Arnold Oronsky

Safety and activity of RRx-001 in patients with advanced cancer: a first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 study

BACKGROUND Epigenetic alterations have been strongly associated with tumour formation and resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs, and epigenetic modifications are an attractive target in cancer research. RRx-001 is activated by hypoxia and induces the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species that can epigenetically modulate DNA methylation, histone deacetylation, and lysine demethylation. The aim of this phase 1 study was to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of RRx-001. METHODS In this open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 study, we recruited adult patients (aged >18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced, malignant, incurable solid tumours from University of California at San Diego, CA, USA, and Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN, USA. Key eligibility criteria included evaluable disease, Eastern Cooperative Group performance status of 2 or less, an estimated life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, adequate laboratory parameters, discontinuation of all previous antineoplastic therapies at least 6 weeks before intervention, and no residual side-effects from previous therapies. Patients were assigned to receive intravenous infusions of RRx-001 at increasing doses (10 mg/m(2), 16·7 mg/m(2), 24·6 mg/m(2), 33 mg/m(2), 55 mg/m(2), and 83 mg/m(2)) either once or twice-weekly for at least 4 weeks, with at least three patients per dose cohort and allowing a 2-week observation period before dose escalation. Samples for safety and pharmacokinetics analysis, including standard chemistry and haematological panels, were taken on each treatment day. The primary objective was to assess safety, tolerability, and dose-limiting toxic effects of RRx-001, to determine single-dose pharmacokinetics, and to identify a recommended dose for phase 2 trials. All analyses were done per protocol. Accrual is complete and follow-up is still on-going. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01359982. FINDINGS Between Oct 10, 2011, and March 18, 2013, we enrolled 25 patients and treated six patients in the 10 mg/m(2) cohort, three patients in the 16·7 mg/m(2) cohort, three patients in the 24·6 mg/m(2) cohort, four patients in the 33 mg/m(2) cohort, three patients in the 55 mg/m(2), and six patients in the 83 mg/m(2) cohort. Pain at the injection site, mostly grade 1 and grade 2, was the most common adverse event related to treatment, experienced by 21 (84%) patients. Other common drug-related adverse events included arm swelling or oedema (eight [32%] patients), and vein hardening (seven [28%] patients). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Time constraints related to management of infusion pain from RRx-001 resulted in a maximally feasible dose of 83 mg/m(2). Of the 21 evaluable patients, one (5%) patient had a partial response, 14 (67%) patients had stable disease, and six (29%) patients had progressive disease; all responses were across a variety of tumour types. Four patients who had received RRx-001 were subsequently rechallenged with a treatment that they had become refractory to; all four responded to the rechallenge. INTERPRETATION RRx-001 is a well-tolerated novel compound without clinically significant toxic effects at the tested doses. Preliminary evidence of activity is promising and, on the basis of all findings, a dose of 16·7 mg/m(2) was recommended as the targeted dose for phase 2 trials. FUNDING EpicentRx (formerly RadioRx).

Episensitization: Defying Time’s Arrow

The development of cancer is driven by complex genetic and epigenetic changes that result in aberrant and uncontrolled cellular growth. Epigenetic changes, in particular, are implicated in the silencing or activation of key genes that control cellular growth and apoptosis and contribute to transformative potential. The purpose of this review is to define and assess the treatment strategy of “episensitization,” or the ability to sensitize cancer cells to subsequent therapy by resetting the epigenetic infrastructure of the tumor. One important facet is resensitization by epigenetic mechanisms, which goes against the norm, i.e., challenges the long-held doctrine in oncology that the reuse of previously tried and failed therapies is a clinically pointless endeavor. Thus, episensitization is a hybrid term, which covers recent clinically relevant observations and refers to the epigenomic mechanism of resensitization. Among the many formidable challenges in the treatment of cancer, the most inevitable is the development of acquired therapeutic resistance. Here, we present the basic principles behind episensitization and highlight the evidence suggesting that epigenetically mediated histone hypoacetylation and DNA hypermethylation events may reverse clinical drug resistance. The potential reversibility of epigenetic changes and the microenvironmental impact of epigenetic control on gene expression may mediate a return to a baseline state of treatment susceptibility. Episensitization is a novel and highly practical management strategy both to prevent the practice of permanent treatment discontinuation with the occurrence of resistance, which rapidly exhausts remaining options in the pharmaceutical armamentarium and to significantly extend patient survival. Accordingly, this review highlights several epigenetic agents including decitabine, vorinostat, entinostat, 5-azacitidine, oncolytic viruses, and RRx-001.

The war on cancer: a military perspective

Actually it has not quite happened yet, but almost imperceptibly, by degrees, we are learning to live with cancer. The “War on Cancer,” although generally successful in the pediatric population, has gradually been replaced with a kinder, gentler treatment paradigm that strives to contain and maintain with stalemate over checkmate, a strategy that may literally constitute the path to least resistance. The purpose of this review is (1) to critically examine the War on Cancer as a powerfully evocative metaphor that is directly responsible for a counterproductive and even potentially dangerous war-like cell-kill treatment paradigm, (2) to suggest that a reframing of this metaphor in less retaliatory and aggressive terms along with a shift in clinical practice from a maximalist to a minimalist strategy is more appropriate to the treatment of cancer, and (3) to draw on examples from the military sector as points of reference and comparison that closely parallel the three therapeutic “control and containment” strategies discussed in this review: (1) “Optimox-like” trial designs, (2) epigenetic modulation, and (3) metronomic dosing.

Flushing Out Carcinoid Syndrome: Beneficial Effect of the Anticancer Epigenetic Agent RRx-001 in a Patient with a Treatment-Refractory Neuroendocrine Tumor

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms defined by the presence of cells with secretory granules and the potential to produce and release high levels of vasoactive peptides into the circulation, leading to severe flushing and diarrhea, which may adversely affect quality of life. This report presents the case of a 64-year-old man with chronic refractory diarrhea due to pulmonary NET treated with the experimental anticancer agent RRx-001 in a phase II trial called TRIPLE THREAT with subsequent resolution of his diarrhea.

Whole brain radiotherapy and RRx-001: Two partial responses in radioresistant melanoma brain metastases from a phase I/II clinical trial: A tite-crm phase I/II clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with RRx-001 and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial. RRx-001 is an reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species (ROS/RNS)-dependent systemically nontoxic hypoxic cell radiosensitizer with vascular normalizing properties under investigation in patients with various solid tumors including those with brain metastases. SIGNIFICANCE: Metastatic melanoma to the brain is historically associated with poor outcomes and a median survival of 4 to 5 months. WBRT is a mainstay of treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases, but no significant therapeutic advances for these patients have been described in the literature. To date, candidate radiosensitizing agents have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in patients with brain metastases, and in particular, no agent has demonstrated improved outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with novel radiosensitizing agent RRx-001 and WBRT without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial.

RRx-001, A novel dinitroazetidine radiosensitizer

SummaryThe ‘holy grail’ in radiation oncology is to improve the outcome of radiation therapy (RT) with a radiosensitizer—a systemic chemical/biochemical agent that additively or synergistically sensitizes tumor cells to radiation in the absence of significant toxicity. Similar to the oxygen effect, in which DNA bases modified by reactive oxygen species prevent repair of the cellular radiation damage, these compounds in general magnify free radical formation, leading to the permanent “fixation” of the resultant chemical change in the DNA structure. The purpose of this review is to present the origin story of the radiosensitizer, RRx-001, which emerged from the aerospace industry. The activity of RRx-001 as a chemosensitizer in multiple tumor types and disease states including malaria, hemorrhagic shock and sickle cell anemia, are the subject of future reviews.

RRx-001: a systemically non-toxic M2-to-M1 macrophage stimulating and prosensitizing agent in Phase II clinical trials

ABSTRACT Introduction: According to Hanahan and Weinberg, cancer manifests as six essential physiologic hallmarks: (1) self-sufficiency in growth signals, (2) insensitivity to growth-inhibitory signals, (3) evasion of programmed cell death, (4) limitless replicative potential, (5) sustained angiogenesis, and (6) invasion and metastasis. As a facilitator of these traits as well as immunosuppression and chemoresistance, the presence of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) may serve as the seventh hallmark of cancer. Anticancer agents that successfully reprogram TAMs to target rather than support tumor cells may hold the key to better therapeutic outcomes. Areas covered: This article summarizes the characteristics of the macrophage-stimulating agent RRx-001, a molecular iconoclast, sourced from the aerospace industry, with a particular emphasis on the cell-to-cell transfer mechanism of action (RBCs to TAMs) underlying its antitumor activity as well as its chemo and radioprotective properties, consolidated from various preclinical and clinical studies. Expert opinion: RRx-001 is macrophage-stimulating agent with the potential to synergize with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy while simultaneously protecting normal tissues from their cytotoxic effects. Given the promising indications of activity in multiple tumor types and these normal tissue protective properties, RRx-001 may be used to treat a broad spectrum of malignancies, if it is approved in the future.

A look inside the mechanistic black box: Are red blood cells the critical effectors of RRx-001 cytotoxicity?

The therapeutic potential of epi-immunotherapeutic anticancer agent RRx-001 in cancer has been validated with preclinical and clinical studies, since RRx-001 has successfully completed a phase 1 trial and multiple single-agent and combination phase 2 trials with preliminary evidence of promising activity are underway. Previous experimental work has implicated diverse anticancer mechanisms such as oxidative stress, ATP and NADPH depletion, anti-angiogenesis and epigenetic modulation in the overall antitumor effect of RRx-001. The hypothesis of this study was that the RRx-001 red blood cells are the essential and de facto intermediaries responsible for the reprograming of tumor behavior via transfer of their intracellular and membrane contents. To test this hypothesis, and thereby resolve the “black box” incompleteness in the continuity of the mechanism, the fate of red blood cells incubated with RRx-001 was explored in vitro and in vivo both in healthy animals and in tumor-bearing mice. The collective results establish that RRx-001-derivatized red blood cells are the critical “missing links” to explain the specificity and anticancer activity of RRx-001, including its immunomodulatory effects on tumor-associated macrophages. These experimental results delineate a novel erythrocyte-based mechanism without precedent in the annals of oncology and open the door to rational combination strategies with RRx-001 both in cancer therapy and beyond, particularly in disease states that affect red blood cell and vascular function such as malaria, leishmaniasis, sickle-cell disease and hemorrhagic shock.

RRx-001 in Refractory Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Case Report of a Partial Response after a Third Reintroduction of Platinum Doublets

RRx-001 is a pan-active, systemically nontoxic epigenetic inhibitor under investigation in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer and high-grade neuroendocrine tumors in a Phase II clinical trial entitled TRIPLE THREAT (NCT02489903), which reexposes patients to previously effective but refractory platinum doublets after treatment with RRx-001. The purpose of this case study is first to report a partial response to carboplatin and etoposide in a patient with small-cell lung cancer pretreated with RRx-001, indicating episensitization or resensitization by epigenetic mechanisms, and second to discuss the literature related to small-cell lung cancer and episensitization.

Confirmatory Trials in the Evaluation of Anticancer Medicinal Products in Man--PFS2: A Measure of Therapeutic Action-At-A-Distance.

Overall survival (OS) has emerged as the definitive regulatory “be-all, end-all” for the demonstration of benefit in cancer clinical trials. The reason and the rationale for why this is so are easily appreciated: literally a “test of time,” OS is a seemingly unambiguous, agenda-free end point, independent of bias-prone variables such as the frequency and methods of assessment, clinical evaluation, and the definition of progression. However, by general consensus, OS is an imperfect end point for several reasons: First, it may often be impractical because of the length, cost, and the size of clinical trials. Second, OS captures the impact of subsequent therapies, both beneficial (i.e., active) and detrimental, on survival but it does not take into account the contribution of subsequent therapies by treatment arm; the postprogression period is treated as an unknown black box (no information about the potential influence of next-line therapies on the outcome) under the implicit assumption that the clinical trial treatment is the only clinical variable that matters: what OS explicitly measures is the destination, that is, the elapsed time between the date of randomization (or intention to treat) and the date of death, not the journey, that is, what transpires in-between. In long-term maintenance strategies, patients receive treatment in temporally separated but mutually interdependent and causally linked sequences that exert a “field of influence” akin to action-at-a-distance forces like gravity, electricity, and magnetism on both the tumor and each other. Hence, in this setting, a new end point, PFS2, is required to measure this field of influence. This article reviews the definition and use in clinical trials of PFS2 and makes the case for its potential applicability as a preferred end point to measure the mutual influence of individual regimens in long-term maintenance strategies with resensitizing agents in particular.