirolimus and gemcitabine. METHODS: Nineteen patients were treated with sirolimus 2 or 5 mg daily and gemcitabine 800 or 1000 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 8. Dose escalation depended on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate during the first 3-week period. Paired skin biopsies were evaluated for phosphorylated S6 (pS6) as marker of mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) inhibition. Pharmacokinetics and preclinical evaluation of efficacy using two different sarcoma cell lines and leiomyosarcoma xenografts were also conducted. RESULTS: Three DLTs were observed: grade 3 transaminitis, grade 3 thrombocytopenia and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Common treatment-related adverse events included anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and transaminitis. Pharmacodynamic analyses demonstrated mTOR inhibition with sirolimus 5 mg and PK showed no influence of sirolimus concentrations on gemcitabine clearance. In vitro and in vivo studies suggested mTOR pathway hyperactivation by gemcitabine that was reversed by sirolimus. Tumour growth in leiomyosarcoma xenografts was dramatically inhibited by the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended dose was sirolimus 5 mg per 24 h plus gemcitabine 800 mg m(-2). Antitumour activity in preclinical sarcoma models and mTOR signalling inhibition were observed. A phase II study is currently ongoing.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with ifosfamide in patients with advanced sarcoma: a Spanish group for research on sarcomas (GEIS) study.

BACKGROUND: This phase I trial assessed safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose (RD) of the combination of sorafenib plus ifosfamide in patients with advanced sarcoma. METHODS: Twelve sarcoma patients (9 soft-tissue, 3 bone sarcoma) were treated with sorafenib plus ifosfamide (starting doses 200 mg bid and 6 g/m(2) respectively). A 3 + 3 dose escalation design with cohorts of 3-6 patients was used. A study to assess the in vitro efficacy of the combination was also conducted. RESULTS: Three DLTs were observed: fatigue grade 4 with sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 6 g/m(2) and encephalopathy and emesis grade 3 with sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 7.5 g/m(2). Other toxicities included diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, neutropenia, skin rash and thrombocytopenia. There were no relevant effects on PK of sorafenib but an increase in ifosfamide active metabolite 4-hydroxy-ifosfamide was observed. Eight patients achieved stable disease lasting more than 12 weeks. An additive effect was observed in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: RD was sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 6 g/m(2), allowing administration of active doses of both agents. Limited preliminary antitumor activity was also observed. A phase II study is currently ongoing.