Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a Phase II randomised discontinuation trial analysisTim Eisen, T. Ahmad, Keith T. Flaherty et al.|British Journal of Cancer|2006 The effects of sorafenib--an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting the tumour and tumour vasculature--were evaluated in patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in a large multidisease Phase II randomised discontinuation trial (RDT). Enrolled patients received a 12-week run-in of sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). Patients with changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements <25% from baseline were then randomised to sorafenib or placebo for a further 12 weeks (ie to week 24). Patients with > or =25% tumour shrinkage after the run-in continued on open-label sorafenib, whereas those with > or =25% tumour growth discontinued treatment. This analysis focussed on secondary RDT end points: changes in bi-dimensional tumour measurements from baseline after 12 weeks and overall tumour responses (WHO criteria) at week 24, progression-free survival (PFS), safety and biomarkers (BRAF, KRAS and NRAS mutational status). Of 37 melanoma patients treated during the run-in phase, 34 were evaluable for response: one had > or =25% tumour shrinkage and remained on open-label sorafenib; six (16%) had <25% tumour growth and were randomised (placebo, n=3; sorafenib, n=3); and 27 had > or =25% tumour growth and discontinued. All three randomised sorafenib patients progressed by week 24; one remained on sorafenib for symptomatic relief. All three placebo patients progressed by week-24 and were re-started on sorafenib; one experienced disease re-stabilisation. Overall, the confirmed best responses for each of the 37 melanoma patients who received sorafenib were 19% stable disease (SD) (ie n=1 open-label; n=6 randomised), 62% (n=23) progressive disease (PD) and 19% (n=7) unevaluable. The overall median PFS was 11 weeks. The six randomised patients with SD had overall PFS values ranging from 16 to 34 weeks. The most common drug-related adverse events were dermatological (eg rash/desquamation, 51%; hand-foot skin reaction, 35%). There was no relationship between V600E BRAF status and disease stability. DNA was extracted from the biopsies of 17/22 patients. Six had V600E-positive tumours (n=4 had PD; n=1 had SD; n=1 unevaluable for response), and 11 had tumours containing wild-type BRAF (n=9 PD; n=1 SD; n=1 unevaluable for response). In conclusion, sorafenib is well tolerated but has little or no antitumour activity in advanced melanoma patients as a single agent at the dose evaluated (400 mg b.i.d.). Ongoing trials in advanced melanoma are evaluating sorafenib combination therapies.
First-in-human phase I study of copanlisib (BAY 80-6946), an intravenous pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphomasPhase I dose-escalation study of copanlisib in combination with gemcitabine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancerR. D. Kim, Steven R. Alberts, Carol E. Peña et al.|British Journal of Cancer|2018 BACKGROUND: Copanlisib is a pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor with predominant PI3K-α/δ activity that has demonstrated clinical activity and manageable safety when administered as monotherapy in a phase II study. Combination therapy may overcome compensatory signalling that could occur with PI3K pathway inhibition, resulting in enhanced inhibitory activity, and preclinical studies of copanlisib with gemcitabine have demonstrated potent anti-tumour activity in vivo. METHODS: A phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of copanlisib with gemcitabine or with cisplatin plus gemcitabine (CisGem) in patients with advanced malignancies, including an expansion cohort in patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) at the RP2D of copanlisib plus CisGem. Copanlisib and gemcitabine were administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle; maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and RP2D of copanlisib were determined. Copanlisib plus CisGem was administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle; pharmacokinetics and biomarkers were assessed. RESULTS: plus gemcitabine was the MTD and RP2D for both combinations. Common treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea (86%), hyperglycaemia (80%) and decreased platelet count (80%). Copanlisib exposure displayed a dose-proportional increase. No differences were observed upon co-administration of CisGem. Response rates were as follows: copanlisib plus gemcitabine, 6.3% (one partial response in a patient with peritoneal carcinoma); copanlisib plus CisGem, 12% (one complete response and three partial responses all in patients with BTC (response rate 17.4% in patients with BTC)). Mutations were detected in PIK3CA (1 out of 43), KRAS (10 out of 43) and BRAF (2 out of 22), with phosphate and tensin homologue protein loss in 41% (12 out of 29). CONCLUSIONS: Copanlisib plus CisGem demonstrated a manageable safety profile, favourable pharmacokinetics, and potentially promising clinical response.
Phase IB study of sorafenib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with refractory solid tumorsBeate Schultheis, Gerhard Kummer, Matthias Zeth et al.|Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology|2011 A sensitive and robust plasma-based DNA methylation panel for early detection of target gastrointestinal cancersBACKGROUND: Target gastrointestinal cancers (GICs), encompassing esophageal cancer (EC), gastric cancer (GC), and colorectal cancer (CRC), originate within a single readily accessible luminal organ system and are diagnosable using endoscopy. However, endoscopy is an invasive procedure with low compliance and no plasma-based DNA methylation assay for the early detection of GICs. METHODS: Nine potential DNA methylation markers were identified and evaluated in tissue (n=60) and plasma (n=155) cohorts to select the most suitable markers. A training cohort (n=244) and a validation cohort (n=199), including GICs patients, benign tumors, gastrointestinal polyps, and controls, were enrolled to develop and validate a DNA methylation panel. An independent prospective cohort (n=158) was used to validate the panel's performance and compare it with blood protein tumor markers. RESULTS: Six out of nine candidate methylation markers with excellent discrimination abilities in both tissue and plasma cohorts were selected for the DNA methylation panel. The panel demonstrated high AUC values of 0.937 (EC), 0.968 (GC), and 0.987 (CRC) in training cohort, and achieved AUC values of 0.921 (EC), 0.921 (GC), and 0.959 (CRC) in validation cohort. Notably, it achieved impressive AUC values of 0.971 and 0.843 for identifying stage I GICs in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In the prospective cohort, the six-marker panel showed comparable AUC values to CEA, AFP, and CA19-9 (0.935, 0.769, 0.663, and 0.668, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study successfully developed and validated a novel, robust, sensitive, and specific plasma-based DNA methylation panel, offering a promising strategy for the early detection of GICs.