Albiruni R. A. Razak

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: The next challenges

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) differs from other head and neck cancers in its aetiology, epidemiology and potential therapeutic options. Despite cure for the majority of the patients, challenges still exist in the prevention of disease relapse, treatment of patients with refractory or metastatic NPC and the management of long-term toxicities. This article discusses the specific challenges in pushing the boundaries of NPC treatments further, with an emphasis on prognostic/predictive markers, molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapies and the areas of interest with regard to long-term toxicities arising from therapeutic interventions.

A phase II trial of dacomitinib, an oral pan-human EGF receptor (HER) inhibitor, as first-line treatment in recurrent and/or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BACKGROUND An open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II trial was conducted to investigate the clinical activity of dacomitinib in recurrent/metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (RM-SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients were administered dacomitinib at 45 mg orally daily, in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was objective response rate. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients were enrolled with a median age of 62 years. Among response-evaluable patients, 8 [12.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.6% to 23.5%] achieved a partial response and 36 (57.1%) had stable disease, lasting ≥24 weeks in 9 patients (14.3%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 weeks and the median overall survival (OS) was 34.6 weeks. Most adverse events (AEs) were tolerable. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs were diarrhea (15.9%), acneiform dermatitis (8.7%), and fatigue (8.7%). Treatment-related AEs led to at least one dose interruption in 28 (40.6%) patients and dose reductions in 26 (37.7%). Permanent treatment discontinuation occurred in 8 (11.6%) patients due to treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSIONS Dacomitinib demonstrated clinical activity in RM-SCCHN, and the primary end point of this study was met. The toxicity profile of this agent was generally manageable with dose interruptions and adjustments.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Evolution of Clinical Trial Design in Early Drug Development: Systematic Review of Expansion Cohort Use in Single-Agent Phase I Cancer Trials

PURPOSE To evaluate the use and objectives of expansion cohorts in phase I cancer trials and to explore trial characteristics associated with their use. METHODS We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, limiting studies to single-agent phase I trials recruiting adults and published after 2006. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Data were assessed descriptively, and associations were tested by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS We identified 611 unique phase I cancer trials, of which 149 (24%) included an expansion cohort. The trials were significantly more likely to use an expansion cohort if they were published more recently, were multicenter, or evaluated a noncytotoxic agent. Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 74% of trials. In these trials, safety (80%), efficacy (45%), pharmacokinetics (28%), pharmacodynamics (23%), and patient enrichment (14%) were cited as objectives. Among expansion cohorts with safety objectives, the recommended phase II dose was modified in 13% and new toxicities were described in 54% of trials. Among trials aimed at assessing efficacy, only 11% demonstrated antitumor activity assessed by response criteria that was not previously observed during dose escalation. CONCLUSION The utilization of expansion cohorts has increased with time. Safety and efficacy are common objectives, but 26% fail to report explicit aims. Expansion cohorts may provide useful supplementary data for phase I trials, particularly with regard to toxicity and definition of recommended dose for phase II studies.

First-in-Class, First-in-Human Phase I Study of Selinexor, a Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose This trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), a novel, oral small-molecule inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1), and determined the recommended phase II dose. Patients and Methods In total, 189 patients with advanced solid tumors received selinexor (3 to 85 mg/m2) in 21- or 28-day cycles. Pre- and post-treatment levels of XPO1 mRNA in patient-derived leukocytes were determined by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and tumor biopsies were examined by immunohistochemistry for changes in markers consistent with XPO1 inhibition. Antitumor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines. Results The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (70%), nausea (70%), anorexia (66%), and vomiting (49%), which were generally grade 1 or 2. Most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (15%), and hyponatremia (13%). Clinically significant major organ or cumulative toxicities were rare. The maximum-tolerated dose was defined at 65 mg/m2 using a twice-a-week (days 1 and 3) dosing schedule. The recommended phase II dose of 35 mg/m2 given twice a week was chosen based on better patient tolerability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared with higher doses. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with no evidence of drug accumulation. Dose-dependent elevations in XPO1 mRNA in leukocytes were demonstrated up to a dose level of 28 mg/m2 before plateauing, and paired tumor biopsies showed nuclear accumulation of key tumor-suppressor proteins, reduction of cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial responses were observed (n = 7, 4%), with 27 patients (17%) achieving stable disease for ≥ 4 months. Conclusion Selinexor is a novel and safe therapeutic with broad antitumor activity. Further interrogation into this class of therapy is warranted.

Prognostic value of pretreatment circulating neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in oropharyngeal cancer stratified by human papillomavirus status.

The objective of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of the pretreatment circulating neutrophil count (CNC), circulating monocyte count (CMC), and circulating lymphocyte count (CLC) in human papillomavirus (HPV)–related (HPV+) and HPV‐unrelated (HPV–) oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).

Temporal nodal regression and regional control after primary radiation therapy for N2-N3 head-and-neck cancer stratified by HPV status.

PURPOSE To compare the temporal lymph node (LN) regression and regional control (RC) after primary chemoradiation therapy/radiation therapy in human papillomavirus-related [HPV(+)] versus human papillomavirus-unrelated [HPV(-)] head-and-neck cancer (HNC). METHODS AND MATERIALS All cases of N2-N3 HNC treated with radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy between 2003 and 2009 were reviewed. Human papillomavirus status was ascertained by p16 staining on all available oropharyngeal cancers. Larynx/hypopharynx cancers were considered HPV(-). Initial radiologic complete nodal response (CR) (≤1.0 cm 8-12 weeks after treatment), ultimate LN resolution, and RC were compared between HPV(+) and HPV(-) HNC. Multivariate analysis identified outcome predictors. RESULTS A total of 257 HPV(+) and 236 HPV(-) HNCs were identified. The initial LN size was larger (mean, 2.9 cm vs 2.5 cm; P<.01) with a higher proportion of cystic LNs (38% vs 6%, P<.01) in HPV(+) versus HPV(-) HNC. CR was achieved is 125 HPV(+) HNCs (49%) and 129 HPV(-) HNCs (55%) (P=.18). The mean post treatment largest LN was 36% of the original size in the HPV(+) group and 41% in the HPV(-) group (P<.01). The actuarial LN resolution was similar in the HPV(+) and HPV(-) groups at 12 weeks (42% and 43%, respectively), but it was higher in the HPV(+) group than in the HPV(-) group at 36 weeks (90% vs 77%, P<.01). The median follow-up period was 3.6 years. The 3-year RC rate was higher in the HPV(-) CR cases versus non-CR cases (92% vs 63%, P<.01) but was not different in the HPV(+) CR cases versus non-CR cases (98% vs 92%, P=.14). On multivariate analysis, HPV(+) status predicted ultimate LN resolution (odds ratio, 1.4 [95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.7]; P<.01) and RC (hazard ratio, 0.3 [95% confidence interval 0.2-0.6]; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS HPV(+) LNs involute more quickly than HPV(-) LNs but undergo a more prolonged process to eventual CR beyond the time of initial assessment at 8 to 12 weeks after treatment. Post radiation neck dissection is advisable for all non-CR HPV(-)/non-CR N3 HPV(+) cases, but it may be avoided for selected non-CR N2 HPV(+) cases with a significant LN involution if they can undergo continued imaging surveillance. The role of positron emission tomography for response assessment should be investigated.

Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care

Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.

A phase I study of the combination of ro4929097 and cediranib in patients with advanced solid tumours (PJC-004/NCI 8503).

Background:The Notch signalling pathway has been implicated in tumour initiation, progression, angiogenesis and development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting, providing a rationale for the combination of RO4929097, a γ-secretase inhibitor, and cediranib, a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.Methods:Patients received escalating doses of RO4929097 (on a 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule) in combination with cediranib (once daily). Cycle 1 was 42 days long with RO4929097 given alone for the first 3 weeks followed by the co-administration of both RO4929097 and cediranib starting from day 22. Cycle 2 and onwards were 21 days long. Soluble markers of angiogenesis were measured in plasma samples. Archival tumour specimens were assessed for expression of three different components of Notch signalling pathway and genotyping.Results:In total, 20 patients were treated in three dose levels (DLs). The recommended phase II dose was defined as 20 mg for RO4929097 on 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule and 30 mg daily for cediranib. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue and nausea. Eleven patients had a best response of stable disease and one patient achieved partial response. We did not detect any correlation between tested biomarkers of angiogenesis or the Notch pathway and treatment effect. There was no correlation between mutational status and time to treatment failure.Conclusion:RO4929097 in combination with cediranib is generally well tolerated at the DLs tested. Preliminary evidence of antitumour efficacy with prolonged disease stabilisation in some patients with progressive malignancies warrants further clinical investigation of this treatment strategy.

Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: a review of the literature.

AIM There is no consensus about what constitutes a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in phase I cancer clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate how DLTs are defined in phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTA). METHODS We retrieved all phase I trials testing monotherapy with an MTA published over the last decade. In each trial, all items used to define DLTs were recorded. RESULTS Reports of 155 phase I trials evaluating 111 different MTAs were reviewed. The most frequent determinant of whether a toxicity was regarded as a DLT was severity, usually assessed using the NCI CTCAE classification. However, for any given toxicity, there was substantial variability in the degree of severity required for a toxicity to be considered a DLT. Specifications about minimum duration of toxicity, degree of reversibility, the need to delay treatment and to reduce dose-intensity because of toxicity were infrequently incorporated in the definition of DLT. The definition of DLT varied with administration schedule. Discrepancies between the initial and the final definition of DLT were reported in 25% of trials. CONCLUSIONS While our results do not support a standardisation of the definition of DLT, the inclusion of following specifications in its definition when relevant would reduce the heterogeneity observed across trials: (1) DLT assessment period, (2) absolute severity according to NCI CTCAE classification as well as severity relative to baseline status, (3) minimum duration of toxicity, (4) reversibility of toxicity within a certain period of time, and (5) necessity to delay treatment or to reduce dose-intensity.