PURPOSE: PIK3CA mutations frequently contribute to oncogenesis in solid tumors. Taselisib, a potent and selective inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, has demonstrated clinical activity in PIK3CA-mutant breast cancer. Whether PIK3CA mutations predict sensitivity to taselisib in other cancer types is unknown. National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice Arm EAY131-I is a single-arm, phase II study of the safety and efficacy of taselisib in patients with advanced cancers. METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors with an activating PIK3CA mutation. Patients with breast or squamous cell lung carcinoma, or whose cancer had KRAS or PTEN mutations, were excluded. Patients received taselisib 4 mg, orally once daily continuously, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), and identification of predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled, and 61 were eligible and initiated protocol therapy. Types of PIK3CA mutations included helical 41 of 61 (67%), kinase 11 of 61 (18%), and other 9 of 61 (15%). With a median follow-up of 35.7 months, there were no complete or partial responses. Six-month PFS was 19.9% (90% CI, 12.0 to 29.3) and median PFS was 3.1 months (90% CI, 1.8 to 3.7). Six-month OS was 60.7% (90% CI, 49.6 to 70.0) and median OS was 7.2 months (90% CI, 5.9 to 10.0). Individual comutations were too heterogeneous to correlate with clinical outcome. Fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and hyperglycemia were the most common toxicities, and most were grade 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: In this study, taselisib monotherapy had very limited activity in a heterogeneous cohort of heavily pretreated cancer patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumors; the presence of a PIK3CA mutation alone does not appear to be a sufficient predictor of taselisib activity.
PURPOSE: PIK3CA mutations frequently contribute to oncogenesis in solid tumors. Taselisib, a potent and selective inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, has demonstrated clinical activity in PIK3CA-mutant breast cancer. Whether PIK3CA mutations predict sensitivity to taselisib in other cancer types is unknown. National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice Arm EAY131-I is a single-arm, phase II study of the safety and efficacy of taselisib in patients with advanced cancers. METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors with an activating PIK3CA mutation. Patients with breast or squamous cell lung carcinoma, or whose cancer had KRAS or PTEN mutations, were excluded. Patients received taselisib 4 mg, orally once daily continuously, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), and identification of predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled, and 61 were eligible and initiated protocol therapy. Types of PIK3CA mutations included helical 41 of 61 (67%), kinase 11 of 61 (18%), and other 9 of 61 (15%). With a median follow-up of 35.7 months, there were no complete or partial responses. Six-month PFS was 19.9% (90% CI, 12.0 to 29.3) and median PFS was 3.1 months (90% CI, 1.8 to 3.7). Six-month OS was 60.7% (90% CI, 49.6 to 70.0) and median OS was 7.2 months (90% CI, 5.9 to 10.0). Individual comutations were too heterogeneous to correlate with clinical outcome. Fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and hyperglycemia were the most common toxicities, and most were grade 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: In this study, taselisib monotherapy had very limited activity in a heterogeneous cohort of heavily pretreated cancer patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumors; the presence of a PIK3CA mutation alone does not appear to be a sufficient predictor of taselisib activity.
Authors: Richard R Furman; Jeff P Sharman; Steven E Coutre; Bruce D Cheson; John M Pagel; Peter Hillmen; Jacqueline C Barrientos; Andrew D Zelenetz; Thomas J Kipps; Ian Flinn; Paolo Ghia; Herbert Eradat; Thomas Ervin; Nicole Lamanna; Bertrand Coiffier; Andrew R Pettitt; Shuo Ma; Stephan Stilgenbauer; Paula Cramer; Maria Aiello; Dave M Johnson; Langdon L Miller; Daniel Li; Thomas M Jahn; Roger D Dansey; Michael Hallek; Susan M O'Brien Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kurtis E Bachman; Pedram Argani; Yardena Samuels; Natalie Silliman; Janine Ptak; Steve Szabo; Hiroyuki Konishi; Bedri Karakas; Brian G Blair; Clarence Lin; Brock A Peters; Victor E Velculescu; Ben Ho Park Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2004-08-26 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Susan Wee; Dmitri Wiederschain; Sauveur-Michel Maira; Alice Loo; Christine Miller; Rosalie deBeaumont; Frank Stegmeier; Yung-Mae Yao; Christoph Lengauer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: L Shayesteh; Y Lu; W L Kuo; R Baldocchi; T Godfrey; C Collins; D Pinkel; B Powell; G B Mills; J W Gray Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kyle A Edgar; Jeffrey J Wallin; Megan Berry; Leslie B Lee; Wei Wei Prior; Deepak Sampath; Lori S Friedman; Marcia Belvin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Komal Jhaveri; Matthew T Chang; Dejan Juric; Cristina Saura; Valentina Gambardella; Anton Melnyk; Manish R Patel; Vincent Ribrag; Cynthia X Ma; Raid Aljumaily; Philippe L Bedard; Jasgit C Sachdev; Lara Dunn; Helen Won; John Bond; Surai Jones; Heidi M Savage; Maurizio Scaltriti; Timothy R Wilson; Michael C Wei; David M Hyman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 12.531