Alona Zer

Phase IB Study of Selinexor, a First-in-Class Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Refractory Bone or Soft Tissue Sarcoma

PURPOSE We evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, in patients with advanced soft tissue or bone sarcoma with progressive disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-four patients were treated with oral selinexor twice per week (on days 1 and 3) at one of three doses (30 mg/m(2), 50 mg/m(2), or flat dose of 60 mg) either continuously or on a schedule of 3 weeks on, 1 week off. PK analysis was performed under fasting and fed states (low v high fat content) and using various formulations of selinexor (tablet, capsule, or suspension). Tumor biopsies before and during treatment were evaluated for pharmacodynamic changes. RESULTS The most commonly reported drug-related adverse events (grade 1 or 2) were nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fatigue, which were well managed with supportive care. Commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were fatigue, thrombocytopenia, anemia, lymphopenia, and leukopenia. Selinexor was significantly better tolerated when administered as a flat dose on an intermittent schedule. PK analysis of selinexor revealed a clinically insignificant increase (approximately 15% to 20%) in drug exposure when taken with food. Immunohistochemical analysis of paired tumor biopsies revealed increased nuclear accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, decreased cell proliferation, increased apoptosis, and stromal deposition. Of the 52 patients evaluable for response, none experienced an objective response by RECIST (version 1.1); however, 17 (33%) showed durable (≥ 4 months) stable disease, including seven (47%) of 15 evaluable patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma. CONCLUSION Selinexor was well tolerated at a 60-mg flat dose on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule. There was no clinically meaningful impact of food on PKs. Preliminary evidence of anticancer activity in sarcoma was demonstrated.

Promising Targets and Current Clinical Trials in Metastatic Non-Squamous NSCLC.

Lung adenocarcinoma is the most common subtype of lung cancer today. With the discovery of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements, and effective targeted therapy, personalized medicine has become a reality for patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Here, we review potential additional targets and novel therapies of interest in lung adenocarcinoma including targets within the cell surface (receptor tyrosine kinases EGFR, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, RET, ROS1, mesenchymal–epidermal transition, TRK), targets in intracellular signal transduction (ALK, RAS–RAF–MEK, PI3K–AKT–PTEN, WNT), nuclear targets such as poly-ADP ribose polymerase, heat shock protein 90, and histone deacetylase, and selected pathways in the tumor environment. With the evolving ability to identify specific molecular aberrations in patient tumors in routine practice, our ability to further personalize therapy in lung adenocarcinoma is rapidly expanding.

Evolution of Randomized Trials in Advanced/Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: End Point Selection, Surrogacy, and Quality of Reporting

PURPOSE Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have used varying end points. The surrogacy of intermediate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and 3-month and 6-month PFS (3moPFS and 6moPFS) with overall survival (OS), remains unknown. The quality of efficacy and toxicity reporting in these studies is also uncertain. METHODS A systematic review of systemic therapy RCTs in STS was performed. Surrogacy between intermediate end points and OS was explored using weighted linear regression for the hazard ratio for OS with the hazard ratio for PFS or the odds ratio for RR, 3moPFS, and 6moPFS. The quality of reporting for efficacy and toxicity was also evaluated. RESULTS Fifty-two RCTs published between 1974 and 2014, comprising 9,762 patients, met the inclusion criteria. There were significant correlations between PFS and OS (R = 0.61) and between RR and OS (R = 0.51). Conversely, there were nonsignificant correlations between 3moPFS and 6moPFS with OS. A reduction in the use of RR as the primary end point was observed over time, favoring time-based events (P for trend = .02). In 14% of RCTs, the primary end point was not met, but the study was reported as being positive. Toxicity was comprehensively reported in 47% of RCTs, whereas 14% inadequately reported toxicity. CONCLUSION In advanced STS, PFS and RR seem to be appropriate surrogates for OS. There is poor correlation between OS and both 3moPFS and 6moPFS. As such, caution is urged with the use of these as primary end points in randomized STS trials. The quality of toxicity reporting and interpretation of results is suboptimal.

Pooled Analysis of the Prognostic and Predictive Value of KRAS Mutation Status and Mutation Subtype in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Objectives: This pooled analysis of four trials of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) versus placebo was conducted to clarify the prognostic and predictive roles of Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations (MUTs) and to explore the importance of MUT subtype. Methods: Data were pooled from four trials of EGFR TKIs versus placebo (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group [NCIC CTG] trial BR.21, TOPICAL, NCIC CTG trial BR.26, and NCIC CTG trial BR.19). Analyses of the combined data were performed to determine relationships of MUT status/subtype to response and survival end points. Results: KRAS status was known for 1362 of 2624 patients (785 receiving EGFR TKIs and 577 receiving placebo); 275 (20%) had KRAS MUTs (248 at codon 12; 15 at codon 13; 12 at other codons). In the placebo arms there was no difference in overall survival (OS) for patients with KRAS MUTs or wild‐type tumors (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–1.33 for univariable analysis and HR = 1.09, CI: 0.85–1.41 for multivariable analysis). Patients with guanine‐to‐thymidine transversion MUTs had longer OS than did those with guanine‐to‐adenine transition MUTs or guanine‐to‐cytosine transversion MUTs (median OS 6.3, 1.8, and 3.9 months, respectively, p = 0.01). Patients with KRAS MUT tumors derived no benefit from EGFR TKIs (OS HR = 1.13, CI: 0.85–1.51; progression‐free survival HR = 1.02, CI: 0.76–1.36). The interaction between KRAS status and EGFR TKI effect was significant for progression‐free survival (p = 0.04) but not for OS (p = 0.17). For patients with G12V MUTs, EGFR TKI treatment was harmful (OS HR = 1.96, CI: 1.03–3.70, p = 0.04), whereas guanine‐to‐adenine transition MUTs were associated with an OS benefit from EGFR TKIs (HR = 0.49, CI: 0.24–1.00, p = 0.05). Conclusions: Overall, KRAS MUT is neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from EGFR TKIs. However, it appears that KRAS MUT subtypes are not homogeneous in terms of their prognostic and predictive effects. These observations require prospective validation.

A Phamacoeconomic Analysis of Personalized Dosing vs Fixed Dosing of Pembrolizumab in Firstline PD-L1-Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background In October 2016, pembrolizumab became the new standard of care for firstline treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors express programmed death ligand 1 in at least 50% of cells. The US Food and Drug Administration-recommended dose is 200 mg every three weeks. Multiple studies have demonstrated equivalent efficacy with weight-based doses between 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. The objective of this study was to compare the economic impact of using personalized dosing (2 mg/kg) vs fixed dosing (200 mg) in the firstline setting of mNSCLC. Methods We performed a budget impact analysis from the US societal perspective to compare fixed dosing with personalized dosing. We calculated the target population and weight of patients who would be treated with pembrolizumab annually in the firstline setting. Using survival curves from the KEYNOTE 024 trial with Weibull extrapolation, we estimated the mean number of cycles that patients would receive. Using the Medicare average sales price, we calculated the difference in cost between personalized and fixed dosing. Results Our base case model demonstrates that the total annual cost of pembrolizumab with fixed dosing is US

Second-Line Therapy in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The DELTA Between Different Genotypes Widens

3 440 127 429, and with personalized dosing it is US

Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide (DC) with Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) on Days 8 &12 in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

2 614 496 846. The use of personalized dosing would lead to a 24.0% annual savings of US

Association of Neurocognitive Deficits With Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

825 630 583 in the United States. Conclusions Personalized dosing of pembrolizumab may have the potential to save approximately

Effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the real-life data

0.825 billion annually in the United States, likely without impacting outcomes. This option should be considered for the firstline management of PD-L1-positive advanced lung cancer.

Cardiac Mass in a Rapidly Deteriorating Patient

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors’ suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.