Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Overexpression of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 (GRM1) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple cancers. Riluzole, an inhibitor of glutamate release, showed synergistic antitumor activity in combination with the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib in preclinical models. This phase I trial identified the toxicity profile, dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of riluzole combined with sorafenib in patients with advanced cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled utilizing a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Riluzole was given at 100 mg PO BID in combination with sorafenib, beginning at 200 mg PO daily and escalating in 200 mg increments per level in 28-day cycles. Restaging evaluations were performed every 2 cycles. RESULTS:35 patients were enrolled over 4 dose levels. The MTD was declared at dose level 3 (riluzole: 100 mg PO BID; sorafenib: 400 mg AM/200 mg PM). Pharmacokinetic analyses did not reveal definitive evidence of drug-drug interactions. Consistent decreases in phospho-forms of ERK and AKT in tumor tissue analyses with accompanying decrease in GRM1 expression and increase in pro-apoptotic BIM suggest target engagement by the combination. Best responses included a partial response in 1 (2.9%) patient with pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma with a KANK4-RAF1 fusion, and stable disease in 11 (36%) patients. CONCLUSION:Combination therapy with riluzole and sorafenib was safe and tolerable in patients with advanced solid tumors. The partial response in a patient with a RAF1 fusion suggests that further exploration in a genomically selected cohort may be warranted.

BACKGROUND:Inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) proteins potentiate antitumor activity of platinum chemotherapy. This study sought to determine the safety and tolerability of PARP inhibitor talazoparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel. METHODS: days 1, 8, 15 of 21-day cycles in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients enrolled using a 3 + 3 design in two cohorts with talazoparib for 7 (schedule A) or 3 days (schedule B). After induction with 4-6 cycles of triplet therapy, patients received one of three maintenance options: (a) continuation of triplet (b) carboplatin/talazoparib, or (c) talazoparib monotherapy. RESULTS:Forty-three patients were treated. The MTD for both schedules was talazoparib 250mcg daily. The main toxicity was myelosuppression including grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Dose modification occurred in 87% and 100% of patients for schedules A and B, respectively. Discontinuation due to TRAEs was 13% in schedule A and 10% in B. Ten out of 22 evaluable patients in schedule A and 5/16 patients in schedule B had a complete or partial response. Twelve out of 43 patients received ≥6 cycles of talazoparib after induction, with a 13-month median duration of maintenance. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:on days 1, 8, 15 of 21-day cycles. This regimen is associated with significant myelosuppression, and in addition to maximizing supportive care, modification of the chemotherapy component would be a consideration for further development of this combination with the schedules investigated in this study.

BACKGROUND:Glutamate signaling activates MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways in tumor cells. Treatment with riluzole, a glutamate release inhibitor, has been previously shown to be safe in melanoma patients and produced biologic effects, but did not lead to radiographic responses, possibly due to poor pharmacokinetic properties. Therefore, we conducted a phase Ib trial to determine the safety and tolerability of the combination of the riluzole prodrug troriluzole (BHV-4157, trigriluzole) and the PD-1 antibody nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS:Patients with advanced or refractory solid tumors and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 were treated with increasing doses of troriluzole using a semi-Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval dose escalation procedure. Troriluzole monotherapy was orally self-administered for a 14-day lead-in period followed by continuation of troriluzole in combination with nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks. Endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy. RESULTS:We enrolled 14 patients with advanced solid tumors (melanoma = 3, NSCLC = 3, renal cell carcinoma = 2, bladder/urothelial = 2, ovarian cancer = 1, adenoid cystic carcinoma = 1, pleural mesothelial = 1, head and neck cancer = 1). Eleven patients had cancer progression on prior therapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 agent. Patients received troriluzole total daily doses from 140 to 560 mg (divided). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurring in ≥ 5 patients (> 35%) were transaminitis and increased lipase. DLT (dose-limiting toxicity) occurred in 3 patients: (1) grade 3 anorexia, (2) grade 3 fatigue and, (3) grade 3 atrial fibrillation. Six patients were treated at the MTD (maximum tolerated dose). No subjects discontinued treatment due to AEs. One response occurred (7%), which was a partial response in a subject who had PD-1 refractory disease. The 6-month PFS rate was 21%. PK data showed that the prodrug troriluzole was efficiently cleaved into riluzole by 2-h post-dosing in all dose cohorts tested. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The combination of troriluzole and nivolumab was safe and well-tolerated. The MTD of troriluzole was determined to be 420 mg total daily dose. The observed antitumor activity, primarily disease stabilization, is of interest in patients with PD-1 resistant tumors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03229278.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Veliparib (V), an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, potentiates effects of alkylating agents and topoisomerase inhibitors in preclinical tumor models. We conducted a phase I trial of V with iv cyclophosphamide (C) and V plus iv doxorubicin (A) and C. METHODS:) Day 3 in 21-day cycles. In Group 3, patients received AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-7, and in Group 4, AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-14 was given in 21-day cycles to evaluate effects on γH2AX foci. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled. MTD was not reached for V and C. MTD for V and AC was V 100 mg every 12 h Days 1-4 with AC (60/600 mg/m2) Day 3 every 21 days. V PK appears to be dose-dependent and has no effect on the PK of C. Overall, neutropenia and anemia were the most common adverse events. Objective response in V and AC treated groups was 22% (11/49). Overall clinical benefit rate was 31% (25/80). PAR decreased in PBMCs. Percentage of γH2AX-positive CTCs increased after treatment with V and AC. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:V and AC can be safely combined. Activity was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a high-risk and aggressive malignancy characterized by the absence of estrogen receptors (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) on the surface of malignant cells, and by the lack of overexpression of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2). It has limited therapeutic options compared to other subtypes of breast cancer. There is now a growing body of evidence on the role of immunotherapy in TNBC, however much of the data from clinical trials is conflicting and thus, challenging for clinicians to integrate the data into clinical practice. Landmark phase III trials using immunotherapy in the early-stage neoadjuvant setting concluded that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy improved the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared to chemotherapy with placebo while others found no significant improvement in pCR. Phase III trials have investigated the utility of immunotherapy in previously untreated metastatic TNBC, and these studies have similarly arrived at inconsistent conclusions. Some studies showed no benefit while others demonstrated a clinically significant improvement in overall survival in the PD-L1 positive population. It is not yet clear which biomarkers are most useful, and assays for these biomarkers have not been standardized. Given the often serious and severe side effects of immunotherapy, it is important and necessary to identify predictive biomarkers of response and resistance in order to enhance patient selection. In this review, we will discuss both the challenges of traditional biomarkers and the opportunities of emerging biomarkers for patient selection.

Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of breast cancer. Tumor characteristics typically feature estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), with a poorer prognosis relative to pure invasive ductal or lobular disease. Resistance to chemotherapy often leads to local recurrence and distant metastasis. Genomic profiling has identified multiple molecular abnormalities that may translate to targetable therapies in MBC. These tumors are known to display higher PD-L1 expressivity than other subtypes of breast cancer, and disease control with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy has been documented. We identify a patient with metastatic, metaplastic TNBC, with mesenchymal components and osseous differentiation, who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab treatment and has remained without evidence of disease after 32 months of observation, while maintaining good quality of life. Future efforts should focus on immunotherapy response with respect to the various subtypes of MBC, and treatment should continue to be incorporated in clinical trials to maximize disease response.

ABBV-176 is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of the humanized antibody h16f (PR-1594804) conjugated to a highly potent, cytotoxic cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer (PBD; SGD-1882) targeting the prolactin receptor (PRLR), which is overexpressed in several solid tumor types. This phase 1, dose-escalation study (NCT03145909) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary activity of ABBV-176 in patients with advanced solid tumors likely to exhibit elevated levels of PRLR. Patients received ABBV-176 once every 3 weeks. Dose escalation was by an exposure-adjusted, continual reassessment method. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed from the first day of dosing until the next dose of ABBV-176 to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Nineteen patients received ABBV-176 at doses from 2.7-109.35 μg/kg. Patients enrolled had colorectal cancer (n = 11), breast cancer (n = 6), or adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 2). DLTs occurred in 4 patients and included thrombocytopenia (n = 2; both at 99.9-μg/kg dose level), neutropenia (n = 2; 78.3-μg/kg and 99.9-μg/kg dose levels), and pancytopenia (n = 1; 109.35-μg/kg dose level). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events related to ABBV-176 were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, nausea, fatigue, and pleural effusions. Effusions and edema were common, and timing of onset suggested possible cumulative ABBV-176 toxicity. Tumor expression of PRLR varied among patients enrolled and analyzed. No patient had an objective response. MTD was not formally determined, as identification of a tolerable dose was confounded by late-onset toxicities. ABBV-176 was associated with significant toxicity in this phase 1, dose-escalation study. Although cytopenias were often dose limiting, effusions and edema were also common and had late onset that suggested cumulative toxicity. No responses were observed, although data were available from a small number of patients with variable tumor PRLR expression. This study was terminated after the dosing of 19 patients.

BACKGROUND:Ectrodactyly-ectodermal dysplasia-clefting syndrome 3 (EEC) is one of the six overlapping syndromes caused by mutations in the tumor protein p63 gene (TP63). EEC is suspected when patients have cleft hands or feet, polydactyly, and syndactyly, abnormal development of the ectodermally derived structures, and orofacial clefting. Genitourinary (GU) anomalies have been identified in patients with EEC, yet these are often under-recognized and under-reported. The available literature on sonographic prenatal findings is sparse, especially when considering GU anomalies. METHODS:We present the case of a male stillborn fetus, who was found antenatally to have multicystic dysplastic kidneys and anhydramnios. Following the termination of pregnancy, examination and autopsy further revealed unilateral polydactyly and bilateral syndactyly which had not been previously identified on antenatal ultrasound. RESULTS:Whole-exome sequencing (WES) revealed a de novo heterozygous pathogenic variant in exon 5 of the TP63 gene: p.His247Arg: c.740A>G (NM_003722.4) which has been reported in the literature. The His247Arg variant has been published as a pathogenic variant in association with EEC, both with and without orofacial clefting. CONCLUSION:Our prenatal case expands the phenotypic spectrum of TP63-related disorders in general. In addition, it adds to the phenotype associated with the His247Arg pathogenic variant responsible for EEC. Further, we highlight the importance of WES as a postnatal tool to help clarify unexpected findings, and as a way to add to the spectrum of existing phenotypes of known single-gene disorders.