Ruxolitinib, a potent Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, resulted in rapid and durable improvements in splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms in the 2 phase III COMFORT studies. In addition, ruxolitinib ...was associated with prolonged survival compared with placebo (COMFORT-I) and best available therapy (COMFORT-II). We present a pooled analysis of overall survival in the COMFORT studies using an intent-to-treat analysis and an analysis correcting for crossover in the control arms. Overall, 301 patients received ruxolitinib (COMFORT-I, n=155; COMFORT-II, n=146) and 227 patients received placebo (n=154) or best available therapy (n=73). After a median three years of follow up, intent-to-treat analysis showed that patients who received ruxolitinib had prolonged survival compared with patients who received placebo or best available therapy hazard ratio=0.65; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.46-0.90; P=0.01; the crossover-corrected hazard ratio was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.13-0.63). Both patients with intermediate-2- or high-risk disease showed prolonged survival, and patients with high-risk disease in the ruxolitinib group had survival similar to that of patients with intermediate-2-risk disease in the control group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival at week 144 was 78% in the ruxolitinib arm, 61% in the intent-to-treat control arm, and 31% in the crossover-adjusted control arm. While larger spleen size at baseline was prognostic for shortened survival, reductions in spleen size with ruxolitinib treatment correlated with longer survival. These findings are consistent with previous reports and support that ruxolitinib offers a survival benefit for patients with myelofibrosis compared with conventional therapies. (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: COMFORT-I, NCT00952289; COMFORT-II, NCT00934544).
Ruxolitinib, a selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2, has clinically significant activity in myelofibrosis.
In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with intermediate-2 ...or high-risk myelofibrosis to twice-daily oral ruxolitinib (155 patients) or placebo (154 patients). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a reduction in spleen volume of 35% or more at 24 weeks, assessed by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary end points included the durability of response, changes in symptom burden (assessed by the total symptom score), and overall survival.
The primary end point was reached in 41.9% of patients in the ruxolitinib group as compared with 0.7% in the placebo group (P<0.001). A reduction in spleen volume was maintained in patients who received ruxolitinib; 67.0% of the patients with a response had the response for 48 weeks or more. There was an improvement of 50% or more in the total symptom score at 24 weeks in 45.9% of patients who received ruxolitinib as compared with 5.3% of patients who received placebo (P<0.001). Thirteen deaths occurred in the ruxolitinib group as compared with 24 deaths in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.98; P=0.04). The rate of discontinuation of the study drug because of adverse events was 11.0% in the ruxolitinib group and 10.6% in the placebo group. Among patients who received ruxolitinib, anemia and thrombocytopenia were the most common adverse events, but they rarely led to discontinuation of the drug (in one patient for each event). Two patients had transformation to acute myeloid leukemia; both were in the ruxolitinib group.
Ruxolitinib, as compared with placebo, provided significant clinical benefits in patients with myelofibrosis by reducing spleen size, ameliorating debilitating myelofibrosis-related symptoms, and improving overall survival. These benefits came at the cost of more frequent anemia and thrombocytopenia in the early part of the treatment period. (Funded by Incyte; COMFORT-I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00952289.).
In the phase III COMFORT-I study, the Janus kinase 1 (JAK1)/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib provided significant improvements in splenomegaly, key symptoms, and quality-of-life measures and was associated ...with an overall survival benefit relative to placebo in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. This planned analysis assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib at a median follow-up of 149 weeks. At data cutoff, approximately 50% of patients originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment whereas all patients originally assigned to placebo had discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib. At week 144, mean spleen volume reduction was 34% with ruxolitinib. Previously observed improvements in quality-of-life measures were sustained with longer-term ruxolitinib therapy. Overall survival continued to favor ruxolitinib despite the majority of placebo patients crossing over to ruxolitinib hazard ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.46-1.03); P = 0.067. Exploratory analyses suggest that crossover may have contributed to an underestimation of the true survival difference between the treatment groups. Ruxolitinib continued to be generally well tolerated; there was no pattern of worsening grade ≥ 3 anemia or thrombocytopenia with longer-term ruxolitinib exposure. These longer-term data continue to support the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00952289.
To assess the effects of ruxolitinib on symptom burden and quality of life (QoL) and to evaluate the ability of the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0 to measure meaningful ...changes in myelofibrosis-related symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis.
COMFORT-I (Controlled Myelofibrosis Study With Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment-I) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. Exploratory analyses were conducted on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments: modified MFSAF v2.0 (individual symptoms and Total Symptom Score TSS), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue Scale, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).
Patients receiving ruxolitinib experienced improvements in individual myelofibrosis-related symptoms, although patients receiving placebo experienced worsening (P < .001). The majority (91%) of ruxolitinib-treated patients designated as ≥ 50% TSS responders (≥ 50% TSS improvement) self-reported their condition as either "Much improved" or "Very much improved" on the PGIC. These patients achieved significant improvements in the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional domains and Global Health Status/QoL versus patients receiving placebo, who experienced worsening on these measures (P ≤ .0135). Ruxolitinib-treated patients with a lesser degree of symptom improvement (< 50% TSS responders) also achieved improvements over placebo on these measures. The degree of spleen volume reduction with ruxolitinib correlated with improvements in TSS, PGIC, PROMIS Fatigue Scale, and EORTC Global Health Status/QoL. Ruxolitinib-treated patients who achieved a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume experienced the greatest improvements in these PROs.
Ruxolitinib-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in myelofibrosis-related symptoms and QoL, but patients receiving placebo reported worsening of symptoms and other PROs.
The primary objectives of this trial were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to characterize the toxicities and pharmacokinetics of depsipeptide (FR901228) given on a day-1 and day-5 ...schedule every 21 days. A secondary objective of the trial was to seek evidence of antineoplastic activity.
Patients with advanced or refractory neoplasms received depsipeptide by a 4-h i.v. infusion on days 1 and 5 of a 21-day cycle. On the basis of preclinical data suggesting that depsipeptide may have significant cardiac toxicity, patients were treated while receiving continuous cardiac monitoring and were followed with serial cardiac enzyme determinations, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and nuclear ventriculograms (MUGA scans). The starting dose of the trial was 1 mg/m(2), and dose escalations proceeded through a total of eight dose levels to a maximum of 24.9 mg/m(2). Toxicities were graded using the National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria, and pharmacokinetics were determined using a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry method.
Patients (37) received a total of 88 cycles of treatment on study (range: one to eight cycles). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed, and the MTD exceeded at a dose of 24.9 mg/m(2). The DLTs included grade-3 fatigue (3 patients), grade-3 nausea and vomiting (1 patient), grade-4 thrombocytopenia (2 patients), and grade-4 cardiac arrhythmia (1 patient, atrial fibrillation). The MTD was defined at the seventh dose level (17.8 mg/m(2)). Reversible ST/T changes and mild reversible dysrhythmias were observed on the post-treatment ECG. There were no clinically significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction. One patient achieved a partial response. The plasma disposition of depsipeptide was well described by a first-order, two-compartment model. The mean volume of distribution, clearance, t(1/2alpha) and t(1/2beta) at a dose of 17.8 mg/m(2) was: 8.6 liters/m(2), 11.6 liters/h/m(2), 0.42 h, and 8.1 h, respectively. The mean maximum plasma concentration at the MTD was 472.6 ng/ml (range: 249-577.8 ng/ml). Biological assays showed that the serum levels achieved could cause the characteristic cell cycle effects of this agent when serum was added to PC3 cells in culture, as well as increased histone acetylation in patient-derived peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
The MTD of depsipeptide given on a day-1 and -5 schedule every 21 days is 17.8 mg/m(2). The DLTs are fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and transient thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Whereas cardiac toxicity was anticipated based on preclinical data, there was no evidence of myocardial damage. However, reversible ECG changes with ST/T wave flattening were regularly observed. Biologically active serum concentrations were achieved, and 1 patient obtained a partial response. The recommended Phase II dose is 17.8 mg/m(2) administered on day 1 and 5 of a 21-day cycle.
Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the
V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone ...has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling.
In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled 665 patients with
V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis.
The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group.
A combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and a higher response rate than standard therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the
V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).
Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in ...combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.
COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer AJCC stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38.
Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8–16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0–18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6–8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·41–0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 9% of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 7%), and hypertension (11 6%); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 14% of 192 patients), myalgia (19 10%), and arthralgia (18 9%); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 6% of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator.
Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma.
Array BioPharma, Novartis.
Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the ...results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival.
COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38.
Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9–37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4–39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0–24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 95% CI 0·47–0·79; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 9% of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 7%), and hypertension (12 6%); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 14% of 192 patients), myalgia (19 10%), and arthralgia (18 9%); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 6% of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment.
The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.
Array BioPharma, Novartis.
To determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of selective combination targeted therapy for
V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the safety lead-in phase of the open-label, ...randomized, three-arm, phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928224; European Union Clinical Trials Register identifier: EudraCT2015-005805-35).
Before initiation of the randomized portion of the BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial, 30 patients with
V600E-mutant mCRC who had experienced treatment failure with one or two prior regimens were to be recruited to a safety lead-in of encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, plus standard weekly cetuximab. The primary end point was safety, including the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Efficacy end points included overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival.
Among the 30 treated patients, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in five patients and included serous retinopathy (n = 2), reversible decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (n = 1), and cetuximab-related infusion reactions (n = 2). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), anemia (10%), increased creatine phosphokinase (10%), increased AST (10%), and urinary tract infections (10%). In 29 patients with
V600E-mutant tumors (one patient had a non-
V600E-mutant tumor and was not included in the efficacy analysis), the confirmed overall response rate was 48% (95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%), median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3 months), and median overall survival was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached), with median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 16.6 to 19.8 months).
In the safety lead-in, the safety and tolerability of the encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab regimen is manageable and acceptable for initiation of the randomized portion of the study. The observed efficacy is promising compared with available therapies and, if confirmed in the randomized portion of the trial, could establish this regimen as a new standard of care for previously treated
V600E-mutant mCRC.
Bisperoxovanadium (bpV) compounds are irreversible protein tyrosine phosphatase (PTP) inhibitors with a spectrum of activity distinct from that of vanadium salts. We studied the efficacy of a panel ...of bpVs as antineoplastic agents in vitro and in vivo with a view to investigating phosphatases as potential antineoplastic targets. The Cdc25A dual-specificity phosphatase is an oncoprotein required for progression through G(1)-S. It cooperates with oncogenic Ras to transform cells and is overexpressed in several cancers. Cdc25A is therefore an attractive candidate phosphatase target for the antineoplastic activity of bpV compounds. Cytotoxicity was examined in 28 cancer cell lines and in vivo efficacy was examined in a DA3 murine mammary carcinoma model. In vitro phosphatase assays were used to directly measure phosphatase inhibition, comparing Cdc25A to hVH2/DSP4, leukocyte antigen related/receptor type PTPF catalytic domain (LAR), Yersinia pestis phosphatase (YOPH), and T-cell PTPase/non-receptor type PTP2 (TCPTP). CDK2 activity and Rb phosphorylation were examined by immunocomplex kinase assays and Western blot. Cdc25A is at least 20-fold more sensitive to bpV inhibition than hVH2/DSP4, and 3- to 10- fold more sensitive than TCPTP and LAR. bpV inhibition of Cdc25A in cells leads to CDK2 inactivation and hypophosphorylation Rb, resulting in G1-S arrest and induction of p53-independent apoptosis. The most cytotoxic analogue, bpV4,7-dimethyl-1,10-phenanthroline-bisperoxo-oxo-vanadium (Me2Phen), shows submicromolar IC50s against a panel of cell lines and inhibited tumor growth by 80% in mice. These results demonstrate that bpVs may have significant antineoplastic activity. In addition, they are in vitro and in vivo inhibitors of phosphatases including Cdc25A, suggesting that phosphatases may be appropriate targets for novel antineoplastic agents and that further development of these agents, targeting them to specific phosphatases such as CDC25A, may lead to novel agents with enhanced antineoplastic activity.
PDF
