A phase 1b study of trametinib,an oral Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor,in combination with gemcitabine in advanced solid tumours

PurposeThis phase 1b study determined the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule of trametinib in combination with gemcitabine. Secondary objectives included assessment of clinical activity and steady-state pharmacokinetics.MethodsAdults with advanced solid tumours, adequate organ function and Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ? 1 were eligible. Once-daily oral trametinib (1 mg, 2 mg, 2.5 mg) was escalated in a 3 + 3 design with standard gemcitabine dosing (1000 mg/m² IV Days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles). During expansion, trametinib 2 mg was combined with gemcitabine. Pharmacokinetics samples were collected on Day 15 pre-dose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 h post-dose; tumour assessments were repeated every two cycles.ResultsBetween 8/2009 and 11/2010, 31 patients (pancreas = 11, breast = 6, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) = 4, other = 10) were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in each cohort, and included febrile neutropenia, transaminase elevation and uveitis. The RP2D was declared as trametinib 2 mg daily with standard gemcitabine dosing. Common grade 3/4 toxicities at the RP2D included: neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (19%) and transaminase elevation (14%). Of 10 patients with measurable pancreatic cancer, three partial responses (30%) were documented; two additional patients achieved objective responses (breast, complete response (CR); salivary glands, partial response (PR)). Pharmacokinetics suggested no change in exposures of either drug in combination.ConclusionAdministration of trametinib at its full monotherapy dose of 2 mg daily in combination with standard gemcitabine dosing (1000 mg/m² IV Days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) was feasible. Though most toxicities were manageable, the addition of trametinib may increase gemcitabine-associated myelosuppression. Future studies of this combination will require monitoring to maintain dose and schedule.     

PACMEL: A phase 1 dose escalation trial of trametinib (GSK1120212) in combination with paclitaxel

BackgroundWe sought to determine the maximal tolerated dose of the MEK inhibitor trametinib with weekly paclitaxel, with a view to exploring the combination’s activity in melanoma lacking a BRAF V600 mutation.MethodsIn this phase 1 study we used a fixed dose of paclitaxel (80 mg/m² intravenous (IV) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 4 week cycle) and escalated the dose of trametinib (to a maximum 2 mg orally (PO) daily), following a 3 + 3 design. Eligible patients had advanced melanoma and could have received up to two previous lines of treatment for metastatic disease.Findings15 patients were enrolled, all but one of whose melanoma was wild type for BRAF at codon 600. The maximal monotherapy dose of trametinib proved tolerable with weekly paclitaxel. The most frequent adverse events observed were rash and fatigue. Six (40%) partial responses were reported, including four of eight patients with NRAS mutations. Median progression free survival was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–7.8 months) and overall survival, 14.1 months (95% CI 4.6–not reached).InterpretationTrametinib can safely be given with weekly paclitaxel at the full monotherapy dose. In this small group promising progression free and overall survival were observed in patients with melanoma lacking a V600 BRAF mutation.     

A phase 3 randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial

This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The study was stopped after a preplanned futility analysis indicated a positive outcome was unlikely at primary analysis. Ganitumab plus gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS versus gemcitabine alone in unselected patients.BackgroundThis double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77–1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab.ConclusionGanitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.     

Fulvestrant with or without selumetinib,a MEK 1/2 inhibitor,in breast cancer progressing after aromatase inhibitor therapy: A multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind phase II trial,SAKK 21/08

BackgroundSecond line endocrine therapy has limited antitumour activity. Fulvestrant inhibits and downregulates the oestrogen receptor. The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is one of the major cascades involved in resistance to endocrine therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant with selumetinib, a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, in advanced stage breast cancer progressing after aromatase inhibitor (AI).Patients and methodsThis randomised phase II trial included postmenopausal patients with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. They were ramdomised to fulvestrant combined with selumetinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) in the experimental arm. ClinicalTrials.gov Indentifier: NCT01160718.ResultsFollowing the planned interim efficacy analysis, recruitment was interrupted after the inclusion of 46 patients (23 in each arm), because the selumetinib–fulvestrant arm did not reach the pre-specified DCR. DCR was 23% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8–45%) in the selumetinib arm and 50% (95% CI 27–75%) in the placebo arm. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 1.9–5.8) in the selumetinib arm and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.4–13.6) in the placebo arm. Median time to treatment failure was 5.1 (95% CI 2.3–6.7) and 5.6 (95% CI 3.4–10.2) months, respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events observed in the selumetinib–fulvestrant arm were skin disorders, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, oedema, diarrhoea, mouth disorders and muscle disorders.ConclusionsThe addition of selumetinib to fulvestrant did not show improving patients’ outcome and was poorly tolerated at the recommended monotherapy dose. Selumetinib may have deteriorated the efficacy of the endocrine therapy in some patients.     

Phase I study of twice-weekly gemcitabine and concomitant external-beam radiotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

To determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity associated with twice-weekly gemcitabine and concomitant external-beam radiotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Twenty-one patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with external-beam radiotherapy to a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, concurrent with gemcitabine, infused over 30 min before irradiation on a Monday and Thursday schedule. The dose of gemcitabine was escalated in 5 cohorts of 3–6 patients each. Initial gemcitabine dose was 10 mg/m², with dose escalation until dose-limiting toxicity was observed.

The maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine was 50 mg/m², when given in a twice-weekly schedule with radiation. Dose-limiting toxicity was seen in 2 patients at 60 mg/m², and consisted of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding approximately 1 month after completion of treatment. Six patients had radiographic evidence of response to treatment, and 5 of these underwent complete surgical resection. Three patients who underwent complete resection had been deemed to have unresectable tumors before enrollment on trial. Four patients are alive, including 2 without evidence of disease more than 1 year after resection.

The combination of external-beam radiation and twice-weekly gemcitabine at a dose of 50 mg/m² is well tolerated and shows promising activity for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Our data suggest a higher maximum tolerated dose and different dose-limiting toxicity than previously reported. Further investigation of this regimen is warranted.     

Phase I dose-escalation trial of the oral AKT inhibitor uprosertib in combination with the oral MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with solid tumors

This study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II doses of trametinib plus uprosertib (GSK2141795) in patients with solid tumors likely to be sensitive to MEK and/or AKT inhibition. This was a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study in patients with triple-negative breast cancer or BRAF-wild type advanced melanoma. The primary outcome of the expansion study was investigator-assessed response. Among 126 enrolled patients, 63 received continuous oral daily dosing of trametinib and uprosertib, 29 received various alternative dosing schedules, and 34 were enrolled into expansion cohorts. Doses tested in the expansion cohort were trametinib 1.5 mg once daily (QD) + uprosertib 50 mg QD. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with those reported in monotherapy studies but occurred at lower doses and with greater severity. Diarrhea was the most common dose-limiting toxicity; diarrhea and rash were particularly difficult to tolerate. Overall, 59% and 6% of patients reported AEs with a maximum severity of grade 3 and 4, respectively. Poor tolerability prevented adequate delivery of uprosertib with trametinib at a concentration predicted to have clinical activity. The study was terminated early based on futility in the continuous-dosing expansion cohorts and a lack of pharmacological or therapeutic advantage with intermittent dosing. The objective response rate was < 5% (1 complete response, 5 partial responses). Continuous and intermittent dosing of trametinib in combination with uprosertib was not tolerated, and minimal clinical activity was observed in all schedules tested.     

Development of peripheral neuropathy and its association with survival during treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: A subset analysis from a randomised phase III trial (MPACT)

BackgroundIn a phase III trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/Gem) demonstrated greater efficacy but higher rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) versus Gem. This exploratory analysis aimed to characterise the frequency, duration, and severity of PN with nab-P/Gem in the MPACT study.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated MPC received nab-P/Gem or Gem. PN was evaluated using a broad-spectrum group of Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Queries (SMQ) and graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) version 3.0. A case report form was completed by physicians on day 1 of each cycle (also graded by NCI CTCAE version 3.0).ResultsIn the nab-P/Gem arm, 227/421 patients (54%) experienced any-grade PN and 70 (17%) experienced grade III PN. No grade IV PN was reported. Most early-onset PN events were grade I, and treatment-related grade III PN occurred in 7% of patients who received up to three cycles of nab-P. Of those who developed grade III PN with nab-P/Gem treatment, 30 (43%) improved to grade ≤I (median time to improvement = 29 days) and 31 (44%) resumed therapy. Development of PN was associated with efficacy; median overall survival in patients with grade III versus 0 PN was 14.9 versus 5.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .0001).Conclusionsnab-P/Gem was associated with grade III PN in a small percentage of patients. PN development was associated with longer treatment duration and improved survival. Grade III PN was reversible to grade ≤I in many patients (median ≈ 1 month) NCT00844649.     

Maintenance sunitinib or observation in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A phase II randomised trial

BackgroundNew strategies to prolong disease control warrant investigation in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This open-label, randomised, multi-centre phase II trial explored the role of maintenance sunitinib after first-line chemotherapy in this setting.MethodsPatients with pathologic diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, performance status >50%, no progression after 6 months of chemotherapy were centrally randomised by an independent contract research organisation, which was also responsible for data collection and monitoring, to observation (arm A) or sunitinib at 37.5 mg daily until progression or a maximum of 6 months (arm B). The primary outcome measure was the probability of being progression-free at 6 months (PFS-6) from randomisation. Assuming P0 = 10%; P1 = 30%, α .10; β .10, the target accrual was 26 patients per arm.Results28 per arm were randomised. One arm B patient had kidney cancer and was excluded. Sunitinib was given for a median of 91 days (7–186). Main grade 3–4 toxicity was thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and hand–foot syndrome (12%), diarrhoea 8%. In arm A versus B, PFS-6 was 3.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0–10.6%) and 22.2% (95% CI: 6.2–38.2%; P < 0.01); 2y overall survival was 7.1% (95% CI: 0–16.8%) and 22.9% (95% CI: 5.8–40.0%; P = 0.11), stable disease 21.4% and 51.9% (P = 0.02).ConclusionThis is the first randomised trial on maintenance therapy in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The primary end-point was fulfilled and 2y overall survival was remarkably high, suggesting that maintenance sunitinib is promising and should be further explored in this patient population.     

A phase IB trial of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) in combination with everolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors

BackgroundThis phase Ib trial investigated the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose and schedule of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic (PK) characterization and evaluation of clinical activity.Patients and methodsA total of 67 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in this open-label, single-arm, dose-escalation study. Dose escalation followed a 3 + 3 design. Patients were assigned to one of 10 different cohorts, involving either daily dosing with both agents or daily dosing with trametinib and intermittent everolimus dosing. This included an expansion cohort comprising patients with pancreatic tumors. PKs samples were collected predose, as well as 1, 2, 4, and 6 h post-dose on day 15 of the first treatment cycle.ResultsConcurrent treatment with trametinib and everolimus resulted in frequent treatment-related adverse events, including mucosal inflammation (40%), stomatitis (25%), fatigue (54%), and diarrhea (42%). PK assessment did not suggest drug–drug interactions between these two agents. Of the 67 enrolled patients, 5 (7%) achieved partial response (PR) to treatment and 21 (31%) displayed stable disease (SD). Among the 21 patients with pancreatic cancer, PR was observed in 1 patient (5%) and SD in 6 patients (29%).ConclusionsThis study was unable to identify a recommended phase II dose and schedule of trametinib in combination with everolimus that provided an acceptable tolerability and adequate drug exposure.     

Pathway profiling of a novel SRC inhibitor,AZD0424, in combination with MEK inhibitors for cancer treatment

A more comprehensive understanding of how cells respond to drug intervention, the likely immediate signalling responses and how resistance may develop within different microenvironments will help inform treatment regimes. The nonreceptor tyrosine kinase SRC regulates many cellular signalling processes, and pharmacological inhibition has long been a target of cancer drug discovery projects. Here, we describe the in vitro and in vivo characterisation of the small‐molecule SRC inhibitor AZD0424. We show that AZD0424 potently inhibits the phosphorylation of tyrosine‐419 of SRC (IC50 ~ 100 nm) in many cancer cell lines; however, inhibition of cell viability, via a G1 cell cycle arrest, was observed only in a subset of cancer cell lines in the low (on target) micromolar range. We profiled the changes in intracellular pathway signalling in cancer cells following exposure to AZD0424 and other targeted therapies using reverse‐phase protein array (RPPA) analysis. We demonstrate that SRC is activated in response to treatment of KRAS‐mutant colorectal cell lines with MEK inhibitors (trametinib or AZD6244) and that AZD0424 abrogates this. Cell lines treated with trametinib or AZD6244 in combination with AZD0424 had reduced EGFR, FAK and SRC compensatory activation, and cell viability was synergistically inhibited. In vivo, trametinib treatment of mice‐bearing HCT116 tumours increased phosphorylation of SRC on Tyr419, and, when combined with AZD0424, inhibition of tumour growth was greater than with trametinib alone. We also demonstrate that drug‐induced resistance to trametinib is not re‐sensitised by AZD0424 treatment in vitro, likely as a result of multiple compensatory signalling mechanisms; however, inhibition of SRC remains an effective way to block invasion of trametinib‐resistant tumour cells. These data imply that SRC inhibition may offer a useful addition to MEK inhibitor combination strategies.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled phase 2 study of trebananib (AMG 386) in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Background:

This phase 2 study evaluated trebananib (AMG 386), an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein that neutralises the interaction between angiopoietins-1/2 and the Tie2 receptor, plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

Patients had adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum with progression within 6 months of receiving only one prior fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease. All patients received FOLFIRI and were randomised 2 : 1 to also receive intravenous trebananib 10 mg kg⁻¹ once weekly (QW) (Arm A) or placebo QW (Arm B). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

One hundred and forty-four patients were randomised (Arms A/B, n=95/49). Median PFS in Arms A and B was 3.5 and 5.2 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.23; 95% CI, 0.81–1.86; P=0.33) and median overall survival (OS) was 11.9 and 8.8 months, respectively (HR 0.90; 95% CI; 0.53–1.54; P=0.70). Objective response rate (ORR) was 14% and 0% in Arms A and B, respectively. Incidence of grade ⩾3 adverse events was similar between treatment arms (Arm A, 61% Arm B, 65%) and included pulmonary embolism (1%/4%), deep vein thrombosis (5%/2%), and hypertension (1%/0%).

Conclusion:

Administration of trebananib plus FOLFIRI did not prolong PFS compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI. Toxicities were manageable and consistent with those known for FOLFIRI and trebananib.     

Efficacy and safety of trametinib in Japanese patients with advanced biliary tract cancers refractory to gemcitabine

Gemcitabine‐based therapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with biliary tract cancers (BTCs) with no second‐line treatment(s) established yet. Aberrant activation of the MAPK pathway in patients with BTC indicates its importance in BTC. Trametinib is a potent, highly selective, allosteric non‐competitive inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2. In this phase IIa open‐label, single‐arm study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of trametinib in Japanese patients with advanced BTC refractory to gemcitabine‐based therapy. All patients received oral trametinib 2 mg once daily until progressive disease (PD), death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine the 12‐week non‐PD rate. Secondary assessments included safety, progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival, and overall response rate. Targeted exome sequencing was used to identify biomarkers for sensitivity or resistance to trametinib monotherapy. Twenty patients (median age, 61.5 years) with carcinoma of gall bladder (40%), intrahepatic (25%) or extrahepatic (30%) bile duct, and ampulla of Vater (5%) were enrolled. The non‐PD rate at week 12 was 10% (95% confidence interval, 1.2‐31.7); it did not reach the threshold rate of 25%. Median PFS was 10.6 weeks (95% confidence interval, 4.6‐12.1) and 1‐year overall survival was 20.0%. Stable disease and PD were observed in 13 (65%) and seven (35%) patients, respectively. No new safety signals were reported. Although the primary end‐point was not met, prolonged PFS was observed in one patient having six somatic variants including synonymous NF1 exon 12 splice variant and a loss‐of‐function variant in ARID1A. Efforts to understand responsive mutations and sensitivity to targeted therapies are warranted. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01943864.     

Phase II trial of a 24-hour infusion of gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The antitumor effect of gemcitabine is not dose-response related but schedule dependent. Here we report a phase II trial of a weekly 24-hour infusion of gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients with histologically proven, measurable, and irresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were treated with gemcitabine at a dose of 100 mg/m² infused over 24 hr on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment was repeated every 28 days until progression of disease or limiting toxicity. All 18 patients enrolled were evaluable for response. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade 3 occurred in 1 patient each. One partial response and two minor responses were observed. Median time to progression of disease was 4.4 months. Improvement of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30 scores was observed in 6 patients (pain and overall symptom score, respectively) and in 3 patients (overall functioning score and global quality of life, respectively). Weekly 24-hr gemcitabine was well tolerated in previously untreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. It shows marginal antitumor activity in terms of response rate. However, the 24-hr infusion at a dose of 100 mg/m² seems to be as active as the standard 30-min gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m². Relatively long median time to progression of disease and improvement of symptom and quality-of-life scores suggest, that patients may benefit from 24-hr gemcitabine.     

A phase II trial of gemcitabine plus capecitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Purpose While gemcitabine (GEM) is widely accepted for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, capecitabine (CAP) has shown single agent activity and promising efficacy in combination with GEM. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of GEM combined with dose escalated 14-day CAP as first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, we also analyzed the correlation between CA19-9 response and clinical outcomes. Methods Patients had advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior systemic chemotherapy other than that given concurrently with radiation therapy, at lease one measurable disease, and adequate organ functions. The patients were treated with GEM 1,000 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8 and CAP 1,000 mg/m² twice a day PO on days 1–14, in 21-day cycles. Results The objective RR among 45 patients was 40.0% (95% CI; 25.1–54.9), including 1CR (2.2%). The median TTP and OS were 5.4 months (95% CI; 1.8–9.0) and 10.4 months (95% CI; 6.2–14.5), respectively. Patients with ≥25% decline of serum CA19-9 had significantly better outcomes in terms of TTP and OS than those who did not (P < 0.03). The most frequent, grade 3–4, non-hematologic toxicity was hand–foot syndrome (6.7%). Conclusions The combination of GEM with dose escalated 14-day CAP is well tolerated and offers encouraging activity in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, CA19-9 response correlates well with clinical outcomes in this population.     

A phase II trial of GSK2256098 and trametinib in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundMitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) is activated by mutated KRAS in >90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MEK and focal adhesion kinase (FAK) are frequently co-activated in PDAC providing a rationale for combining trametinib, an oral allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, with GSK2256098, an oral FAK inhibitor.MethodsAdvanced PDAC patients whose disease progressed after first line palliative chemotherapy were treated with GSK2256098 250 mg twice daily and trametinib 0.5 mg once daily orally. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB; complete response, partial response, or stable disease ≥24 weeks). Twenty-four patients were planned to enroll using a 2-stage minimax design (P₀=0.15, P₁=0.40; alpha =0.05, power 0.86). The combination would be considered inactive if 2/12 or fewer patients achieved CB at the end of stage 1, and would be considered active if >7/24 response-evaluable patients achieved CB by the end of stage 2. Serial blood samples were collected for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutation profiling.ResultsSixteen patients were enrolled and 11 were response evaluable. Of those 11, 10 had progressive disease as best tumor response and one had stable disease for 4 months. No treatment related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were observed. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.5–1.8) months and the median overall survival (OS) was 3.6 (95% CI: 2.7–not reached) months. One response-inevaluable patient achieved clinical stability for 5 months with reduction in CA19-9 and ctDNA levels with a MAP2K1 treatment resistance mutation detected in ctDNA at clinical progression.ConclusionsThe combination of GSK2256098 and trametinib was well tolerated but was not active in unselected advanced PDAC.     

Phase II,multicentre, randomised trial of eribulin plus gemcitabine versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundPaclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG) combination chemotherapy is a preferred chemotherapeutic regimen for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eribulin mesylate is a halichondrin non-taxane inhibitor of microtubule dynamics. A recent pooled analysis with eribulin showed improved overall survival (OS) in various MBC patient subgroups pretreated with anthracycline and taxane. Furthermore, eribulin may have less neurotoxicity than paclitaxel.Patients and methodsThis study was a prospective randomised phase II, open-label, two-arm, multicentre study comparing eribulin plus gemcitabine (EG) with PG chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC. We hypothesised that EG chemotherapy would not be inferior to PG chemotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS), which was estimated to be 70% at 6 months for each arm. The secondary end-points were as follows: OS, neuropathic scale, toxicity and clinical benefit rate.ResultsA total of 118 patients (median age: 50, 24–66) were enrolled between March 2015 and March 2016 and were randomly assigned to PG (n = 59) or EG (n = 59) chemotherapy. The mean number of metastatic sites was 3 (range 1–8). The 6-month PFS rates for both arms were 72% for EG and 73% for PG (P = 0.457). There was no significant difference in OS between the two groups (not reached versus 21.2 months, P = 0.2234). The median number of chemotherapy cycles for both groups was 10 for EG and 8 for PG (range 2–32). Clinical benefit rates were 44% for EG and 49% for PG. Major toxicities were neutropenia and neurotoxicity. Grade II or above neurotoxicity was more common with PG than with EG (13.6% for EG versus 45.8% for PG, P < 0.0001).ConclusionEG chemotherapy had similar clinical benefits to PG chemotherapy in terms of PFS but less neurotoxicity.Trial registrationKCSG BR13-11; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02263495.     

A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor,WX-554, in patients with advanced solid tumours

PurposeWe performed a multi-centre phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the orally available small molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor, WX-554, and to determine the optimal biological dose for subsequent trials.Experimental designPatients with treatment-refractory, advanced solid tumours, with adequate performance status and organ function were recruited to a dose-escalation study in a standard 3 + 3 design. The starting dose was 25 mg orally once weekly with toxicity, PK and PD guided dose-escalation with potential to explore alternative schedules.ResultsForty-one patients with advanced solid tumours refractory to standard therapies and with adequate organ function were recruited in eight cohorts up to doses of 150 mg once weekly and 75 mg twice weekly. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the study, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not established. The highest dose cohorts demonstrated sustained inhibition of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells following ex-vivo phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate stimulation. There was a decrease of 70 ± 26% in mean phosphorylated (p)ERK in C1 day 8 tumour biopsies when compared with pre-treatment tumour levels in the 75 mg twice a week cohort. Prolonged stable disease (>6 months) was seen in two patients, one with cervical cancer and one with ampullary carcinoma.ConclusionsWX-554 was well tolerated, and an optimal biological dose was established for further investigation in either a once or twice weekly regimens. The recommended phase 2 dose is 75 mg twice weekly.     

A phase I trial of gemcitabine in combination with patupilone in patients with advanced solid tumors

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy regimens including gemcitabine in combination with microtubule inhibitors such as docetaxel and paclitaxel have wide clinical application. Patupilone is a novel tubulin-polymerizing agent with activity against paclitaxel-resistant cell lines. We conducted a phase I trial to assess the maximum tolerated dose, dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and antitumor activity of gemcitabine and patupilone. METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors enrolled in cohorts of three. Cohorts received fixed doses of gemcitabine (1,000 or 750 mg/m(2)) along with escalating doses of patupilone (1.5-3 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received a total of 99 courses of treatment on study. Hematologic toxicity in the first cohort required a modification of the protocol to decrease the gemcitabine dose. Subsequent patients received gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) and escalating doses of patupilone from 1.5 to 3 mg/m(2). DLTs were grade 3 asthenia and grade 3 dehydration. There was also one treatment-related death due to neutropenic infection. Other clinically significant toxicities were persistent asthenia and persistent nausea. Four patients, one each with pancreatic cancer, esophageal carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma, experienced a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The dose-limiting toxicities of gemcitabine and patupilone were asthenia and dehydration. Dose reductions also occurred due to persistent fatigue that was not dose-limiting. However, patients with advanced malignancies were able to tolerate gemcitabine and patupilone at doses that resulted in clinical benefit. The recommended phase II dose for this schedule is gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) and patupilone 1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.