Annual Meeting Proceedings Part 1 - American Society of Clinical ...
Annual Meeting Proceedings Part 1 - American Society of Clinical ...
Annual Meeting Proceedings Part 1 - American Society of Clinical ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
196s Developmental Therapeutics—Experimental Therapeutics<br />
3092 General Poster Session (Board #19B), Mon, 8:00 AM-12:00 PM<br />
BI 836845, a fully human IGF ligand neutralizing antibody, to improve the<br />
efficacy <strong>of</strong> rapamycin by blocking rapamycin-induced AKT activation.<br />
Presenting Author: Paul J. Adam, Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co.<br />
KG, Vienna, Austria<br />
Background: Analogs <strong>of</strong> rapamycin (rapalogs) targeting mammalian target<br />
<strong>of</strong> rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) have shown clinical activity in several<br />
cancers. Nonetheless, preclinical and clinical data suggest that there may<br />
be intrinsic resistance to rapalogs through a feedback loop which activates<br />
upstream signaling when mTORC1 is blocked. BI 836845 is a fully human<br />
antibody, currently in phase I clinical trials, which potently neutralizes both<br />
IGF-1 and IGF-2. We tested whether BI 836845 is able to improve the<br />
efficacy <strong>of</strong> rapamycin by inhibiting upstream signaling in preclinical<br />
models. Methods: Cancer cell lines were pr<strong>of</strong>iled in vitro and in vivo for<br />
sensitivity to BI 836845 and rapamycin, alone or in combination. Mitogenic<br />
signaling was examined by measuring levels <strong>of</strong> phosphorylated AKT<br />
(pAKT) using Western blot analysis. IGF bioactivity was determined using a<br />
cellular IGF-1R phosphorylation ELISA. Results: The combination <strong>of</strong> BI<br />
836845 and rapamycin was more effective than either agent alone at<br />
inhibiting the proliferation <strong>of</strong> Ewing’s sarcoma cells cultured in vitro as well<br />
as in a nude mouse xenograft model in vivo. Analysis <strong>of</strong> cell signaling<br />
upstream <strong>of</strong> mTOR demonstrated that treatment with rapamycin alone<br />
resulted in elevated pAKT, indicating feedback loop activation. BI 836845<br />
treatment alone or in combination with rapamycin inhibited AKT phosphorylation,<br />
demonstrating that the rapamycin-induced increase in pAKT was<br />
due to elevated IGF bioactivity. Consistent with this we demonstrated that<br />
rapamycin increased IGF bioactivity in mice and that this could be<br />
inhibited by BI 836845. We extended these studies to include other cancer<br />
cell lines and pr<strong>of</strong>iled the correlation between improved efficacy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
combination with BI 836845 inhibition <strong>of</strong> rapamycin-induced feedback. A<br />
correlation has been observed for cancer cells derived from several<br />
indications. Conclusions: Rapamycin treatment increases AKT activation<br />
via elevated IGF ligand bioactivity. This effect can be inhibited by BI<br />
836845, thus explaining the improved pre-clinical efficacy seen when both<br />
agents are combined. These data provide a rationale for the clinical<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> rapalogs and BI 836845.<br />
3094 General Poster Session (Board #19D), Mon, 8:00 AM-12:00 PM<br />
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study <strong>of</strong> multiple schedules <strong>of</strong> ganetespib<br />
(STA-9090), a heat shock protein 90 inhibitor, in combination with<br />
docetaxel for subjects with advanced solid tumor malignancies. Presenting<br />
Author: John S. Kauh, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta,<br />
GA<br />
Background: Ganetespib is a next-generation Hsp90 inhibitor unrelated to<br />
the first-generation ansamycin class <strong>of</strong> Hsp90 inhibitors and has superior<br />
activity to these agents in preclinical studies. Ganetespib is well tolerated<br />
with promising antitumor activity. Based on synergy between ganetespib<br />
(G) and docetaxel (D), a phase I study evaluating preclinical dosing models<br />
was performed. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced solid tumor malignancies<br />
and ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2 were eligible. Sequential<br />
cohorts <strong>of</strong> pts were treated (3�3 design) with increasing doses <strong>of</strong> D (day 1)<br />
and G (days 1, 8) (A) Q 21 days. Following MTD determination, safety and<br />
exploratory cohorts <strong>of</strong> D day 1 with G days 1, 15 (B); or G days 1, 4, 15 (C)<br />
were completed. PK sampling was performed during schedule A. The<br />
primary endpoint was determination <strong>of</strong> optimal doses and schedule <strong>of</strong> the<br />
two agents for combination therapy. Results: Twenty-seven patients were<br />
enrolled in schedules A (n�12), B (n�8), and C (n�7). Median age-64<br />
(44-75); 11-M, 16-F; ECOG PS: 0 (n�5),1(n�21), 2 (n�1). Most pts had<br />
NSCLC (n�9), others were head/neck (n�4), and SCLC (n�3). The defined<br />
MTD was level 2 (D-75 mg/m2, G-150 mg/m2), as 2 <strong>of</strong> 4 pts at level 3<br />
(D-75 mg/m2, G-200 mg/m2) had DLTs (febrile neutropenia and one g4<br />
neutropenia <strong>of</strong> � 7 days), requiring expansion <strong>of</strong> level 2. The median<br />
number <strong>of</strong> cycles received is 2 (1-11), with 3 pts in schedule C still on<br />
study. Among 22 pts evaluable for response, 1 had a PR (head/neck), 12<br />
had SD following 6 weeks evaluation, 10 pts for 12 weeks and 6 pts for 18<br />
weeks. Common AEs included neutropenia, diarrhea, anemia, fatigue,<br />
nausea, and febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic filgrastim/pegfilgrastim was<br />
not used at any time. PK data indicates similar G exposure alone compared<br />
to G administered prior to D. No accumulation was observed following<br />
once-weekly dosing, consistent with studies <strong>of</strong> G alone. Conclusions: The<br />
combination is well tolerated at the recommended doses <strong>of</strong> D 75 mg/m2<br />
and G 150 mg/m2. Promising anti-cancer activity was noted, and a<br />
randomized phase 2b/3 study with D day 1 and G days 1, 15 regimen is<br />
ongoing in advanced NSCLC (NCT01348126).<br />
3093 General Poster Session (Board #19C), Mon, 8:00 AM-12:00 PM<br />
Phase I dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study <strong>of</strong> a combination <strong>of</strong><br />
elisidepsin (E) and erlotinib (T) in patients (pts) with advanced solid<br />
tumors. Presenting Author: Sanjay Goel, Montefiore Einstein Cancer<br />
Center, Bronx, NY<br />
Background: E is a new marine compound that has shown synergism with T<br />
in vitro even in T-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines.<br />
Based on these findings, a phase I clinical trial was undertaken to identify<br />
the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) <strong>of</strong> E (3-h<br />
iv, days 1, 8 and 15) followed by T (once daily) in 3-week cycles. Secondary<br />
objectives were evaluation <strong>of</strong> safety and feasibility, PK and preliminary<br />
efficacy results. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors with no<br />
standard therapeutic option were recruited. Cohorts <strong>of</strong> 3-6 pts were<br />
included at each dose level (DL), with escalating doses <strong>of</strong> E in increments<br />
<strong>of</strong> 25-50% according to toxicities, and 2 different T doses (100 and 150<br />
mg/day). Results: Thirty pts (median age, 57 years; 19 females) were<br />
evaluable. Main tumor types included NSCLC, colorectal, melanoma, and<br />
ovarian cancer. Six DLs were assessed. Starting DL was E 0.33 mg � T<br />
100mg. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) out <strong>of</strong> 6 pts (grade 3 bilirubin<br />
increase) was observed at DL3 (E 0.75 mg � T 150 mg). Another DLT (dose<br />
omissions due to ALT increase) was found at DL6 (E 2.25 mg � T 100 mg).<br />
Frequent toxicities were diarrhea (53%), nausea (23%), vomiting (33%),<br />
rash (47%), pruritus (43%), dry skin (27%) and acneiform dermatitis<br />
(17%). Grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhea (2 pts), rash (2 pts) and<br />
pruritus (1 pts). Main biochemical abnormalities were ALT (grade 3/4 in 4<br />
pts) and total bilirubin increase (grade 3 in 2 pts). No severe hematological<br />
abnormalities were observed. Most toxicities were related to T; therefore, T<br />
dose was reduced to 100 mg/day. No PK interaction between E and T was<br />
observed. No objective responses were reported. Six pts attained stable<br />
disease �3 months (3 NSCLC; 1 ovarian cancer, 1 colorectal cancer, 1<br />
invasive thymoma). Conclusions: E � T was a manageable combination;<br />
however, the difficulty <strong>of</strong> combining E with the standard dose <strong>of</strong> T (150mg)<br />
and the lack <strong>of</strong> activity made this combination unattractive for further<br />
development in the current schedule. Possibly, other schedules may<br />
demonstrate more efficacy.<br />
3095 General Poster Session (Board #19E), Mon, 8:00 AM-12:00 PM<br />
A phase I trial <strong>of</strong> the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus (TEM) in combination<br />
with capecitabine (CAP) in patients with advanced malignancies. Presenting<br />
Author: Michael J. Pishvaian, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center,<br />
Georgetown University, Washington, DC<br />
Background: The mammalian target <strong>of</strong> rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway<br />
is critical for cell growth and proliferation. mTOR antagonists, such as<br />
TEM, have proven anti-cancer efficacy. Pre-clinical models and early phase<br />
clinical trials have demonstrated increased efficacy when an mTOR<br />
antagonist is combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Methods: Patients<br />
(pts) with advanced malignancies and adequate hepatic and renal function<br />
were eligible for enrollment. An alternating dose escalation <strong>of</strong> TEM and CAP<br />
was employed in separate q2week and q3week arms. Planned dose levels<br />
were: TEM 15 and 25mg IV weekly; and CAP 500, 750, 1000, and 1250<br />
mg/m2 orally twice daily (BID). Restaging occurred every 4 cycles for the<br />
q2week arm, and every 3 cycles for the q3week arm. PK samples assessed<br />
serum levels <strong>of</strong> sirolimus at Day 0, 8, and 15 <strong>of</strong> the q2week arm. Archived<br />
tumor specimens were assayed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for expression<br />
<strong>of</strong> phospho-AKT, phospo-4EBP1, phoshpo-p70S6, and PTEN. Results:<br />
Thirty-two pts were enrolled, 30 <strong>of</strong> whom were evaluable for toxicity, <strong>of</strong><br />
which 18 were male, age range 30-72 years, 25 with colorectal cancer. Pts<br />
had received an average <strong>of</strong> 4 prior lines <strong>of</strong> therapy. The most common<br />
adverse events (AEs) were mucositis and fatigue. The most common grade<br />
3/4 AEs were fatigue (n�4), diarrhea (n�2), and hypophosphatemia<br />
(n�2). In 16/30 pts, the dose <strong>of</strong> CAP was reduced. There were two DLTs,<br />
both hypophosphatemia in the q3week arm (TEM�25mg and<br />
CAP�1000mg/m2 ). For the q2week arm, the recommended phase II dose<br />
(RP2D) was TEM 25 mg � CAP 1000mg/m2 . For the q3week arm, the<br />
RP2D was TEM 25mg � CAP 750mg/m2 . Twenty-five pts were evaluable<br />
for response (18 for OS). There were no PRs or CRs, but 14/25 pts (56%)<br />
had SD, with 4/24 (16%) having prolonged SD <strong>of</strong> �6 months. Median TTP<br />
and OS were 3 and 7 months, respectively. Five pts are still on study. PK<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> serum sirolimus levels, and the results <strong>of</strong> the IHC on<br />
archived tumor samples will be presented. Conclusions: The combination <strong>of</strong><br />
TEM and CAP is safe on both a q2week and a q3week schedule. The<br />
combination demonstrated promising evidence <strong>of</strong> disease control in this<br />
highly refractory population and should be tested in disease-specific phase<br />
II trials.<br />
Visit abstract.asco.org and search by abstract for the full list <strong>of</strong> abstract authors and their disclosure information.