1stOncology™: Cancer Intelligence Service – Page 16474 – 1stOncology is recognized as a Top 10 Global Pharma Analytic Provider

VANTAGE 095: An International, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of Vorinostat (MK-0683) in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

The present global, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb study was designed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral vorinostat combined with standard doses of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma considered refractory to novel myeloma agents.
Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years, had received ≥ 2 previous regimens, had disease refractory to ≥ 1 previous bortezomib-containing regimen, and had received ≥ 1 dose of an immunomodulatory drug (thalidomide or lenalidomide)-based regimen. The patients received 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) plus oral vorinostat (400 mg/d on days 1-14). Oral dexamethasone, 20 mg, on the day of and the day after each dose of bortezomib could be added for patients with progressive disease after 2 cycles or no change after 4 cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.
The objective response rate was 11.3% (95% confidence interval, 6.6%-17.7%), and the median duration of response was 211 days (range, 64-550 days). The median overall survival duration was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval, 8.5-14.4 months), with a 2-year survival rate of 32%. The frequently reported adverse events were thrombocytopenia (69.7%), nausea (57.0%), diarrhea (53.5%), anemia (52.1%), and fatigue (48.6%); the overall safety profile was consistent with that of bortezomib and vorinostat.
The combination of vorinostat and bortezomib is active in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to novel treatment modalities and offers a new therapeutic option for this difficult-to-treat patient population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00773838).
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

Accuracy of advanced cancer patients’ life expectancy estimates: The role of race and source of life expectancy information.

The objective of this study was to examine the source of advanced cancer patients’ information about their prognosis and determine whether this source of information could explain racial disparities in the accuracy of patients’ life expectancy estimates (LEEs).
Coping With Cancer was a prospective, longitudinal, multisite study of terminally ill cancer patients followed until death. In structured interviews, patients reported their LEEs and the sources of these estimates (ie, medical providers, personal beliefs, religious beliefs, and other). The accuracy of LEEs was calculated through a comparison of patients’ self-reported LEEs with their actual survival.
The sample for this analysis included 229 patients: 31 black patients and 198 white patients. Only 39.30% of the patients estimated their life expectancy within 12 months of their actual survival. Black patients were more likely to have an inaccurate LEE than white patients. A minority of the sample (18.3%) reported that a medical provider was the source of their LEEs; none of the black patients (0%) based their LEEs on a medical provider. Black race remained a significant predictor of an inaccurate LEE, even after the analysis had been controlled for sociodemographic characteristics and the source of LEEs.
The majority of advanced cancer patients have an inaccurate understanding of their life expectancy. Black patients with advanced cancer are more likely to have an inaccurate LEE than white patients. Medical providers are not the source of information for LEEs for most advanced cancer patients and especially for black patients. The source of LEEs does not explain racial differences in LEE accuracy. Additional research into the mechanisms underlying racial differences in prognostic understanding is needed. Cancer 2016;000:000-000. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Prevalence and incidence of liver enzyme elevations in a pooled oncology clinical trial cohort.

Few epidemiologic studies describe longitudinal liver chemistry (LC) elevations in cancer patients. A population-based retrospective cohort was identified from 31 Phase 2-3 oncology trials (excluding targeted therapies) conducted from 1985-2005 to evaluate background rates of LC elevations in patients (n=3998) with or without liver metastases. Patients with baseline liver metastases (29% of patients) presented with a 3% prevalence of alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥3x upper limits normal (ULN) and 0.2% prevalence of bilirubin ≥3xULN. During follow-up, the incidence (per 1000 person-months) of new onset ALT elevations ≥3xULN was 6.1 (95% CI: 4.5, 8.0) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 4.5) in patients without and with liver metastases, respectively. No new incident cases of ALT and bilirubin elevations suggestive of severe liver injury occurred among those with liver metastases; a single case occurred among those without metastasis. Regardless of the presence of liver metastases, LC elevations were rare in cancer patients during oncology trials, which may be due to enrolment criteria. Our study validates uniform thresholds for detection of LC elevations in oncology studies and serves as an empirical referent point for comparing liver enzyme abnormalities in oncology trials of novel targeted therapies. These data support uniform LC stopping criteria in oncology trials.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

ImmunoPET helps predicting the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates targeting TENB2 and STEAP1.

The efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) targeted to solid tumors depends on biological processes that are hard to monitor in vivo. 89Zr-immunoPET of the ADC antibodies could help understand the performance of ADCs in the clinic by confirming the necessary penetration, binding, and internalization. This work studied monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) ADCs against two targets in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, TENB2 and STEAP1, in four patient-derived tumor models (LuCaP35V, LuCaP70, LuCaP77, LuCaP96.1). Three aspects of ADC biology were measured and compared: efficacy was measured in tumor growth inhibition studies; target expression was measured by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry; and tumor antibody uptake was measured with 111In-mAbs and gamma counting or with 89Zr-immunoPET. Within each model, the mAb with the highest tumor uptake showed the greatest potency as an ADC. Sensitivity between models varied, with the LuCaP77 model showing weak efficacy despite high target expression and high antibody uptake. Ex vivo analysis confirmed the in vivo results, showing a correlation between expression, uptake and ADC efficacy. We conclude that 89Zr-immunoPET data can demonstrate which ADC candidates achieve the penetration, binding, and internalization necessary for efficacy in tumors sensitive to the toxic payload.

Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Background In phase 2 studies, baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods In this phase 3 study involving 527 patients with an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects associated with one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic DMARDs, or both, we randomly assigned the patients in a 1:1:1 ratio to baricitinib at a dose of 2 or 4 mg daily or placebo for 24 weeks. End points, tested hierarchically at week 12 to control type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, the 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or less (on a scale of 0.1 to 86.0, with a score of 3.3 or less indicating remission). Comparisons with placebo were made first with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib and then with the 2-mg dose. Results Significantly more patients receiving baricitinib at the 4-mg dose than those receiving placebo had an ACR20 response at week 12 (55% vs. 27%, P&lt;0.001). Differences between the higher-dose baricitinib group and the placebo group were also significant for the HAQ-DI score and the DAS28-CRP but not for an SDAI score of 3.3 or less. Adverse-event rates through 24 weeks were higher for patients receiving the 2-mg dose of baricitinib and those receiving the 4-mg dose than for patients receiving placebo (71% and 77%, respectively, vs. 64%), including infections (44% and 40%, vs. 31%). The rates of serious adverse events were 4%, 10%, and 7% in the three groups, respectively. Two nonmelanoma skin cancers and two major adverse cardiovascular events, including a fatal stroke, occurred in the higher-dose group. Baricitinib was associated with a small reduction in neutrophil levels and increases in serum creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Conclusions In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, baricitinib at a daily dose of 4 mg was associated with clinical improvement at 12 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721044 .).