Study Of Sorafenib In Patients Research Articles

Prediction of Response to Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Putative Marker Panel by Multiple Reaction Monitoring-Mass Spectrometry (MRM-MS).

Sorafenib is the only standard treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but it provides modest survival benefits over placebo, necessitating predictive biomarkers of the response to sorafenib. Serum samples were obtained from 115 consecutive patients with HCC before sorafenib treatment and analyzed by multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) and ELISA to quantify candidate biomarkers. We verified a triple-marker panel to be predictive of the response to sorafenib by MRM-MS, comprising CD5 antigen-like (CD5L), immunoglobulin J (IGJ), and galectin-3-binding protein (LGALS3BP), in HCC patients. This panel was a significant predictor (AUROC > 0.950) of the response to sorafenib treatment, having the best cut-off value (0.4) by multivariate analysis. In the training set, patients who exceeded this cut-off value had significantly better overall survival (median, 21.4 months) than those with lower values (median, 8.6 months; p = 0.001). Further, a value that was lower than this cutoff was an independent predictor of poor overall survival [hazard ratio (HR), 2.728; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.312-5.672; p = 0.007] and remained an independent predictive factor of rapid progression (HR, 2.631; 95% CI, 1.448-4.780; p = 0.002). When applied to the independent validation set, levels of the cut-off value for triple-marker panel maintained their prognostic value for poor clinical outcomes. On the contrast, the triple-marker panel was not a prognostic factor for patients who were treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The discriminatory signature of a triple-marker panel provides new insights into targeted proteomic biomarkers for individualized sorafenib therapy.

A Pilot Study Of Sorafenib In Refractory Or Relapsed T-Cell Lymphoma Patients

BackgroundT-cell lymphomas comprise 10-15% of newly diagnosed lymphomas. While a number of therapies are available for patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory disease, there is still an unmet need for novel agents and approaches. Sorafenib is a multi-kinase inhibitor that is approved for clinical use in renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. Molecular targets of sorafenib include B-raf, PDGFR, and VEGF. Recent studies have demonstrated overexpression of PDGFR and VEGF in Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma (PTCL) and Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL).1 We report results of a pilot study of sorafenib in patients with relapsed T-cell lymphomas. MethodsTwelve patients with refractory T-cell lymphomas including 2 PTCL (one pt relapsed after allogeneic transplant and one after autologous transplant), 1AITL, and 9 CTCL ( stages IB=1, IIB=3, III-2, IV=3) were treated with sorafenib at a starting dose of 400 mg twice daily. Median age was 69 (range: 38-85). Seventy-five percent were female; 25% presented with B symptoms. The clinical activity of the drug was assessed by determining response rate, progression free survival, and duration of response or stable disease. ResultsFour patients (33%) had a CR (skin and/or nodes), including one with PTCL and one with AITL, 3 (25%) had a CR in the skin, including one Stage III CTCL and two with PTCL with skin involvement. In addition, 2 (17%) had a mixed response, including one Stage IIB and one Stage III CTCL. Two patients had SD, including one with Stage IIB and one with Stage IB CTCL. Dose reduction from the starting dose of 400 mg twice daily occurred in 66% (8) patients: dose reduced to 300 mg daily in 2 pts and 200 mg daily in 6 pts. Three patients discontinued the trial due to progressive disease (25%). Of the remaining pts, all but one had to discontinue the drug due to adverse effects. Skin toxicity from sorafenib occurred in 5 pts, including rash in 3 pts and fissuring and exfoliation of the palms and soles in 2 pts. The one pt with angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma had a clinical CR and was able to undergo an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Nine (69%) pts are still alive. ConclusionsIn this pilot study, Sorafenib demonstrated activity in pts with refractory T-cell lymphomas but dose modifications for skin toxicity occurred frequently, suggesting that a lower dose would be more tolerable. We plan to conduct a follow up study exploring lower doses of sorafenib and correlating clinical activity with tissue expression of ERK, PDGFR, and VEDGF.1. Piccaluga PP, Agostinelli C, Zinzani PL, Baccarani M, Dalla Favera R, Pileri SA. Expression of platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha in peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified. The lancet oncology. Jun 2005;6(6):440. Disclosures:Off Label Use: sorafenib in t cell nhl. Foss:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; spectrum: Research Funding; merck: Research Funding; seattle genetics: Research Funding.

Timing and severity of skin-related adverse events in a phase II trial of sorafenib (BAY43-9006) in patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

e17009 Background: We previously conducted a phase II study of sorafenib (BAY43-9006) in advanced thyroid cancer. Rash and Hand-Foot Skin Reaction (HFSR) were two of the most common adverse events (AEs). Because these skin-related AEs affect quality of life, we further explored their time course and management. Methods: Fifty-five patients were treated on UPCC 03305, a phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced thyroid cancer from 2006 to 2011. AEs were recorded using CTCAE v.3.0 and reported here if relation to the drug was deemed “possibly-related” or greater. Cycle length was four weeks. Results: No grade 4 or 5 skin toxicity was observed. Forty-nine patients (89%) experienced rash. Thirty-one patients had a maximum severity of grade 1 (56%), eight had grade 2 (15%), and nine had grade 3 (18%). Fifty patients (91%) had HFSR. Thirteen patients had a maximum severity of grade 1 (24%), 33 had grade 2 (60%), and four had grade 3 (7%). The severity of rash peaked at cycle 1 (19% grade 2,3) and declined by cycle 3 (4% grade 2,3). The severity of HFSR peaked at cycle 2 (39%, grade 2,3) and declined by cycle 6 (10% grade 2,3). The timing and severity of rash and HFSR by cycle are reported in the Table. Following cycle 12 the severity and prevalence of skin AEs reached a steady state. Of the 55 patients, 30 patients (55%) required dose-reduction, and nine of those patients (31%) resumed full dose by the end of study date. Nine patients (16%) were dose-reduced for rash, 17 patients (31%) were dose-reduced for HFSR, and three patients (5%) were dose-reduced for both rash and HFSR. Conclusions: The severity of skin toxicity peaked by cycle 1 for rash and cycle 2 for HFSR. The severity improved dramatically for rash by cycle 3 and for HFSR by cycle 6. Our data support the close supervision of skin-related AEs in the first six cycles of treatment with sorafenib. However, the sustained high prevalence of rash and HFSR requires all patients receive ongoing skin care for the duration of therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00095693. [Table: see text]

A Phase II Study of Sorafenib in Patients with Platinum-Pretreated, Advanced (Stage IIIb or IV) Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer with a KRAS Mutation

Sorafenib inhibits the Ras/Raf pathway, which is overactive in cancer patients with a KRAS mutation. We hypothesized that patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with KRAS mutation will benefit from treatment with sorafenib. In this phase II study, patients with KRAS-mutated, stage IIIb or IV NSCLC that progressed after at least one platinum-containing regimen were treated with sorafenib. Treatment consisted of sorafenib 400 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pretreatment serum from each patient was obtained to predict outcome using a proteomic assay (VeriStrat). Primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) at 6 weeks. Fifty-nine patients were entered between May 2010 and February 2011. Fifty-seven patients started sorafenib. Mean age was 58.5 (SD = ±8.1) years, 16 male/41 female, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0/1/2 24/30/3. At 6 weeks, 5 partial response, 25 stable disease, and 27 progressive disease were observed; DCR was 52.6%. Median duration of treatment was 9 weeks. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.3 months and median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months. Patients with a prediction of good prognosis according to VeriStrat serum proteomics assay showed a significantly superior PFS [HR, 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-1.9] but not OS (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.7). Sorafenib-related grade III/IV toxicity was reported in 10 patients (17.5%); all but one patient experienced grade III skin toxicity (14.0%) or grade III gastrointestinal toxicity (8.8%). Treatment with sorafenib has relevant clinical activity in patients with NSCLC harboring KRAS mutations. Further randomized study with this agent is warranted as single-agent or combination therapy.

Predictable clinical responses to sorafenib in stage IV uveal melanoma.

e19032 Background: Uveal melanoma is an orphan disease with poor prognosis, once metastasized. There is currently no approved systemic treatment and all clinical trials so far failed to significantly improve OS in stage IV uveal melanoma patients (see results of the EORTC 18021 trial, abstract 95725). Sorafenib is a pleiotropic kinase inhibitor targeting tumor metabolism and related neoangiogenesis. Although sorafenib failed as monotherapy in metastasized melanoma, results from small phase II trials have indicated synergism with chemotherapy in some patients. We therefore offered compassionate use treatment with sorafenib to patients with documented progressive stage IV uveal melanoma after fotemustine iv or HIA treatment (EORTC 18021 trial). Methods: Sorafenib 400 mg orally bid was combined with fotemustine 100 mg/m² at 3 week intervals to treat a total of 7 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Patients were closely followed by repeated analyses of serum tumor markers and ultrasound scans of liver metastases. Complete staging by CT/MR scans was done every 3 months. Results: 3 of 7 patients with initially elevated tumormarkers showed an early rapid drop in serum MIA and/or S100 within two weeks of sorafenib treatment followed by partial responses and long term stabilization of the disease up to 20 months. Responder patients could also be identified by a rapid drop in tumorperfusion as shown by contrast enhanced ultrasound of liver metastases. Due to hematologic toxicity treatment had to be modified in all responder patients. Neither reduction of sorafenib dosage to 200 mg orally bid nor omittance of fotemustine treatment resulted in early disease progression, pinpointing potential high sorafenib responsiveness in uveal melanoma patients. Conclusions: Patients with stage IV uveal melanoma may benefit from treatment with the kinase inhibitor sorafenib. Our observations suggest selection of responder patients by early drop of elevated tumor markers S100 / MIA and early drop in tumor perfusion. Stimulated by these data a first phase II trial investigating sorafenib in uveal melanoma patients has been initiated in Germany (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0137702: A Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Chemonaive Metastatic Uveal Melanoma (STREAM).

Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma

The safety and activity of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib were investigated in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoproliferative disorders who received sorafenib (400 mg) twice daily until disease progression or appearance of significant clinical toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Biomarkers of sorafenib activity were analysed at baseline and during treatment. Thirty patients (median age, 61 years; range, 18-74) received a median of 4 months of therapy. Grade 3-4 toxicities included hand/foot skin reactions (20%), infections (12%), neutropenia (20%) and thrombocytopenia (14%). Two patients achieved complete remission (CR), and two achieved partial remission (PR) for an ORR of 13%. Stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) was observed in 15 (50%) and 11 patients (37%), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) for all patients was 16 months. For patients who achieved CR, PR and SD, the median time to progression and OS was 5 and 24 months, respectively. Compared with patients with PD, responsive patients had significantly higher baseline levels of extracellular signal-regulated kinase phosphorylation and autophagy and presented a significant reduction of these parameters after 1 month of therapy. Sorafenib was well tolerated and had a clinical activity that warrants development of combination regimens.

Abstract PR5: A phase II study of sorafenib in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a K-Ras mutation

Abstract Background: In a pilot study (1) we found sorafenib to display clinical activity against patients with K-Ras positive NSCLC, sufficient for formal phase II testing. Methods: Patients with K-Ras mutated NSCLC that progressed after at least 1 platinum containing regimen with adequate organ reserve, ECOG 0–2, who provided written informed consent according to local IRB regulations were eligible. A tumor biopsy confirming the presence of a K-Ras mutation was mandatory. Treatment consisted of sorafenib 400 mg BID until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dose reductions and delays were specified per protocol in the face of CTC toxicities grade 3 and 4. Primary endpoint: Rate of No Progression (NPR) at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints: duration of response, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival and treatment related toxicities. A 2-stage design was implemented (Simon's optimal design; p0=40%, p1=60%, alpha=0.05, beta=0.20) for a total number of 48 pts. Results: 59 patients were entered between May 1st 2010 and February 18 2011. Median age was 58 (range 46–79) years, 17 Male/42 Female, ECOG PS 0/1/2 23/32/4. 57 patients started treatment. At 6 weeks 5 PR, 25 SD, 27 PD were observed; NPR 52.6%. Fifteen patients stopped treatment before 6 weeks, of which 10 patients stopped due to (clinical) progression. Median duration of treatment was 9 (range 0–62) weeks, 2 patients are still on treatment. Median duration of response was 32 (range 5–58) weeks. Median PFS was 2.3 months, median OS was 4.9 months, 14 patients still alive. Dose modifications were realized in 21 patients, of whom 4 discontinued treatment. Most reported adverse events were fatigue (6.4%), hand-foot reaction (5.7%), dyspnea (5.6%), anorexia (3.7%) diarrhea (3.6%) and cough (3.6%). Sorafenib related grade 3-4 toxicity was reported in 10 patients. Five patients with grade 3 skin toxicity, 4 patients with grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity and 1 patient with both grade 3 metabolic abnormalities and a grade 3 pneumonitis. Conclusion: Treatment with sorafenib has relevant clinical activity in patients with K-Ras mutational status. Further randomized study with this agent is warranted. This abstract is also presented as Poster B18.

Phase II escalation study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have been previously treated with anti‐angiogenic treatment

To assess both clinical and biological efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with an anti-angiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Sorafenib is an orally active multikinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of mRCC. Drug-focused translational research on tissues (i.e. B-RAF) and plasma (VEGFR-α, circulating endothelial cells, endothelial progenitor cells) was performed to define biological predictive and prognostic markers and their related kinetics. Patients with mRCC pretreated with an anti-angiogenic treatment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice a day continuously in 4-week cycles. Patients with no progressive disease at 12 weeks continued to receive sorafenib at the standard dose, whereas progressing patients received an increased dose (600 mg twice a day) with early disease restaging after 4 weeks. Patients who progressed at 600 mg twice a day went off study. Efficacy (overall tumour control) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In all, 19 patients were entered. The baseline characteristics were as follows: ECOG PS 0-1 94.8%; median (range) age 62 (41-81) years; nephrectomy 100%; surgery for metastatic disease 26.4%; clear cell 79.1%; papillary cell 15.7%; sarcomatoid/high grade 5.2%; two or more metastatic sites 84%. Overall, 11 patients (58%) had disease control at 6 months without significant correlation between response to prior therapy and hypertension. Progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months was observed. Of six patients for whom the dose was escalated due to early progression, three benefitted with PFS of >3 months. Three (15.7%) of 19 patients had a V600E mutation and one had a K601E mutation; PFS appeared to be substantially shorter in these patients compared with 15 patients with wild-type B-RAF (2.5 vs 9.1 month, P < 0.05). The most common toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, NCIC 3.0, all patients) was grade ≥1 diarrhoea and grade 2-3 hand-foot syndrome in 11 patients. Grade 3 mucositis was observed in one patient. Sorafenib at doses of 400-600 mg twice a day continuously results in acceptable and well tolerated salvage treatment after VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor failure. In progressive patients, treatment with a higher dose could be a valid option and B-RAF mutations may be an interesting predictive marker to be studied in a larger randomized trial.

No Place Like Home? Outpatient Management of Patients With Febrile Neutropenia and Low Risk

and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: Proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753-1759, 2007 45. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al: CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: A quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1619-1628, 2004 46. Lencioni R, Llovet JM: Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30:52-60, 2010 47. Abou-Alfa GK, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al: Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24:4293-4300, 2006 48. Abou-Alfa GK, Zhao B, Capanu M, et al: Tumor necrosis as a correlate for response in subgroup of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. ESMO 2008, Stockholm, Sweden. Ann Oncol 19:viii178, 2008 (suppl 8; abstr 547P)

SWOG 0514: a phase II study of sorafenib in patients with unresectable or metastatic gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma

Gallbladder and cholangiocarcinomas represent a heterogeneous group of malignant diseases that commonly present at an advanced stage and have limited therapeutic options. Based on the role of the Ras-Raf-Mek-Erk pathway and the VEGF axis in biliary carcinomas, we conducted a phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary cancers. Eligible patients had no prior therapy for metastatic or unresectable disease. Sorafenib was administered at 400 mg po twice daily continuously. The study was terminated after the first stage of accrual due to failure to meet the primary objective. A confirmed response rate of 0% (0%-11%) was observed. Thirty-nine percent of patients demonstrated stable disease (including 2 with unconfirmed PR). PFS was 3 months (95% CI: 2-4 months) and OS 9 months (95% CI: 4-12 months). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities included hand-foot skin reaction (13%), bilirubin elevation (13%), venous thromboembolism (10%), AST/ALT elevation (10%) and elevated alkaline phosphatase (10%). While treatment with sorafenib did not result in objective responses, patients with biliary cancers receiving this drug had some therapeutic benefit. Additional studies with sorafenib in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents may be warranted.

A phase II study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors with failure of both imatinib and sunitinib: A KGSG study.

10010 Background: This prospective, multicenter, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) who failed pre...

A front‐line window of opportunity phase 2 study of sorafenib in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

The current study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib as front-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily by mouth continuously, and were evaluated every 2 weeks during the first 8 weeks. Patients who manifested clinical progression during this period proceeded to receive standard of care. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response. A 2-stage Fleming design was used such that if at most 1 confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response was observed in the first 20 patients (stage 1), the treatment would be considered ineffective, and further enrollment would be discontinued. Only 1 PR was observed in the first 20 patients. By the time of study closure, 5 additional patients who were already being screened for study inclusion were enrolled. Of the 25 patients (15 women, 10 men; 4 stage IIIB, 21 stage IV; median age, 67 years [range, 45-85 years]), there were 3 (12%) PRs and 6 (24%) cases with stable disease observed. The median time-to-progression and progression-free survival was 2.8 months. Seven (28%) patients remained progression-free at 24 weeks. No grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were observed. Thirteen (52%) patients had a grade 3 nonhematologic adverse event, with fatigue (20%), diarrhea (8%), and dyspnea (8%) being the most common. Sorafenib is not effective as front-line therapy in the general unselected NSCLC population. The window of opportunity design is feasible for estimating the activity of novel compounds.

A pharmacodynamic study of sorafenib in patients with relapsed and refractory acute leukemias

We report the results of a Phase I dose escalation trial of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib in relapsed/refractory acute leukemias using an intermittent dosing regimen. Fifteen patients with advanced leukemia (Acute myeloid leukemia(AML), 2=Acute lymphoblastic leukemia(ALL), 1 Biphenotypic) and a median age of 63 (range 37–85) years were enrolled and treated on a dose escalation trial. Toxicities ≥grade 3 were present in 55% of cycles and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be 400mg BID × 21days in a 28 day cycle. Plasma inhibitory assays of kinase targets ERK and FLT3-ITD demonstrated excellent target inhibition, with FLT3-ITD silencing occurring below the MTD. The N-oxide metabolite of sorafenib appeared to be a more potent inhibitor of FLT3-ITD than the parent compound. Despite marked ex vivo FLT-3 ITD inhibition, no patients met criteria for complete or partial response in this monotherapy study. Eleven of fifteen patients experienced stable disease as best response. Although sorafenib demonstrated only modest clinical activity as a single agent in this heavily treated population, robust inhibition of FLT3 and ERK suggest there may be a potential important role in combination therapies.

Phase II trial of sorafenib (bay 43–9006) in patients with advanced anaplastic carcinoma of the thyroid (ATC)

6058 Background: Sorafenib (bay 43–9006) is an oral, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the raf-1 protein kinase receptor, VEGFR2 and PDGFR-β with antiangiogenic properties. We are conducting an open label, phase II study of sorafenib in patients with biopsy-proven ATC to evaluate if its objective response rate is &gt;20% and to further characterize its safety profile. Methods: Patients with progressive ATC, after cytotoxic chemotherapy with or without radiation were given sorafenib, on a fixed dosing schedule of 400 mg PO bid on 28-day cycles. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient refusal. Response was evaluated every 8 weeks with body scans using RECIST criteria. We employed a 2-stage study design: if none of the first 18 patients respond the study is terminated, otherwise accrual is continued to a total of 36 patients at which point if ≤3 of the patients respond, the treatment option is rejected. Results: To date 16 patients (10 male) have enrolled in the study. Median age is 55 years; with (range 28–79). Median time on study is 2 months. Median number of cycles given is 2 (range 1–27). Two of 15 evaluable patients (13%) have partial response (PR) and 4 patients (27%) have stable disease (SD). Median duration of PR/SD is 5.1 months (range 1–24.7months). Median time to progression is 1.5 months. Median duration of survival is 3.5 months (range 1–26 months). All patients at time of reporting are deceased. Most common toxicities are lymphopenia (81%) and fatigue (62%). Grade 3 toxicities include lymphopenia (25%), rash with desquamation, weight loss, and chest pain (all 12%). Grade 4 toxicities include dyspnea (6%) and lymphopenia (6%). There has been no significant cardiovascular toxicity. One patient died on study with rapidly progressive disease. Conclusions: Sorafenib demonstrates objective tumor response in the first 15 evaluable and pretreated patients with advanced ATC. This trial is ongoing and supported in part by NIH grant nos. CA62502. [Table: see text]

Effect of BRAFV600E on response to sorafenib in advanced thyroid cancer patients

6002 Background: We are conducting an open-label phase II study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic, iodine-refractory thyroid carcinoma. Methods: 55 Patients were administered sorafenib 400 mg orally BID. Responses were monitored by PET and CT. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR) and progression free survival (PFS) by RECIST criteria. BRAF and RAS mutation status is determined by DNA sequencing. Outcome data is evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Biologic activity in tissue obtained during treatment at response and progression is being explored using immunohistochemistry (IHC) to pERK, pAKT and Ki-67 among others, in pretreatment blocks from virtually all patients, and a subset of 14 patients in whom on-treatment tissue is available. Results: We have completed accrual of the 55 patients planned for enrollment; median time on study is 34 weeks and 25 pts (45%) are male. Histological subtypes include papillary (PTC): 25 pts (47%); follicular/Hürthle Cell (FTC): 19 pts (36%); medullary: 4 pts (8%), and poorly differentiated/anaplastic: 5 pts (9%). 52/55 patients are evaluable for response at this time. Median PFS was 84 wks. Genotyping of BRAF is complete in 16 patients. For patients with PTC/FTC, the PFS for those with BRAFwt was 54 wks compared to 84+ wks for patients with BRAFV600E (p = 0.028). On-treatment tissue at progression demonstrates heterogeneity, with p-ERK and p-AKT suppressed in some areas, but highly expressed in others. Data at 6 months post accrual of the last patient will be presented along with patient thyroglobulin levels, PET and CT scans. IHC and additional genotyping will also be presented. Conclusions: Sorafenib has activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancer with an overall PFS of 84 wks. While most patients with PTC or FTC achieve durable responses, patients whose tumors harbor BRAFV600E have significantly longer PFS than those that are BRAFwt. [Table: see text]

Lessons learned from independent central review

Independent central review (ICR) is advocated by regulatory authorities as a means of independent verification of clinical trial end-points dependent on medical imaging, when the data from the trials may be submitted for licensing applications [Food and Drug Administration. United States food and drug administration guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2006; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-492 (oxaliplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-923 (sorafenib tosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-065 (ixabepilone). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-059 (lapatinib ditosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Approval package for BLA numbers 97-0260 and BLA Number 97-0244 (rituximab). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA clinical review of BLA 98-0369 (Herceptin ® trastuzumab (rhuMAb HER2)). FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; 1998; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee meeting NDA 21801 (satraplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, et al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. JCO 2007(November):5210–7]. In addition, clinical trial sponsors have used ICR in Phase I–II studies to assist in critical pathway decisions including in-licensing of compounds [Cannistra SA, Matulonis UA, Penson RT, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer or peritoneal serous cancer. JCO 2007(November):5180–6; Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. JCO 2007(August):3407–14; Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. JCO 2007(June):2171–7; Ghassan KA, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. JCO 2006(September):4293–300; Boué F, Gabarre J, GaBarre J, et al. Phase II trial of CHOP plus rituximab in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. JCO 2006(September):4123–8; Chen HX, Mooney M, Boron M, et al. Phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer: an NCI Treatment Referral Center Trial TRC-0301. JCO 2006(July):3354–60; Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JCO 2006(June):2502–12; Jaffer AA, Lee FC, Singh DA, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. JCO 2006(February):663–7; Bouché O, Raoul JL, Bonnetain F, et al. Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin, or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer: a Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study—FFCD 9803. JCO 2004(November):4319–28]. This article will focus on the definition and purpose of ICR and the issues and lessons learned in the ICR setting primarily in Phase II and III oncology studies. This will include a discussion on discordance between local and central interpretations, consequences of ICR, reader discordance during the ICR, operational considerations and the need for specific imaging requirements as part of the study protocol.

The Targeted Oncolytic Poxvirus JX-594 Demonstrates Antitumoral, Antivascular, and Anti-HBV Activities in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

JX-594 is a targeted oncolytic poxvirus that is designed to eradicate cancer cells having cell-cycle defects, through replication, cell lysis, and spread within tumors; oncolysis-induced tumor vascular shutdown and immunostimulation are augmented by granulocyte monocyte-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) transgene expression. We have previously shown, in animal models of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), that JX-594 is a promising anticancer agent. We tested JX-594 in three patients with advanced refractory hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated HCC through intratumoral administration. JX-594 treatment was well-tolerated and resulted in antitumoral efficacy in all three patients, despite the presence of high levels of neutralizing antibodies. JX-594 replication, its release into the circulation, distant tumor targeting were demonstrated. JX-594 administration resulted in the induction of antivascular cytokines, and was associated with tumor vascular shutdown. We also showed, for the first time, that oncolytic virotherapy can suppress underlying HBV replication in HCC patients, and that tumor tissue could be the primary source of acute HBV replication and acute post-treatment HBV release. JX-594 treatment in HBV-associated HCC warrants further clinical testing; a Phase II trial is underway.

A phase II study of sorafenib in metastatic thyroid carcinoma

6026 Background: Sorafenib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor affecting Raf kinase, VEGFR, and PDGFR. We are conducting an open-label phase II study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic, iodine-refractory thyroid carcinoma to determine its efficacy and to identify biologic changes resulting from sorafenib therapy. Methods: Patients with metastatic, iodine-refractory, unresectable or locally-advanced thyroid cancer were administered sorafenib 400 mg orally BID. Responses were monitored by PET at four weeks and CT's every two to three months. The primary endpoints were response rate (RR) and time to progression (TTP) by RECIST criteria. BRAF mutation status is being determined by DNA sequencing. Pre-treatment and on-treatment tissue is being analyzed by immunohistochemistry and imaging analysis for markers of early biologic activity of sorafenib, including pERK and Ki-67, in a subset of patients in whom tissue is available. Results: To date, 36 patients have enrolled on study; median time on study is ...

A phase II study of sorafenib in patients with chemo-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer

BackgroundThe purpose of this trial was to evaluate the antitumor activity of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients and methodsThis was a multicenter, two-stage, phase II study. Sorafenib 400 mg was administered orally twice daily continuously. Primary end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ‘response’ defined as a ≥50% decrease for ≥4 weeks. ResultsIn all, 28 patients were enrolled. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was zero or one in 19 and 9 patients. Two patients had no metastases, and 26 had bone and/or lymph node disease. A median of two cycles (range 1–8) was delivered. Adverse events were typical for sorafenib. The PSA response rate was 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1% to 18.3%] with response occurring in one patient (baseline=10000 and nadir=1643 μg/l). No measurable disease responses occurred in eight patients. Time to PSA progression was 2.3 months (95% CI 1.8–6.4). Of 16 patients who discontinued sorafenib and then did not receive any immediate therapy, 10 had postdiscontinuation PSA declines of 7%–52%. ConclusionsSorafenib has limited activity using current PSA criteria. The declines in PSA observed on treatment discontinuation indicate an effect on PSA production/secretion. Further study may be warranted but needs to consider the limitations of PSA as an indicator of progression and response.

Update of a Phase I Study of Sorafenib in Patients with Refractory/Relapsed Acute Myeloid Leukemia or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

The critical importance of the Ras, VEGF, and FLT3 pathways in the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been well established. FLT3 abnormalities, internal tandem duplication (ITD) and point mutations, occur in about 30% of pts with AML and the FLT3-ITD mutation independently confers poor prognosis. Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting the above pathways and is highly potent against FLT3-ITD mutants (IC50 1–3 nM) (ASH abstract, 2006). We are conducting a phase I trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two different schedules of sorafenib. To date, 21 patients (pts) with refractory/relapsed AML (n=20) and high risk MDS (n=1) have been enrolled. Pts were randomized to sorafenib for 5 days per week for 21 days (arm A; n=11) or for 14 days every 21 days (arm B; n=10). In both arms the starting dose level (DL) is 200 mg twice daily. Successive dose levels are 600, 800, and 1200 mg daily in a standard 3+3 design. Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) samples were obtained for evaluation of FLT3 status and phosphorylated and total FLT3 and ERK expression. Median age is 62 years (range, 33–82), number of prior therapies 2 (range, 1–5), time from diagnosis to sorafenib treatment 9 months (range, 2–46), and median duration on study was 1.2 months (range, 0.1–3.4). Twenty pts are evaluable. 9/20 (45%) pts received ≤ 1 cycle of sorafenib because of disease progression (n=6), self-discontinuation (n=2), or no benefit (n=1), of whom 5 (56%) were FLT3-ITD negative, 3 (33%) were FLT3-ITD positive, and 1 (11%) was not tested. In contrast, 11/20 (55%) pts received &gt; 1 cycle of sorafenib, of whom 8 (73%) were FLT3-ITD positive and 3 (27%) were FLT3-ITD negative; reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (n=5), self-discontinuation (n=2), stem cell transplant (n=2), or no benefit (n=2). Sorafenib has been well tolerated with 1 pt achieving a DLT of grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia at the 800 mg daily dose in arm B, but the MTD has not been reached; this cohort has been expanded. The only other grade 3 toxicity has been pleural effusion at the 600 mg daily dose in arm A, not considered a DLT because it occurred during cycle 2. A ≥ 50% reduction in PB or BM blasts was obtained in 11/20 (55%) pts. 9/11 (82%) pts harbored the FLT3-ITD mutation and had a median duration of response of 42 days (range, 15–87). In these 9 pts, the median PB absolute blast count at baseline and after maximal response to sorafenib was 10.3 (range, 0.2–18.7) and 0 (range, 0–1)(p=0.008). Median BM blast percentage at baseline and after maximal response to sorafenib was 72% (range, 14–96) and 42% (range, 12–58) (p=0.002), with 1 pt achieving a morphologic complete remission in the BM. Serial determinations of phosphorylation status following sorafenib (at 0, 2, 24,120 hours) in pts with the FLT3-ITD mutation demonstrated inhibition of phospho-FLT3 in 3/3 and phospho-ERK in 5/5 pts. In conclusion, sorafenib administration is safe in AML and appears to preferentially target the FLT3-ITD mutation. This study continues to accrue pts to define the MTD and it will be followed by combination studies of standard chemotherapy with sorafenib, with an emphasis on targeting pts with AML expressing the FLT3-ITD mutation.