Purpose The goal of this study was to identify second-generation mithramycin analogs that better target the EWS-FLI1 transcription factor for Ewing sarcoma. We previously established mithramycin as an EWS-FLI1 inhibitor, but the compound’s toxicity prevented its use at effective concentrations in patients. Experimental Design We screened a panel of mithralogs to establish their ability to inhibit EWS-FLI1 in Ewing sarcoma. We compared the IC50 to the maximum tolerated dose established in mice to determine the relationship between efficacy and toxicity. We confirmed the suppression of EWS-FLI1 at the promoter, mRNA, gene signature, and protein levels. We established an improved therapeutic window by using time-lapse microscopy to model the effects on cellular proliferation in Ewing sarcoma cells relative to HepG2 control cells. Finally, we established an improved therapeutic window using a xenograft model of Ewing sarcoma. Results EC-8105 was found to be the most potent analog and was able to suppress EWS-FLI1 activity at concentrations nontoxic to other cell types. EC-8042 was substantially less toxic than mithramycin in multiple species but maintained suppression of EWS-FLI1 at similar concentrations. Both compounds markedly suppressed Ewing sarcoma xenograft growth and inhibited EWS-FLI1 in vivo. Conclusions These results provide a basis for the continued development of EC-8042 and EC-8105 as EWS-FLI1 inhibitors for the clinic.
Background: A nivolumab dosage regimen of 480 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 4 weeks (Q4W) was approved by FDA for the majority of the approved indications for nivolumab. Methods:The proposed new dosage regimen was supported by pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation, dose/exposureresponse relationships for efficacy and safety in the indicated patient populations, and the clinical safety data with the 480 mg Q4W dosage regimen. Pharmacokinetic exposures achieved with 480 mg Q4W were predicted for 4166 patients in 21 clinical studies with various types of solid and hematological tumors. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to predict 480 mg Q4W safety and efficacy across all FDA-approved indications for nivolumab.Results: For the overall population, the geometric mean exposure achieved with 480 mg i.v. Q4W was 5.2% higher for steady state C avg and 15.6% lower for C trough than those with 3 mg/kg i.v. Q2W, the approved dosage regimen. The simulated concentration-time course achieved with 480 mg Q4W regimen was below the median concentration achieved with 10 mg/kg i.v. Q2W that was also studied in clinical trials. The predicted probability of adverse events was similar between 480 mg Q4W and that observed with the 3 mg/kg Q2W regimen. Efficacy results were found to be similar between Q2W and Q3W dosage regimens in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The predicted efficacy for each indication suggested that the efficacy with 480 mg Q4W is unlikely to be compromised compared with that observed with 3 mg/kg Q2W. Conclusions:The model-informed analyses of predicted exposure, efficacy and safety based on data from extensive clinical experience with nivolumab suggest that the benefit-risk profile of 480 mg Q4W regimen is comparable to the approved 3 mg/ kg Q2W regimen, thus providing the regulatory basis for the approval of 480 mg Q4W regimen in the absence of clinical efficacy data with this new dosage regimen.
PURPOSE The US Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, node-positive, early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 score ≥ 20%. PATIENTS AND METHODS The approval was based on monarchE, a phase III, open-label, 2-cohort, multicenter trial of patients with EBC randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus ET (n = 2,808) or ET alone (n = 2,829). Abemaciclib was given at 150 mg orally twice daily for 2 years. RESULTS Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) in the intent-to-treat population was statistically significant at the second IDFS interim analysis (IA; March 2020; hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI], 0.747 [0.598 to 0.932]; P = .0096); however, only 12.5% of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, and the HR for overall survival (OS) was > 1. A prespecified, controlled analysis of IDFS in patients with Ki-67 ≥ 20% in cohort 1 was statistically significant at the final IDFS analysis (July 2020; HR [95% CI], 0.643 [0.475 to 0.872]; P = .0042). At the first OS IA (April 2021), the majority of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, IDFS remained consistent, and potential detriment in OS was not observed for this subgroup (HR [95% CI], 0.767 [0.511 to 1.152]). The HR for OS in the intent-to-treat population at OS IA remained > 1 (HR [95% CI], 1.091 [0.818 to 1.455]). More patients in the abemaciclib plus ET arm experienced treatment emergent adverse events (all grades 98.4% v 88.8%, grade 3 ≥ 49.7% v 16.3%). CONCLUSION The approval of abemaciclib in adjuvant EBC was limited to patients with high risk of recurrence and Ki-67 ≥ 20%, given their favorable benefit:risk with a statistically significant IDFS advantage and no observed detriment on survival.
On April 22, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to sacituzumab govitecan-hziy (TRODELVY; Immunomedics, Inc.) for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease. Approval was based on data from the IMMU-132-01 trial, a single-arm, multicohort, multicenter, phase I/II trial of sacituzumab govitecan. The assessment of efficacy was based on 108 patients with mTNBC who had previously received at least two prior lines of therapy in the metastatic setting and who received sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg i.v. The assessment of safety was based on 408 patients with advanced solid tumors who had received sacituzumab govitecan at doses up to 10 mg/kg i.v. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) was a key secondary endpoint. The ORR was 33.3% [36/108; 95% confidence interval (CI), 24.6-43.1], and median DoR among responders was 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.9-10.8). The most common adverse reactions occurring in ≥25% of patients were nausea, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, anemia, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, rash, decreased appetite, and abdominal pain. This article summarizes the FDA review process and data supporting the approval of sacituzumab govitecan.
On December 20, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki [DS-8201a; T-DXd; tradename ENHERTU (Daiichi Sankyo)] for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens in the metastatic setting. Approval was based on data from study DS8201-A-U201 (DESTINY-Breast01) with supportive safety data from study DS8201-A-J101. The primary efficacy endpoint in DESTINY-Breast01 was overall response rate (ORR) based on confirmed responses by blinded independent central review (ICR) using RECIST v1.1 in all participants who were assigned to receive the recommended dose of 5.4 mg/kg while secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR). The confirmed ORR based on ICR in these 184 patients was 60.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 52.9–67.4] and the median DoR was 14.8 months (95% CI: 13.8–16.9). Interstitial lung disease, including pneumonitis, was experienced in patients treated with T-DXd and can be severe, life threatening, or fatal. In addition, neutropenia and left ventricular dysfunction were included as Warnings and Precautions in labeling. Other important common adverse reactions were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, decreased appetite, anemia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. Overall, the totality of efficacy and safety data supported the accelerated approval of T-DXd for the intended indication.
On January 28, 2016, the FDA approved eribulin (Halaven; Eisai Inc.) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen. The approval was based on results from a single, randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial (Trial E7389-G000-309) enrolling 452 patients with advanced, locally recurrent or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma. Patients were randomized to eribulin 1.4 mg/m intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 or dacarbazine 850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m i.v. on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. There was a significant improvement in overall survival [OS; HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.94; = 0.0119, stratified log-rank] for the overall population. Estimated median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.5) in the eribulin arm and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.6) in the dacarbazine arm (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; = 0.011).There were no differences in PFS for the overall population. The effects of eribulin were limited to patients with liposarcoma ( = 143) based on preplanned, exploratory subgroup analyses of OS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.75) and progression-free survival (PFS; 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78). Response rates in both treatment arms were less than 5% in the overall population and in the liposarcoma subgroup. The safety profile was similar to that previously reported for eribulin. The FDA determined that, based on the data reviewed, the benefit-risk assessment for eribulin is positive for patients with advanced, pretreated liposarcoma. .
Over the last decade, the treatment of patients with breast cancer has been greatly impacted by the approval of multiple drugs and indications. This summary describes 30 FDA approvals of treatments for breast cancer from 2010 to 2020. The trial design endpoints, results, and regulatory considerations are described for each approved indication. Of the 30 indications, 23 (76.6%) received regular and 7 (23.3%) received accelerated approval. Twenty-six approvals were granted in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and four in early breast cancer. Approval decisions for the 26 MBC indications were initially supported by progression-free survival (PFS) in 21 (80.8%), overall survival (OS) or a combination of OS and PFS in two (7.7%), and objective response rate (ORR) in three (11.5%). The four approvals in early breast cancer utilized pathologic complete response (pCR) in one (25%) and invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in three (75%) trials. Among the 30 indications, 22 received priority review, seven were granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation, and 10 applications participated in one or more pilot Oncology Center of Excellence regulatory review initiatives, including Real Time Oncology Review, Assessment Aid, and Project Orbis. FDA initiatives to advance breast cancer drug development are also described.
On July 26, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration granted approval to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then continued as a single agent for adjuvant treatment following surgery for patients with high-risk, early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Approval was based on results from KEYNOTE-522, an ongoing randomized (2:1) trial evaluating pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment and then as a single agent for adjuvant treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event free survival (EFS). The trial demonstrated an improvement in pCR and EFS in the pembrolizumab arm compared to the control arm. The number of patients who experienced an EFS event was 123 (16%) and 93 (24%), respectively (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.82, p=0.00031). Patients on the pembrolizumab arm experienced EFS benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. The absolute pCR rate improvement with the addition of pembrolizumab was 7.5% (95% CI: 1.6%, 13.4%). Among patients receiving pembrolizumab, 44% experienced an immune-related adverse reaction. This article summarizes FDA’s review of pembrolizumab and the data supporting the favorable benefit-risk assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.