Chetan Lathia

Sorafenib for Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Efficacy and Safety Results of the Phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial

PURPOSE Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib. CONCLUSION Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of the Dual Action Raf Kinase and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, BAY 43-9006, in Patients with Advanced, Refractory Solid Tumors

Purpose: BAY 43-9006, a novel multikinase inhibitor, prevents tumor growth by combining two antitumor activities: inhibition of both tumor cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis. This phase I, open-label, nonrandomized, noncontrolled, single-arm, dose escalation study was done to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety profile, pharmacokinetic variables, effect on biomarkers, and tumor response with BAY 43-9006 in 19 patients with advanced, refractory solid tumors. Experimental Design: BAY 43-9006 was given orally in repeated cycles of 1-week on/1-week off. The study comprised five dose levels, ranging from 100 mg twice daily (bid) to 800 mg bid. Treatment of each patient continued until unacceptable toxicity, tumor progression, or death. Results: Rash and hypertension were the dose-limiting toxicities at the 800 mg bid dose requiring study drug discontinuation; therefore, the MTD of BAY 43-9006 in this study was determined to be 600 mg bid. BAY 43-9006 was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate toxicities. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed early absorption followed by delayed secondary peaks and slow terminal elimination. Stable disease was achieved in five patients: one patient showed reduced tumor activity (positron emission tomography scan) and reduced mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling (lower phospho-ERK); one patient remained on treatment until study end point. Conclusions: The results confirm the favorable safety profile of BAY 43-9006 and support the development of this compound for the treatment of solid tumors.

Plasma Biomarkers as Predictors of Outcome in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose: Validated biomarkers of prognosis and response to drug have not been identified for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). One of the objectives of the phase III, randomized, controlled Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial was to explore the ability of plasma biomarkers to predict prognosis and therapeutic efficacy. Experimental Design: In SHARP, 602 patients with advanced HCC were randomized to receive either oral sorafenib 400 mg twice a day per os or matching placebo daily on a continuous basis. Ten plasma biomarkers implicated in the pathogenesis of HCC were measured in 491 patients at baseline and in 305 after 12 weeks of treatment. The candidate biomarkers were analyzed to identify correlates of prognosis or predictors of response to sorafenib. Results: In both the entire patient population and the placebo cohort, baseline angiopoietin 2 (Ang2) and VEGF concentrations independently predicted survival. Clinical variables such as macroscopic vascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and baseline α-fetoprotein and alkaline phosphatase concentrations also independently predicted survival in these groups. In the sorafenib cohort, trends toward enhanced survival benefit from sorafenib were observed in patients with high s-c-KIT or low hepatocyte growth factor concentration at baseline (P of interaction = 0.081 and 0.073, respectively). Conclusions: The angiogenesis biomarkers Ang2 and VEGF were independent predictors of survival in patients with advanced HCC. In contrast, none of the biomarkers tested significantly predicted response to sorafenib. Clin Cancer Res; 18(8); 2290–300. ©2012 AACR.

Phase I trial of sorafenib and gemcitabine in advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: With its potent inhibitory effects against Raf-1 kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, sorafenib is a novel oral anticancer agent targeting signal transduction and angiogenic pathways. This study is designed to combine sorafenib and gemcitabine due to their compatibility in preclinical models and nonoverlapping clinical toxicities. Experimental Design: An initial dose-escalation part of the study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors, followed by an expanded cohort at the recommended dose for patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Sorafenib is administered continuously, whereas gemcitabine is given at 1,000 mg/m2 weekly × 7 followed by 1 rest week, then weekly × 3 every 4 weeks. Results: Forty-two patients have been enrolled overall, including 19 in the dose-escalation part and 23 in the extended pancreatic cancer cohort. Demographics were as follows: male-to-female ratio = 26:16; median age = 61 years (range 39-83 years); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0:1:2 ratio = 16:21:5. The recommended dose of this combination is sorafenib 400 mg twice daily and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events of all causalities were thrombocytopenia (28.6%), lymphopenia (21.4%), lipase elevation (19%), neutropenia (16.7%), and fatigue (14.3%). Antitumor activity was observed in both groups, with 2 (10.5%) confirmed partial responses in ovarian cancer and 12 patients (63.2%) with disease stabilization in the dose-escalation part; 13 patients (56.5%) achieved disease stabilization in the pancreatic cohort. There was no consistent pharmacokinetic drug-to-drug interaction between sorafenib and gemcitabine. Conclusions: Sorafenib and gemcitabine are well tolerated in combination; further evaluations in pancreatic and ovarian cancers are warranted.

A Phase I Trial of the Oral, Multikinase Inhibitor Sorafenib in Combination with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel

Purpose: This study evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Thirty-nine patients with advanced cancer (24 with melanoma) received oral sorafenib 100, 200, or 400 mg twice daily on days 2 to 19 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received carboplatin corresponding to AUC6 and 225 mg/m2 paclitaxel on day 1. Pharmacokinetic analyses were done for sorafenib on days 2 and 19 of cycle 1 and for paclitaxel on day 1 of cycles 1 and 2. Pretreatment tumor samples from 17 melanoma patients were analyzed for BRAF mutations. Results: Sorafenib was well tolerated at the doses evaluated. The most frequent severe adverse events were hematologic toxicities (grade 3 or 4 in 33 patients, 85%). Twenty-seven (69%) patients had sorafenib-related adverse events, the most frequent of which were dermatologic events (26 patients, 67%). Exposure to paclitaxel was not altered by intervening treatment with sorafenib. Treatment with sorafenib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin resulted in one complete response and nine partial responses, all among patients with melanoma. There was no correlation between BRAF mutational status and treatment responses in patients with melanoma. Conclusions: The recommended phase II doses are oral 400 mg twice daily sorafenib, carboplatin at an AUC6 dose, and 225 mg/m2 paclitaxel. The tumor responses observed with this combined regimen in patients with melanoma warrant further investigation.

Biomarkers Predicting Outcome in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from Sorafenib Phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial

Purpose: Plasma proteins [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2), carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1), and Ras p21] and one tumor gene (VHL) were analyzed to identify prognostic biomarkers or indicators of response to sorafenib in a subset of patients enrolled in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial. Experimental Design: Nine hundred three patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were randomized to 400 mg sorafenib twice a day or placebo. Samples collected at baseline and after 3 and 12 weeks were subjected to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. VHL exons were sequenced from tumor biopsies. Results: Baseline biomarker data were available for VEGF (n = 712), sVEGFR-2 (n = 713), CAIX (n = 128), TIMP-1 (n = 123), Ras p21 (n = 125), and VHL mutational status (n = 134). Higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score correlated with elevated baseline VEGF (P < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of VHL mutations (P = 0.008), whereas higher Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) score correlated with elevated VEGF (P < 0.0001), CAIX (P = 0.027), and TIMP-1 (P = 0.0001). Univariable analyses of baseline levels in the placebo cohort identified VEGF (P = 0.0024), CAIX (P = 0.034), TIMP-1 (P = 0.001), and Ras p21 (P = 0.016) as prognostic biomarkers for survival. TIMP-1 remained prognostic for survival in a multivariable analysis model (P = 0.002) that also included ECOG PS, MSKCC score, and the other biomarkers assayed. In the placebo cohort, TIMP-1 (P < 0.001) and Ras p21 (P = 0.048) levels increased at 12 weeks. In the sorafenib cohort, VEGF levels increased at 3 and 12 weeks of treatment (both weeks P < 0.0001), whereas sVEGFR-2 (both weeks P < 0.0001) and TIMP-1 levels (P = 0.002, week 3; P = 0.006, week 12) decreased. Conclusions: VEGF, CAIX, TIMP-1, and Ras p21 levels were prognostic for survival in RCC patients. Of these, TIMP-1 has emerged as being independently prognostic. Clin Cancer Res; 16(19); 4853–63. ©2010 AACR.

Phase II multicenter, uncontrolled trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

This trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In this multinational, open-label phase II study, patients with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after at least one prior chemotherapy regimen were continuously treated with oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was overall best response; a secondary endpoint was percentage of patients with stable disease for ≥16 weeks. Biomarker analyses were also performed. Of the 56 patients enrolled into the study, 54 were treated with at least one dose of sorafenib. Partial response was observed in one patient (2%) and stable disease in 20 patients (37%); no complete responses were observed. Disease stabilization for ≥16 weeks was seen in 12 patients (22%); stabilization for ≥6 months in seven patients (13%). The most common drug-related grade 3 adverse events were rash/desquamation (6%), hand–foot skin reaction (4%), and fatigue (4%). Baseline vascular endothelial growth factor levels, levels of soluble epidermal growth factor receptor during treatment and both baseline and changes in soluble human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 levels correlated significantly with clinical outcomes. Although the primary endpoint of overall response rate showed minimal improvement on sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily treatment, the rate of disease stabilization was encouraging in patients treated with one or more lines of chemotherapy. The treatment had a clinically manageable toxicity profile. Further investigation of single-agent sorafenib in this patient population is not recommended; however, studies investigating combinations of sorafenib with chemotherapeutic agents are warranted and ongoing.

Phase I Trial of Sorafenib in Combination with Gefitinib in Patients with Refractory or Recurrent Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose: To evaluate the combination of sorafenib and gefitinib in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Experimental Design: In this dose-escalation trial, patients received oral sorafenib (200-400 mg) twice daily with gefitinib (250 mg orally) once daily to identify the recommended dose for phase II trials (RDP; part A). The pharmacokinetics of the RDP were characterized further in additional patients (part B) receiving single-agent gefitinib or sorafenib for 21 days followed by a 7-day washout with crossover to the other agent for an additional 21 days. Patients then received the combination of sorafenib plus gefitinib in 28-day cycles. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor efficacy were evaluated. Potential drug-drug interactions and the relationship between pharmacokinetics and toxicity were also assessed. Results: Thirty-one patients were treated (n = 12, part A; n = 19, part B). Most adverse events were grade 1/2. The most frequent grade 3/4 events included diarrhea and elevated alanine aminotransferase (both 9.7%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred (part A: elevated alanine aminotransferase at 400 mg twice daily). Gefitinib had no effect on sorafenib pharmacokinetics. However, gefitinib Cmax (26%) and area under the curve (38%) were reduced by concomitant sorafenib. One patient had a partial response; 20 (65%; n = 8, part A; n = 12, part B) had stable disease ≥4 months. The RDP was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily with gefitinib 250 mg once daily. Conclusions: Sorafenib combined with gefitinib is well tolerated, with promising efficacy in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Studies to further investigate the significance of the reduction in gefitinib exposure by sorafenib are warranted.

Phase I Targeted Combination Trial of Sorafenib and Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose: Sorafenib and erlotinib are potent, orally administered receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors with antiproliferative and antiangiogenic activities. Given their inhibitory target profile and efficacy as single agents, the combination of these drugs is of considerable interest in solid malignancies. This study aimed to determine the recommended phase II dose of this targeted combination, their toxicity profile, pharmacokinetic interaction, and preliminary clinical activities. Experimental Design: Sorafenib was administered alone for a 1-week run-in period, and then both drugs were given together continuously, with every 28 days considered as a cycle. Three dose levels were assessed. Results: Seventeen patients with advanced solid tumors received 75 cycles of treatment. The most frequent adverse events of all grades were constitutional and gastrointestinal in nature followed by electrolytes and dermatologic toxicities. Fatigue was the most common adverse event (17 patients; 100%) followed by diarrhea (15 patients; 88%), hypophosphatemia (13 patients; 76%), and acneiform rash (12 patients; 71%). These adverse events were predominantly mild to moderate. The recommended phase II dose of this combination was determined as 400 mg twice daily sorafenib and 150 mg daily erlotinib. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed no significant effect of erlotinib on the pharmacokinetic profile of sorafenib. Among 15 evaluable patients, 3 (20%) achieved a confirmed partial response and 9 (60%) had stable disease as best response. Conclusions: Sorafenib and erlotinib are well tolerated and seem to have no pharmacokinetic interactions when administered in combination at their full single-agent recommended doses. This well tolerated combination resulted in promising activity that needs further validation in phase II studies.

Phase I trial of BAY 50-4798, an interleukin-2-specific agonist in advanced melanoma and renal cancer

Purpose: BAY 50-4798 is an analogue of interleukin-2 that selectively activates T cells over natural killer cells. This phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of BAY 50-4798, screen for tumor response, and assess pharmacokinetics. Experimental Design: Forty-five patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cancer were enrolled, 31 on escalating doses to determine the MTD, with 20 renal cell carcinoma patients treated at MTD to detect antitumor activity. BAY 50-4798 was delivered i.v. every 8 h, days 1 to 5 and 15 to 19, and could be repeated after 9 weeks if tumor was stable or responding. Results: The MTD was defined by and reported in terms of doses received. The doses tested ranged from 1.3 to 26.1 μg/kg, and the MTD was defined as 10.4 μg/kg based on toxicities similar to those of aldesleukin. Two patients achieved partial responses, one with melanoma and one with renal cell carcinoma. Among all 45 patients, 53% and 9% experienced a grade 3 and 4 toxicity, respectively. Among the patients treated at the MTD of 10.4 μg/kg, 71% and 10% experienced a grade 3 and 4 toxicity, respectively. Pharmacokinetics showed dose-dependent peak concentrations (Cmax) and area under the curve with a half-life of ∼2 h and no evidence of accumulation. Lymphocyte subset analysis confirmed the preferential expansion of T-cell subsets over natural killer cells. Conclusions: The antitumor activity of BAY 50-4798 in malignancies that respond to high-dose interleukin-2 was low. BAY 50-4798 might provide advantages over aldesleukin in antigen-specific immunotherapies.