Purpose Patients with organ dysfunction, prior or concurrent malignancies, and comorbidities are often excluded from clinical trials. Excluding patients on the basis of these factors results in ...clinical trial participants who are healthier and younger than the overall population of patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research established a multidisciplinary working group that included experts in trial design and conduct to examine how eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The group analyzed current eligibility criteria; conducted original data analysis; considered safety concerns, potential benefits, research, and potential hurdles of this approach through discussion; and reached consensus on recommendations regarding updated eligibility criteria that prioritize inclusiveness without compromising patient safety. Results If renal toxicity and clearance are not of direct treatment-related concern, then patients with lower creatinine clearance values of > 30 mL/min should be included in trials. Inclusion of patients with mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction may be possible when the totality of the available nonclinical and clinical data indicates that inclusion is safe. Ejection fraction values should be used with investigator assessment of a patient's risk for heart failure to determine eligibility. Patients with laboratory parameters out of normal range as a result of hematologic disease should be included in trials. Measures of patient functional status should be included in trials to better assess fit versus frail patients. Conclusion Expanding inclusion of these patients will increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and result in a more appropriate population of patients.
Summary
Background
Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) promote tumor growth, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance via colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), acting through CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) ...signaling. This phase 1 study determined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the anti–CSF-1R antibody LY3022855 in solid tumors.
Methods
Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were enrolled and treated in 2 dosing cohorts: weight-based (part A) and non–weight-based (part B). Part A patients were assigned to intravenous (IV) dose-escalation cohorts: 2.5 mg/kg once per week (QW), 0.3 mg/kg QW, 0.6 mg/kg QW, 1.25 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) and 1.25 mg/kg QW doses of LY3022855. Non–weight-based doses in part B were 100 mg and 150 mg IV QW.
Results
Fifty-two patients (mean age 58.6 ± 10.4 years) were treated with ≥1 dose of LY3022855 (range: 4–6). Five dose-limiting toxicities (left ventricular dysfunction, anemia, pancreatitis, rhabdomyolysis, and acute kidney injury) occurred in 4 patients. The non–weight-based 100 mg QW dose was established as the RP2D. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were increase in liver function variables, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, pyrexia, increased lipase, amylase, and lactate dehydrogenase. Clearance decreased with increasing dose and weight-based dosing had minimal effect on pharmacokinetics. Serum CSF-1, and IL-34 levels increased at higher doses and more frequent dosing, whereas TAMs and CD14dimCD16bright levels decreased. Three patients achieved stable disease. No responses were seen.
Conclusions
LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed dose-dependent pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics and limited clinical activity in a heterogenous solid tumor population.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01346358
(Registration Date: May 3, 2011).
Evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetic profile, pharmacodynamic effects, and antitumor activity of the first-in-class investigational NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE) inhibitor pevonedistat ...(TAK-924/MLN4924) in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma or multiple myeloma.
Patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma (n = 17) or lymphoma (n = 27) received intravenous pevonedistat 25 to 147 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, 8, 9 (schedule A; n = 27) or 100 to 261 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, 11 (schedule B; n = 17) of 21-day cycles.
Maximum tolerated doses were 110 mg/m(2) (schedule A) and 196 mg/m(2) (schedule B). Dose-limiting toxicities included febrile neutropenia, transaminase elevations, muscle cramps (schedule A), and thrombocytopenia (schedule B). Common adverse events included fatigue and nausea. Common grade ≥3 events were anemia (19%; schedule A), and neutropenia and pneumonia (12%; schedule B). Clinically significant myelosuppression was uncommon. There were no treatment-related deaths. Pevonedistat pharmacokinetics exhibited a biphasic disposition phase and approximate dose-proportional increases in systemic exposure. Consistent with the short mean elimination half-life of approximately 8.5 hours, little-to-no drug accumulation in plasma was seen after multiple dosing. Pharmacodynamic evidence of NAE inhibition included increased skin levels of CDT-1 and NRF-2 (substrates of NAE-dependent ubiquitin ligases), and increased NRF-2-regulated gene transcript levels in whole blood. Pevonedistat-NEDD8 adduct was detected in bone marrow aspirates, indicating pevonedistat target engagement in the bone marrow compartment. Three lymphoma patients had partial responses; 30 patients achieved stable disease.
Pevonedistat demonstrated anticipated pharmacodynamic effects in the clinical setting, a tolerable safety profile, and some preliminary evidence that may be suggestive of the potential for activity in relapsed/refractory lymphoma.
Osimertinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), undergoes significant hepatic elimination. In this phase 1 study, we assessed the effects of mild and moderate ...hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of osimertinib in patients with malignant solid tumors. In part A, patients with normal hepatic function, mild hepatic impairment, and moderate hepatic impairment, according to the Child-Pugh classification, received a single 80 mg oral dose of osimertinib. Standard PK measures were assessed. In part B, patients could continue osimertinib treatment if deemed clinically appropriate. We compared these study results with a population PK analysis including other osimertinib clinical studies. Geometric mean osimertinib plasma concentrations were lower in patients with mild (
= 7) or moderate hepatic impairment (
= 5) versus normal hepatic function (
= 10):
was reduced to 51% and 61%, respectively; area under the curve was reduced to 63% and 68%, respectively. PK results for the metabolites were similar. No apparent differences in the safety profile were found between patients with normal hepatic function and patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. Comparison of these study results with National Cancer Institute-Organ Dysfunction Working Group criteria from population PK analysis showed osimertinib exposure was not affected by hepatic impairment. No dose adjustment is required for osimertinib when treating patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. No apparent differences in the safety of osimertinib were found between patients with normal hepatic function and mild or moderate hepatic impairment.
Washout periods and concomitant medication exclusions are common in cancer clinical trial protocols. These exclusion criteria are often applied inconsistently and without evidence to justify their ...use. The authors sought to determine how washout period and concomitant medication allowances can be broadened to speed trial enrollment and improve the generalizability of trial data to a larger oncology practice population without compromising the safety of trial participants.
A multistakeholder working group was convened to define problems associated with excessively long washout periods and exclusion of patients due to concomitant medications. The group performed a literature search and evaluated study data from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, GA), and the FDA to understand recent approaches to these eligibility criteria. The group convened to develop consensus recommendations for broadened eligibility criteria.
The data analysis found that exclusion criteria based on washout periods and concomitant medications are frequently inconsistent and lack scientific rationale. Scientific rationale for appropriate eligibility criteria are presented in the article; for washout periods, rationale is presented by treatment type.
Arbitrary or blanket washout and concomitant medication exclusions should be eliminated. Where there is evidence to support them, clinically relevant washout periods and concomitant medication-related eligibility criteria may be included.
.
BackgroundTo determine the safety and efficacy of the anti-colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (anti-CSF1R) monoclonal antibody AMG 820 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with select ...solid tumors.Patients and methodsPatients had advanced, refractory mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with low (<50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and were naïve to anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 or had relapsed/refractory NSCLC after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment with low or high (≥50%) PD-L1 expression; all were anti-CSF1/CSF1R naïve. Patients received 1100 mg or 1400 mg AMG 820 plus 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs) and objective response rate per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours at the recommended combination dose.ResultsOverall, 116 patients received ≥1 dose of AMG 820 plus pembrolizumab (18 at 1400 mg AMG 820; 98 at 1100 mg AMG 820). Most patients (64%) were male; the median age was 64 (range 30–86) years. Seven patients had DLTs (1 at 1400 mg AMG 820; 6 at 1100 mg AMG 820). Almost all patients (99.1%) had AEs, 87.9% with grade ≥3 AEs. The most common AEs were increased aspartate aminotransferase (59.5%), fatigue (48.3%), periorbital/face edema (48.3%), and rash/maculopapular rash (37.1%). The best response was immune-related partial response in 3 patients (3%; duration of response 9.2, 10.0, 12.5 months) and immune-related stable disease in 39 patients (34%). None of the completed phase II cohorts met the predefined threshold for efficacy. Post-treatment there was accumulation of serum colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) and interleukin-34, reduction in CSF1-dependent CD16-expressing monocytes, and increased PD-L1 expression and CD4 and CD8 cell numbers in tumor biopsies.ConclusionsThe recommended combination dose of 1100 mg AMG 820 plus 200 mg pembrolizumab had an acceptable safety profile. Although pharmacodynamic effects were observed, antitumor activity was insufficient for further evaluation of this combination in selected patient populations.Trial registration numberNCT02713529
SNS-032 is a highly selective and potent inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks) 2, 7, and 9, with in vitro growth inhibitory effects and ability to induce apoptosis in malignant B cells. A ...phase I dose-escalation study of SNS-032 was conducted to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of mechanism-based pharmacodynamic (PD) activity, and clinical efficacy.
Parallel cohorts of previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM) received SNS-032 as a loading dose followed by 6-hour infusion weekly for 3 weeks of each 4-week course.
There were 19 patients with CLL and 18 with MM treated. Tumor lysis syndrome was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) for CLL, the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 75 mg/m(2), and the most frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicity was myelosuppression. One patient with CLL had more than 50% reduction in measurable disease without improvement in hematologic parameters. Another patient with low tumor burden had stable disease for four courses. For patients with MM, no DLT was observed and MTD was not identified at up to 75 mg/m(2), owing to early study closure. Two patients with MM had stable disease and one had normalization of spleen size with treatment. Biomarker analyses demonstrated mechanism-based PD activity with inhibition of Cdk7 and Cdk9, decreases in Mcl-1 and XIAP expression level, and associated CLL cell apoptosis.
SNS-032 demonstrated mechanism-based target modulation and limited clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with CLL and MM. Further single-agent, PD-based, dose and schedule modification is warranted to maximize clinical efficacy.
Background:
With increasing numbers of oncology biosimilars in the approval pipeline, it is important to investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need ...prior to adoption.
Methods:
Between January and May 2018, 77 oncology clinicians (52 physicians, 16 pharmacists, and 9 advanced practice providers) completed a survey covering three domains: clinician understanding, prescription preferences, and patient involvement. An in-depth interview was designed based on themes identified in the first 50 surveys: cost, safety and efficacy, patient preference, and disease stage. Participants were chosen to participate in the interview based on outlying responses to survey questions.
Results:
When asked to define a biosimilar, 74% (57/77) of respondents could not give a satisfactory definition, and 40.3% (31/77) considered a biosimilar the same as a generic drug. The most important factor in biosimilar prescription was safety and efficacy (4.51 out of 5) followed closely by cost differences (4.34 out of 5). A 40% increase (53.2–94.8%) in clinicians’ prescribing likelihood was seen after a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable. Participants in this study were split regarding the importance of shared decision-making with patients 50.7% (39/77) important or extremely important, 39.0% (30/77) somewhat or not at all important. Clinicians were also split concerning the role that pharmacists should play in the decision to prescribe or substitute biosimilars.
Conclusion:
Understanding of biosimilars is low, and educational needs are high. The information that clinicians deem important to assess, such as safety, efficacy and cost, will need to be provided before they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars.
PDF
