Literature DB >> 30598500

An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase I, Dose Escalation Study with Phase II Expansion Cohort to Determine the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Preliminary Antitumor Activity of Intravenous TKM-080301 in Subjects with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Imane El Dika1, Ho Yeong Lim2, Wei Peng Yong3, Chia-Chi Lin4, Jung-Hwan Yoon5, Manuel Modiano6, Bradley Freilich7, Hye Jin Choi8, Tsu-Yi Chao9, Robin K Kelley10, Joanne Brown11, Jennifer Knox12, Baek-Yeol Ryoo13, Thomas Yau14, Ghassan K Abou-Alfa15,16.   

Abstract

LESSONS LEARNED: TKM-080301 showed a favorable toxicity profile at the studied dose.TKM-080301 targeting PLK1 through small interfering RNA mechanism did not demonstrate improved overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma compared with historical control. Preliminary antitumor activity as shown in this early-phase study does not support further evaluation as a single agent.
BACKGROUND: Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Knockdown of PLK1 expression by PLK1 small interfering RNA (siRNA) in an HCC cell line showed reduced expression in RNA-induced silencing complex and a reduction in cell proliferation.
METHODS: A 3 + 3 dose escalation plus expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was implemented. Patients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, and Child-Pugh score A received TKM-080301 as an intravenous infusion once every week for 3 consecutive weeks, repeated every 28 days.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 43 patients. The starting dose of TKM-080301 was 0.3 mg/kg, and MTD was declared at 0.75 mg/kg. Following the development of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in two subjects on the expansion cohort, the MTD was redefined at 0.6 mg/kg. Four patients did not have any evaluable postbaseline scan. Of the other 39 subjects who had received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 18 subjects (46.2%) had stable disease (SD) by independent RECIST 1.1 criteria. By Choi criteria, eight subjects (23.1%) had a partial response (PR). For 37 assessable subjects, with 2 subjects censored, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.04 months. Median survival for the whole study population was 7.5 months.
CONCLUSION: TKM-080301 was generally well tolerated. In this early-phase study, antitumor effect for TKM 080301 was limited. Further evaluation as a single agent in large randomized trials is not warranted. © AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30598500      PMCID: PMC6656521          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


Discussion

PLK1 is a validated molecular target in oncology [1] and has been shown to play nonredundant roles in cell cycle regulation [2]. Expression of PLK1 in HCC tumor samples from 56 patients with HCC was shown to be up to 12‐fold higher than in controls, and its overexpression is a negative prognostic indicator of patients’ outcomes. Inhibition of PLK1 activity in proliferating cancer cells rapidly induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis [3] and can sensitize cancer cells to cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy [4]. TKM‐080301 evaluation in patients with HCC was limited by the development of thrombocytopenia in two subjects dosed at 0.75 mg/kg in the initial expansion cohort; thus, the recommended dose was reduced to 0.6 mg/kg. Other than transient delayed infusion reactions that responded to standard therapy, TKM‐080301 was well tolerated. No deaths were related to TKM‐080301. We analyzed responses based on the Choi criteria, given that it may be more appropriate than RECIST 1.1 to identify responders in advanced HCC [5], and we observed 23.1% PRs (waterfall plot available online), whereas RECIST 1.1 showed no PR or complete response. Waterfall plot on percentage change from baseline in target tumor diameter. Best response (RECIST) was assessed by central imaging (intent‐to‐treat population). An exploratory assessment of overall survival (OS) was performed, revealing a median OS of 7.5 months (Fig. 1). This compares favorably with the median OS of 6.5 months reported for subjects treated with sorafenib in a phase III study in the Asia‐Pacific region with similar subject demographics to the current study [6], and with placebo arms in second‐line studies. In summary, TKM‐080301 was generally well tolerated by most subjects, but with modest antitumor activity and insufficient data to support further exploration.
Figure 1.

Waterfall plot on percentage change from baseline in target tumor diameter. Best response (RECIST) was assessed by central imaging (intent‐to‐treat population).

Trial Information

Hepatocellular carcinoma Metastatic / advanced No designated number of regimens Phase I 3 + 3 Safety Tolerability Pharmacokinetics Efficacy Drug tolerable, efficacy indeterminant

Drug Information

New drug TKM‐080301 Arbutus Biopharma, Inc. Biological siRNA 0.3 milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) Intravenous Once every week for 3 consecutive weeks, repeated every 28 days

Dose Escalation Table

Patient Characteristics

36 7 IV Median (range): 62 years Median (range): 1 0 — 23 1 — 20 2 — 3 — Unknown — Hepatocellular carcinoma, 43

Primary Assessment Method

Response assessment by RECIST 43 43 43 39 n = 1 n = 20 n = 18 2 months 8 months Waterfall plot on percentage change from baseline in target tumor diameter. Best response (RECIST) was assessed by central imaging (intent‐to‐treat population).

Response Assessment by Choi Criteria

n = 17 n = 6 n = 14 n = 2 Waterfall plot on percentage change from baseline in target tumor density (Choi).

Serious Adverse Events

Dose‐Limiting Toxicities

Assessment, Analysis, and Discussion

Study completed Drug tolerable, efficacy indeterminant Knockdown of polo‐like kinase 1 (PLK1) expression by PLK1 small interfering RNA (siRNA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cell lines showed a reduction in PLK1 protein expression of 96% and up to 92% reduction in a multiprotein complex, specifically a ribonucleoprotein, which incorporates one strand of a single‐stranded RNA fragment, such as microRNA, or double‐stranded siRNA, also called RNA‐induced silencing complex [7]. PLK1 overexpression has also been associated with metastatic disease [8] and poor prognosis in HCC. Studies with TKM‐080301 in preclinical models of human cancer have demonstrated that TKM‐080301 has robust anticancer activity in both subcutaneous and orthotopic liver tumor models in mice [9]. TKM‐080301 is a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation comprising four lipids and a synthetic, double‐stranded siRNA directed against human PLK1 mRNA. Synthetic siRNAs are a duplex of complementary RNA oligonucleotides designed to achieve post‐transcriptional gene suppression through the RNA interference mechanism [10]. TKM‐080301 was designed for systemic intravenous delivery of siRNA to solid tumors and has been prepared in the form of LNPs, which can accumulate within tumors taking advantage of the “enhanced permeation and retention” effect [11], [12]. The lipid components of TKM‐080301 also protect the siRNA from degradation by plasma and tissue nucleases, prevent rapid clearance of the siRNA, and enable effective intracellular uptake of the PLK1‐targeting siRNA into cancer cells [13]. Pharmacology studies evaluating single‐ and multiple‐dose pharmacodynamic evaluations of TKM‐080301 in various subcutaneous tumor models and in an orthotopic mouse model of human liver cancer have demonstrated human PLK1 mRNA silencing, significant survival benefit, and significant tumor growth inhibition in orthotopic mouse models and various subcutaneous models of human cancer. Liver is the primary tissue of distribution of TKM‐080301, along with spleen, and to a lesser extent the adrenals. Approximately 66%–83% and 1.5%–3.2% of a total injected dose of TKM‐080301 accumulates in the liver and spleen of mice, respectively. This was a multicenter, open‐label, nonrandomized, dose escalation phase I/II study conducted at 15 sites in six countries (the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan). The study was designed to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of TKM‐080301 in adult subjects with metastatic or locally advanced inoperable HCC that is refractory to, or unsuitable for standard therapy. A conservative starting dose of 0.3 mg/kg was selected for this study to establish the safety of TKM‐080301 in subjects with locally advanced or metastatic HCC. The study was restricted to patients with HCC with preserved hepatic function classified as Child‐Pugh A. Subsequent dose escalations to 0.6 mg/kg and 0.75 mg/kg were planned. The maximum planned dose in this study was 0.75 mg/kg. Treatment cycles consisted of a single intravenous infusion of TKM‐080301 over 60 minutes once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks, followed by a rest week, repeated every 4 weeks. To minimize the risk of infusion‐related reactions, all subjects received a steroid prophylaxis regimen prior to each dose of TKM‐080301, which was reduced according to a prescribed schedule if TKM‐080301 was well tolerated. Subjects who demonstrated clinical benefit without progression might have continued up to six complete cycles and might have received treatment beyond six cycles with the approval of the sponsor's medical monitor if the investigator considered it in the best interests of the subject. Subjects would then have continued TKM‐080301 therapy until withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The study was divided into two phases. The dose escalation phase was to enroll three cohorts of three to six subjects each, with each cohort assigned to receive successive increases of a predefined TKM‐080301 dose escalation based on prior clinical experience with TKM‐80301 in advanced solid tumors. The starting dose of TKM‐080301 was 0.3 mg/kg per dose (Cohort 1), and sequential cohorts were to receive TKM‐080301 0.6 mg/kg per dose (Cohort 2) and 0.75 mg/kg per dose (Cohort 3), provided that dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) were seen in none or no more than one subject during the preceding cycle. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) had been established, ongoing subjects receiving a dose lower than the MTD might have had their dose increased to the MTD or an intermediate dose level if in the opinion of the investigator and sponsor the subject may receive additional clinical benefit. Dose escalation proceeded without incident for Cohort 2 (0.6 mg/kg) and Cohort 3 (0.75 mg/kg). Safety was assessed during each cycle, including liver function tests and electrocardiograms. The potential for immune‐related toxicities and infusion reactions were investigated during the first dose of cycle 1. Serial pharmacokinetic sampling was taken for cycle 1, doses 1 and 2, and for cycle 2, dose 1. A preinfusion sample was collected prior to dose 1 in each subsequent cycle. DLTs were defined as grade 4 toxicity considered possibly, probably, or definitely related to TKM 080301. Assessment for preliminary evidence of antitumor activity (response rate according to RECIST 1.1 criteria) was a secondary objective of the study. Overall tumor response was assessed at the end of cycle 2 and every two cycles thereafter, and/or upon study discontinuation by the investigator. Clinical benefit rate was assessed in the expansion cohort and was defined as the sum of all subjects with RECIST 1.1 defined complete response (CR), partial response (PR), minor response (MR; ≥20% decrease of target tumors but <30% decrease), stable disease (SD) lasting ≥16 weeks, and ≥ 50% decrease in alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) from baseline. A total of 12 subjects (three subjects at 0.3 mg/kg, five subjects at 0.6 mg/kg, and four subjects at 0.75 mg/kg) had been dosed. Two subjects in the 0.3 mg/kg group remained on therapy. No DLTs were observed in Cohort 1 (0.3 mg/kg) or Cohort 2 (0.6 mg/kg). Review of subsequent adverse events (AEs) for subjects in those groups revealed that approximately 90% of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity, and most AEs were assessed to be unrelated or unlikely related to study drug by the investigator. A total of six subjects reported a total of 11 serious AEs (SAEs), but none of the SAEs was assessed as serious, unexpected, and treatment related. With no DLTs noted in Cohort 3, 0.75 mg/kg was declared as the MTD by the Safety Review Panel (SRP). The SRP also approved the opening of the phase II expansion cohort at the MTD of 0.75 mg/kg per week. After the development of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in two subjects, a recommended dose reduction to 0.6 mg/kg followed. The dose reduction was applicable for all subjects on study and any new subjects enrolled. A total of 43 subjects were enrolled in the study at different dose levels: 3 subjects in the 0.3 mg/kg group, 9 subjects in the 0.6 mg/kg group, 15 subjects in the 0.75 mg/kg group, and 16 subjects in the reduction from 0.75 to 0.6 mg/kg group. All 43 subjects (100.0%) were included in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per protocol analysis sets. Overall, 36 subjects (83.7%) were male and seven subjects (16.3%) were female. The race of most subjects was Asian (27 subjects; 62.8%) or white (14 subjects; 32.6%), and the ethnicity of most subjects was “not Hispanic or Latino” (38 subjects; 88.4%). The mean (range) age was 62 years (39–79). Body mass index ranged between 18.05 and 36.32 kg/cm2. Overall, the different dose levels were generally similar regarding demographic characteristics. Life expectancy was more than 3 months for all 43 subjects (100%). No subjects had a New York Heart Association classification of grade II or greater. A total of 25 subjects (58.1%) were at risk for hepatitis B, 6 subjects (14.0%) were at risk for hepatitis C, and 9 subjects (20.9%) had no risk factors. Most of the subjects (31 subjects; 72.1%) were classified at the C stage in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, with eight subjects (18.6%) classified at the B stage. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at screening for the overall population was 0 for 23 subjects (53.5%) and 1 for 20 subjects (46.5%). A total of 39 subjects (90.7%) of the 43 enrolled subjects had an evaluable postbaseline scan. Overall, as assessed by the investigator, in subjects who received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 20 subjects (50.0%) had stable disease. Overall, as assessed by the central imaging center, in subjects who received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 18 subjects (46.2%) had stable disease and 20 subjects (51.3%) had progressive disease. No subjects at any dose level met RECIST 1.1 criteria for CR, PR, or MR. Five subjects (11.6%) overall met RECIST 1.1 criteria for SD lasting ≥16 weeks. Three subjects (7.0%) demonstrated ≥50% decrease in AFP from baseline. Overall, for eight subjects (18.6%) with a clinical benefit, the benefit was statistically significant (p = .0012). A total of 37 (86.0%) events were assessed. Six subjects (14.0%) were censored. The median progression‐free survival was 2.04 months overall with a range of 0.0 to 13.3 months (95% confidence interval, 1.61; 3.42). Overall, 22 subjects (51.2%) in the ITT population died, and 21 subjects (48.8%) were censored at last contact. Three subjects’ deaths during study treatment were reported as treatment‐emergent AEs. The median follow‐up time was 7.66 months. The median survival was 7.52 months. Overall as assessed by the investigator, in subjects who received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 20 subjects (50.0%) had stable disease. As assessed by Choi criteria, in subjects who received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 9 subjects (23.1%) had PR; 9 subjects (23.1%) of the 43 subjects assessed had SD. The mean duration of best response as assessed by Choi criteria was 18.7 ± 35.56 days for target response. Treatment with TKM‐080301 was generally safe and well tolerated in subjects with HCC during this study. A total of 41 of the 43 subjects (95.3%) of the ITT population experienced at least one AE. A reduction in spleen volume was observed in three subjects and was likely due to an on‐target siRNA effect of PLK1 inhibition. In these subjects, the decline in splenic volume was not associated with clinically significant functional hyposplenism. TEAEs reported in more than one subject were pyrexia (20 subjects; 46.5%); fatigue (16 subjects; 37.2%); chills (15 subjects; 34.9%); peripheral edema (8 subjects; 18.6%); noncardiac chest pain (3 subjects; 7.0%); and malaise, edema, and pain in two subjects (4.7%) each. A total of 17 subjects (39.5%) had at least one infusion‐related TEAE. No SAE of TKM‐080301‐related hepatic disease was noted. No fatal TEAE was assessed as being possibly, probably, or definitely related to TKM‐080301. Overall, 22 subjects died (including censoring at last contact). Three of these subjects who died during the course of study treatment were reported as TEAEs. All three fatal TEAES were assessed as unlikely or not related to TKM‐080301. In conclusion, TKM‐080301 was safe and well tolerated in this population of patients with advanced HCC and adequate liver function. Single‐agent TKM‐080301 did not demonstrate clinically meaningful antitumor activity, the secondary endpoint of this trial. Any further studies of this drug in HCC should be designed within the context of these results.
  12 in total

Review 1.  siRNAs: applications in functional genomics and potential as therapeutics.

Authors:  Yair Dorsett; Thomas Tuschl
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 84.694

2.  Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) Versus RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

Authors:  Maxime Ronot; Mohamed Bouattour; Johanna Wassermann; Onorina Bruno; Chantal Dreyer; Béatrice Larroque; Laurent Castera; Valérie Vilgrain; Jacques Belghiti; Eric Raymond; Sandrine Faivre
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-03-20

3.  Polo-like kinase 1, a new therapeutic target in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Wei Chuen Mok; Shanthi Wasser; Theresa Tan; Seng Gee Lim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  BI 2536, a potent and selective inhibitor of polo-like kinase 1, inhibits tumor growth in vivo.

Authors:  Martin Steegmaier; Matthias Hoffmann; Anke Baum; Péter Lénárt; Mark Petronczki; Martin Krssák; Ulrich Gürtler; Pilar Garin-Chesa; Simone Lieb; Jens Quant; Matthias Grauert; Günther R Adolf; Norbert Kraut; Jan-Michael Peters; Wolfgang J Rettig
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-02-08       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size.

Authors:  F Yuan; M Dellian; D Fukumura; M Leunig; D A Berk; V P Torchilin; R K Jain
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1995-09-01       Impact factor: 12.701

6.  Aberrant Polo-like kinase 1-Cdc25A pathway in metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiao Qi Wang; Yong Qiang Zhu; Karen S Lui; Qi Cai; Ping Lu; Ronnie T Poon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Passive tumor targeting of soluble macromolecules and drug conjugates.

Authors:  L W Seymour
Journal:  Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.889

8.  Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  Ann-Lii Cheng; Yoon-Koo Kang; Zhendong Chen; Chao-Jung Tsao; Shukui Qin; Jun Suk Kim; Rongcheng Luo; Jifeng Feng; Shenglong Ye; Tsai-Sheng Yang; Jianming Xu; Yan Sun; Houjie Liang; Jiwei Liu; Jiejun Wang; Won Young Tak; Hongming Pan; Karin Burock; Jessie Zou; Dimitris Voliotis; Zhongzhen Guan
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Confirming the RNAi-mediated mechanism of action of siRNA-based cancer therapeutics in mice.

Authors:  Adam D Judge; Marjorie Robbins; Iran Tavakoli; Jasna Levi; Lina Hu; Anna Fronda; Ellen Ambegia; Kevin McClintock; Ian MacLachlan
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 10.  Targeting polo-like kinase 1 for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Klaus Strebhardt; Axel Ullrich
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 60.716

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Nanoparticles in Gastrooncology.

Authors:  André Jefremow; Markus F Neurath
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2020-03-18

Review 2.  Therapeutic siRNA: state of the art.

Authors:  Bo Hu; Liping Zhong; Yuanyu Huang; Yuhua Weng; Ling Peng; Yongxiang Zhao; Xing-Jie Liang
Journal:  Signal Transduct Target Ther       Date:  2020-06-19

Review 3.  Lipid-Based Nanoparticles in the Clinic and Clinical Trials: From Cancer Nanomedicine to COVID-19 Vaccines.

Authors:  Thai Thanh Hoang Thi; Estelle J A Suys; Jung Seok Lee; Dai Hai Nguyen; Ki Dong Park; Nghia P Truong
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-08

Review 4.  Towards principled design of cancer nanomedicine to accelerate clinical translation.

Authors:  Mohammad Souri; M Soltani; Farshad Moradi Kashkooli; Mohammad Kiani Shahvandi; Mohsen Chiani; Fatemeh Sadat Shariati; Mohammad Reza Mehrabi; Lance L Munn
Journal:  Mater Today Bio       Date:  2022-02-01

Review 5.  Current Advances in RNA Therapeutics for Human Diseases.

Authors:  Hannah Zogg; Rajan Singh; Seungil Ro
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 6.  Novel vectors and approaches for gene therapy in liver diseases.

Authors:  Sheila Maestro; Nicholas D Weber; Nerea Zabaleta; Rafael Aldabe; Gloria Gonzalez-Aseguinolaza
Journal:  JHEP Rep       Date:  2021-04-30

Review 7.  Recent advances in siRNA delivery mediated by lipid-based nanoparticles.

Authors:  Sei Yonezawa; Hiroyuki Koide; Tomohiro Asai
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 15.470

8.  PLK1 Inhibition Induces Immunogenic Cell Death and Enhances Immunity against NSCLC.

Authors:  Jie Zhou; Qifan Yang; Lisen Lu; Zhan Tuo; Zhexing Shou; Jing Cheng
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 9.  Effective tools for RNA-derived therapeutics: siRNA interference or miRNA mimicry.

Authors:  Peipei Wang; Yue Zhou; Arthur M Richards
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 11.556

10.  Ligand conjugate SAR and enhanced delivery in NHP.

Authors:  Richard James Holland; Kieu Lam; Xin Ye; Alan D Martin; Mark C Wood; Lorne Palmer; David Fraser; Kevin McClintock; Sara Majeski; Agnes Jarosz; Amy C H Lee; Emily P Thi; Adam Judge; James Heyes
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 12.910

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.