Background Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relationship between obesity and survival in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between BMI, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in metastatic melanoma. Methods This study included 6 independent cohorts for a total of 1918 metastatic melanoma patients. These included two targeted therapy cohorts [randomized control trials (RCTs) of dabrafenib and trametinib (n=599) and vemurafenib and cobimetinib (n=240)], two immunotherapy cohorts [RCT of ipilimumab + dacarbazine (DTIC) (n=207) and a retrospective cohort treated with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 (n=331)], and two chemotherapy cohorts [RCT DTIC cohorts (n=320 and n=221)]. BMI was classified as normal (BMI 18 to <25; n=694 of 1918, 36.1%) overweight (BMI 25-29.9; n=711, 37.1%) or obese (BMI≥30; n=513, 26.7%). The primary outcomes were the association between BMI, PFS, and OS, stratified by treatment type and sex. These exploratory analyses were based on previously reported intention-to-treat data from the RCTs. The effect of BMI on PFS and OS was assessed by multivariable-adjusted Cox models in independent cohorts. In order to provide a more precise estimate of the association between BMI and outcomes, as well as the interaction between BMI, sex, and therapy type, adjusted hazard ratios were combined in mixed-effects meta-analyses and heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression analyses. Findings In the pooled analysis, obesity, as compared to normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma [average adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI: 0.77 (0.66-0.90) and 0.74 (0.58-0.95) for PFS and OS, respectively]. The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy [0.72 (0.57-0.91) and 0.60 (0.45-0.79) for PFS and OS, respectively] and immunotherapy [0.75 (0.56-1.00) and 0.64 (0.47-0.86)]. No associations were observed with chemotherapy [0.87 (0.65-1.17) and 1.03 (0.80-1.34); treatment p for interaction = 0.61 and 0.01, for PFS and OS, respectively]. The prognostic effect of BMI with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex with pronounced inverse associations in males [PFS 0.67 (0.53-0.84) and OS 0.53 (0.40-0.70)], but not females [PFS 0.92 (0.70-1.23) and OS 0.85 (0.61-1.18), sex p for interaction= 0.08 and 0.03, for PFS and OS, respectively] Interpretation Obesity is associated with improved PFS and OS in metastatic melanoma, driven by strong associations observed in males treated with targeted or immune therapy. The magnitude of the benefit detected supports the need for investigation into the underlying mechanism of these unexpected observations Funding ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award and ASCO/CCF Career Development Award to JLM

A majority of the novel orally administered, molecularly targeted anticancer therapies are weak bases that exhibit pH-dependent solubility, and suppression of gastric acidity with acid-reducing agents could impair their absorption. In addition, a majority of cancer patients frequently take acid-reducing agents to alleviate symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, thereby raising the potential for a common but underappreciated drug-drug interaction (DDI) that could decrease the exposure of anticancer medication and result in subsequent failure of therapy. This article is a review of the available clinical literature describing the extent of the interaction between 15 orally administered, small-molecule targeted anticancer therapies and acid-reducing agents. The currently available clinical data suggest that the magnitude of this DDI is largest for compounds whose in vitro solubility varies over the pH range 1-4. This range represents the normal physiological gastric acidity (pH ~1) and gastric acidity while on an acid-reducing agent (pH ~4).

A series of compounds were designed and synthesized as antagonists of cIAP1/2, ML-IAP, and XIAP based on the N-terminus, AVPI, of mature Smac. Compound 1 (GDC-0152) has the best profile of these compounds; it binds to the XIAP BIR3 domain, the BIR domain of ML-IAP, and the BIR3 domains of cIAP1 and cIAP2 with Ki values of 28, 14, 17 and 43 nM, respectively. These compounds promote degradation of cIAP1, induce activation of caspase-3/7, and lead to decreased viability of breast cancer cells without affecting normal mammary epithelial cells. Compound 1 inhibits tumor growth when dosed orally in the MDA-MB-231 breast cancer xenograft model. Compound 1 was advanced to human clinical trials and it exhibited linear pharmacokinetics over the dose range (0.049 to 1.48 mg/kg) tested. Mean plasma clearance in humans was 9 ± 3 mL/min/kg and volume of distribution was 0.6 ± 0.2 L/kg.

Acid-reducing agents (ARAs) are the most commonly prescribed medications in North America and Western Europe. There are currently no data describing the prevalence of their use among cancer patients. However, this is a paramount question due to the potential for significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between ARAs, most commonly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and orally administered cancer therapeutics that display pH-dependent solubility, which may lead to decreased drug absorption and decreased therapeutic benefit. Of recently approved orally administered cancer therapeutics, >50% are characterized as having pH-dependent solubility, but there are currently no data describing the potential for this ARA-DDI liability among targeted agents currently in clinical development. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the prevalence of ARA use among different cancer populations and (2) investigate the prevalence of orally administered cancer therapeutics currently in development that may be liable for an ARA-DDI. To address the question of ARA use among cancer patients, a retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using two large healthcare databases: Thomson Reuters MarketScan (N = 1,776,443) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA, N = 1,171,833). Among all cancer patients, the total prevalence proportion of ARA use (no. of cancer patients receiving an ARA/total no. of cancer patients) was 20% and 33% for the MarketScan and VA databases, respectively. PPIs were the most commonly prescribed agent, comprising 79% and 65% of all cancer patients receiving a prescription for an ARA (no. of cancer patients receiving a PPI /no. of cancer patients receiving an ARA) for the MarketScan and VA databases, respectively. To estimate the ARA-DDI liability of orally administered molecular targeted cancer therapeutics currently in development, two publicly available databases, (1) Kinase SARfari and (2) canSAR, were examined. For those orally administered clinical candidates that had available structures, the pKa's and corresponding relative solubilities were calculated for a normal fasting pH of 1.2 and an "ARA-hypochlorhydric" pH of 4. Taking calculated pKa's and relative solubilities into consideration, clinical candidates were classified based on their risk for an ARA-DDI. More than one-quarter (28%) of the molecules investigated are at high risk for an ARA-DDI, and of those high risk molecules, nearly three-quarters (73%) are being clinically evaluated for at least one of five cancer types with the highest prevalence of ARA use (gastrointestinal, pancreatic, lung, glioblastoma multiforme, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)). These data strongly suggest that with the clinical development of ARA-DDI-susceptible cancer therapeutics will come continued challenges for drug-development scientists, oncologists, and regulatory agencies in ensuring that patients achieve safe and efficacious exposures of their cancer therapeutics and thus optimal patient outcomes.

Activation of AKT signaling by PTEN loss or PIK3CA mutations occurs frequently in human cancers, but targeting AKT has been difficult due to the mechanism-based toxicities of inhibitors that target the inactive conformation of AKT. Ipatasertib (GDC-0068) is a novel selective ATP-competitive small-molecule inhibitor of AKT that preferentially targets active phosphorylated AKT (pAKT) and is potent in cell lines with evidence of AKT activation. In this phase I study, ipatasertib was well tolerated; most adverse events were gastrointestinal and grade 1–2 in severity. The exposures of ipatasertib ≥200 mg daily in patients correlated with preclinical TGI90, and pharmacodynamic studies confirmed that multiple targets (i.e., PRAS40, GSK3β, and mTOR) were inhibited in paired on-treatment biopsies. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed; 16 of 52 patients (30%), with diverse solid tumors and who progressed on prior therapies, had radiographic stable disease, and many of their tumors had activation of AKT.