A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

The primary health care physician and the cancer patient: tips and strategies for managing sexual health

There is a large and growing population of long-term cancer survivors. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are playing an increasingly greater role in the care of these patients across the continuum of cancer survivorship. In this role, PCPs are faced with the responsibility of managing a range of medical and psychosocial late effects of cancer treatment. In particular, the sexual side effects of treatment which are common and have significant impact on quality of life for the cancer survivor, often go unaddressed. This is an area of clinical care and research that has received increasing attention, highlighted by the presentation of this special issue on Cancer and Sexual Health. The aims of this review are 3-fold. First, we seek to overview common presentations of sexual dysfunction related to major cancer diagnoses in order to give the PCP a sense of the medical issues that the survivor may present with. Barriers to communication about sexual health issues between patient/PCPs in order are also described in order to emphasize the importance of PCPs initiating this important conversation. Next, we provide strategies and resources to help guide the PCP in the management of sexual dysfunction in cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss case examples of survivorship sexual health issues and highlight the role that a PCP can play in each of these case examples.     

Binding mode of conformations and structure-based pharmacophore development for farnesyltransferase inhibitors

Farnesyltransferase (FTase) is one of the prenyltransferase family enzymes that catalyse the transfer of 15-membered isoprenoid (farnesyl) moiety to the cysteine of CAAX motif-containing proteins including Rho and Ras family of G proteins. Inhibitors of FTase act as drugs for cancer, malaria, progeria and other diseases. In the present investigation, we have developed two structure-based pharmacophore models from protein–ligand complex (3E33 and 3E37) obtained from the protein data bank. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed on the complexes, and different conformers of the same complex were generated. These conformers were undergone protein–ligand interaction fingerprint (PLIF) analysis, and the fingerprint bits have been used for structure-based pharmacophore model development. The PLIF results showed that Lys164, Tyr166, TrpB106 and TyrB361 are the major interacting residues in both the complexes. The RMSD and RMSF analyses on the MD-simulated systems showed that the absence of FPP in the complex 3E37 has significant effect in the conformational changes of the ligands. During this conformational change, some interactions between the protein and the ligands are lost, but regained after some simulations (after 2 ns). The structure-based pharmacophore models showed that the hydrophobic and acceptor contours are predominantly present in the models. The pharmacophore models were validated using reference compounds, which significantly identified as HITs with smaller RMSD values. The developed structure-based pharmacophore models are significant, and the methodology used in this study is novel from the existing methods (the original X-ray crystallographic coordination of the ligands is used for the model building). In our study, along with the original coordination of the ligand, different conformers of the same complex (protein–ligand) are used. It concluded that the developed methodology is significant for the virtual screening of novel molecules on different targets.