J-C Soria1, F DeBraud2, R Bahleda3, B Adamo4, F Andre3, R Dienstmann, R Dientsmann5, A Delmonte2, R Cereda6, J Isaacson6, J Litten6, A Allen6, F Dubois7, C Saba7, R Robert7, M D'Incalci8, M Zucchetti8, M G Camboni6, J Tabernero4. 1. Department of Drug Development, Gustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France soria@igr.fr. 2. European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Drug Development, Gustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 4. Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Sage Bionetworks, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. 6. Clovis Oncology, Inc., San Francisco Clovis Oncology, Inc., Boulder, USA Clovis Oncology, Inc., Milan, Italy. 7. Institut de Recherche International Servier, Suresnes, France. 8. Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Via La Masa, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lucitanib is a potent, oral inhibitor fibroblast growth factor receptor types 1 and 2 (FGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor types 1, 2, and 3 (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor types α and β (PGFRα/β), which are essential kinases for tumor growth, survival, migration, and angiogenesis. Several tumor types, including breast carcinoma, demonstrate amplification of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-related genes. There are no approved drugs for molecularly defined FGF-aberrant (FGFR1- or FGF3/4/19-amplified) tumors. METHODS: This open-label phase I/IIa study involved a dose-escalation phase to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD), and pharmacokinetics of lucitanib in patients with advanced solid tumors, followed by a dose-expansion phase to obtain preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients who could potentially benefit from treatment (i.e. with tumors harboring FGF-aberrant pathway or considered angiogenesis-sensitive). RESULTS: Doses from 5 to 30 mg were evaluated with dose-limiting toxic effects dominated by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition-related toxic effects at the 30 mg dose level (one case of grade 4 depressed level of consciousness and two cases of grade 3 thrombotic microangiopathy). The most common adverse events (all grades, all cohorts) were hypertension (91%), asthenia (42%), and proteinuria (57%). Exposure increased with dose and t½ was 31-40 h, suitable for once daily administration. Seventy-six patients were included. All but one had stage IV; 42% had >3 lines of previous chemotherapy. Sixty-four patients were assessable for response; 58 had measurable disease. Clinical activity was observed at all doses tested with durable Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) partial responses in a variety of tumor types. In the angiogenesis-sensitive group, objective RECIST response rate (complete response + partial response) was 26% (7 of 27) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 25 weeks. In assessable FGF-aberrant breast cancer patients, 50% (6 of 12) achieved RECIST partial response with a median PFS of 40.4 weeks for all treated patients. CONCLUSION: Lucitanib has promising efficacy and a manageable side-effect profile. The spectrum of activity observed demonstrates clinical benefit in both FGF-aberrant and angiogenesis-sensitive populations. A comprehensive phase II program is planned.
BACKGROUND:Lucitanib is a potent, oral inhibitor fibroblast growth factor receptor types 1 and 2 (FGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor types 1, 2, and 3 (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor types α and β (PGFRα/β), which are essential kinases for tumor growth, survival, migration, and angiogenesis. Several tumor types, including breast carcinoma, demonstrate amplification of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-related genes. There are no approved drugs for molecularly defined FGF-aberrant (FGFR1- or FGF3/4/19-amplified) tumors. METHODS: This open-label phase I/IIa study involved a dose-escalation phase to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD), and pharmacokinetics of lucitanib in patients with advanced solid tumors, followed by a dose-expansion phase to obtain preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients who could potentially benefit from treatment (i.e. with tumors harboring FGF-aberrant pathway or considered angiogenesis-sensitive). RESULTS: Doses from 5 to 30 mg were evaluated with dose-limiting toxic effects dominated by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition-related toxic effects at the 30 mg dose level (one case of grade 4 depressed level of consciousness and two cases of grade 3 thrombotic microangiopathy). The most common adverse events (all grades, all cohorts) were hypertension (91%), asthenia (42%), and proteinuria (57%). Exposure increased with dose and t½ was 31-40 h, suitable for once daily administration. Seventy-six patients were included. All but one had stage IV; 42% had >3 lines of previous chemotherapy. Sixty-four patients were assessable for response; 58 had measurable disease. Clinical activity was observed at all doses tested with durable Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) partial responses in a variety of tumor types. In the angiogenesis-sensitive group, objective RECIST response rate (complete response + partial response) was 26% (7 of 27) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 25 weeks. In assessable FGF-aberrant breast cancerpatients, 50% (6 of 12) achieved RECIST partial response with a median PFS of 40.4 weeks for all treated patients. CONCLUSION:Lucitanib has promising efficacy and a manageable side-effect profile. The spectrum of activity observed demonstrates clinical benefit in both FGF-aberrant and angiogenesis-sensitive populations. A comprehensive phase II program is planned.
Authors: Paul A Bunn; John D Minna; Alexander Augustyn; Adi F Gazdar; Youcef Ouadah; Mark A Krasnow; Anton Berns; Elisabeth Brambilla; Natasha Rekhtman; Pierre P Massion; Matthew Niederst; Martin Peifer; Jun Yokota; Ramaswamy Govindan; John T Poirier; Lauren A Byers; Murry W Wynes; David G McFadden; David MacPherson; Christine L Hann; Anna F Farago; Caroline Dive; Beverly A Teicher; Craig D Peacock; Jane E Johnson; Melanie H Cobb; Hans-Guido Wendel; David Spigel; Julien Sage; Ping Yang; M Catherine Pietanza; Lee M Krug; John Heymach; Peter Ujhazy; Caicun Zhou; Koichi Goto; Afshin Dowlati; Camilla Laulund Christensen; Keunchil Park; Lawrence H Einhorn; Martin J Edelman; Giuseppe Giaccone; David E Gerber; Ravi Salgia; Taofeek Owonikoko; Shakun Malik; Niki Karachaliou; David R Gandara; Ben J Slotman; Fiona Blackhall; Glenwood Goss; Roman Thomas; Charles M Rudin; Fred R Hirsch Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Arvind K Pandey; Eric K Singhi; Juan Pablo Arroyo; Talat Alp Ikizler; Edward R Gould; Jonathan Brown; Joshua A Beckman; David G Harrison; Javid Moslehi Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: James T Bennett; Tiong Yang Tan; Diana Alcantara; Martine Tétrault; Andrew E Timms; Dana Jensen; Sarah Collins; Malgorzata J M Nowaczyk; Marjorie J Lindhurst; Katherine M Christensen; Stephen R Braddock; Heather Brandling-Bennett; Raoul C M Hennekam; Brian Chung; Anna Lehman; John Su; SuYuen Ng; David J Amor; Jacek Majewski; Les G Biesecker; Kym M Boycott; William B Dobyns; Mark O'Driscoll; Ute Moog; Laura M McDonell Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 11.025