A phase I schedule dependency study of the aurora kinase inhibitor MSC1992371A in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors

The two sides of chromosomal instability: drivers and brakes in cancer

Chromosomal instability (CIN) is a hallmark of cancer and is associated with tumor cell malignancy. CIN triggers a chain reaction in cells leading to chromosomal abnormalities, including deviations from the normal chromosome number or structural changes in chromosomes. CIN arises from errors in DNA replication and chromosome segregation during cell division, leading to the formation of cells with abnormal number and/or structure of chromosomes. Errors in DNA replication result from abnormal replication licensing as well as replication stress, such as double-strand breaks and stalled replication forks; meanwhile, errors in chromosome segregation stem from defects in chromosome segregation machinery, including centrosome amplification, erroneous microtubule-kinetochore attachments, spindle assembly checkpoint, or defective sister chromatids cohesion. In normal cells, CIN is deleterious and is associated with DNA damage, proteotoxic stress, metabolic alteration, cell cycle arrest, and senescence. Paradoxically, despite these negative consequences, CIN is one of the hallmarks of cancer found in over 90% of solid tumors and in blood cancers. Furthermore, CIN could endow tumors with enhanced adaptation capabilities due to increased intratumor heterogeneity, thereby facilitating adaptive resistance to therapies; however, excessive CIN could induce tumor cells death, leading to the "just-right" model for CIN in tumors. Elucidating the complex nature of CIN is crucial for understanding the dynamics of tumorigenesis and for developing effective anti-tumor treatments. This review provides an overview of causes and consequences of CIN, as well as the paradox of CIN, a phenomenon that continues to perplex researchers. Finally, this review explores the potential of CIN-based anti-tumor therapy.

Second-Generation Antimitotics in Cancer Clinical Trials

Mitosis represents a promising target to block cancer cell proliferation. Classical antimitotics, mainly microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs), such as taxanes and vinca alkaloids, are amongst the most successful anticancer drugs. By disrupting microtubules, they activate the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), which induces a prolonged delay in mitosis, expected to induce cell death. However, resistance, toxicity, and slippage limit the MTA's effectiveness. With the desire to overcome some of the MTA's limitations, mitotic and SAC components have attracted great interest as promising microtubule-independent targets, leading to the so-called second-generation antimitotics (SGAs). The identification of inhibitors against most of these targets, and the promising outcomes achieved in preclinical assays, has sparked the interest of academia and industry. Many of these inhibitors have entered clinical trials; however, they exhibited limited efficacy as monotherapy, and failed to go beyond phase II trials. Combination therapies are emerging as promising strategies to give a second chance to these SGAs. Here, an updated view of the SGAs that reached clinical trials is here provided, together with future research directions, focusing on inhibitors that target the SAC components.

Future prospects for mitosis-targeted antitumor therapies

Dysregulation of cell cycle progression is a hallmark of cancer cells. In recent years, efforts have been devoted to the development of new therapies that target proteins involved in cell cycle regulation and mitosis. Novel targeted antimitotic drugs include inhibitors of aurora kinase family, polo-like kinase 1, Mps1, Eg5, CENP-5 and the APC/cyclosome complex. While certain new inhibitors reached the clinical trial stage, most were discontinued due to negative results. However, these therapies should not be readily dismissed. Based on recent advances concerning their mechanisms of action, new strategies could be devised to increase their efficacy and promote further clinical trials. Here we discuss three main lines of action to empower these therapeutic approaches: increasing cell death signals during mitotic arrest, targeting senescent cells and facilitating antitumor immune response through immunogenic cell death (ICD).

Targeting AURKA in Cancer: molecular mechanisms and opportunities for Cancer therapy

Aurora kinase A (AURKA) belongs to the family of serine/threonine kinases, whose activation is necessary for cell division processes via regulation of mitosis. AURKA shows significantly higher expression in cancer tissues than in normal control tissues for multiple tumor types according to the TCGA database. Activation of AURKA has been demonstrated to play an important role in a wide range of cancers, and numerous AURKA substrates have been identified. AURKA-mediated phosphorylation can regulate the functions of AURKA substrates, some of which are mitosis regulators, tumor suppressors or oncogenes. In addition, enrichment of AURKA-interacting proteins with KEGG pathway and GO analysis have demonstrated that these proteins are involved in classic oncogenic pathways. All of this evidence favors the idea of AURKA as a target for cancer therapy, and some small molecules targeting AURKA have been discovered. These AURKA inhibitors (AKIs) have been tested in preclinical studies, and some of them have been subjected to clinical trials as monotherapies or in combination with classic chemotherapy or other targeted therapies.

A phase 1 study of AMG 900, an orally administered pan-aurora kinase inhibitor, in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Aurora kinases are involved in the pathophysiology of several cancers including acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this phase 1 study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of AMG 900, an orally administered, highly potent, selective, small-molecule inhibitor of both Aurora kinase A and B, in patients with AML . Patients with pathologically documented AML who either declined standard treatments or had relapsed from or were refractory to previous therapies were enrolled. Two every-2-week dose-escalation schedules using a modified 3 + 3 + 3 design were evaluated AMG 900 given daily for 4 days with 10 days off (4/10 schedule), and AMG 900 given daily for 7 days with 7 days off (7/7 schedule). Thirty-five patients were enrolled at 9 different dose levels: 22 patients on the 4/10 schedule (doses from 15 to 100 mg daily), and 13 patients on the 7/7 schedule (doses from 30 to 50 mg daily). Both schedules were tolerated; nausea (31%), diarrhea (29%), febrile neutropenia (29%), and fatigue (23%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Three patients (9%) achieved complete response with incomplete count recovery. Patients with higher baseline expression of a set of specific pathway-related genes (BIRC5, AURKA, TTK, CDC2, and CCNB1) were more likely to respond in an exploratory biomarker analysis. AMG 900 was tolerated in a general AML population, and pathway-specific biomarkers identified a potential target population. Future research efforts will be directed toward further exploration of biomarkers of response and combination of AMG 900 with other anticancer agents.

Multi-kinase inhibitors, AURKs and cancer

Inhibitors that impact function of kinases are valuable both for the biological research as well as therapy of kinase-associated diseases, such as different cancers. There are quite a number of inhibitors, which are quite specific for certain kinases and several of them are either already approved for the cancer therapy or are in clinical studies of various phases. However, that does not mean that each single kinase inhibitor is suitable for targeted therapy. Some of them are not effective others might be toxic or fail some other criteria for the use in vivo. On the other hand, even in case of successful therapy, many responders eventually develop resistance to the inhibitors. The limitations of various single kinase inhibitors can be fought using compounds which target multiple kinases. This tactics can increase effectiveness of the inhibitors by the synergistic effect or help to diminish the likelihood of drug resistance. To date, several families of kinases are quite popular targets of the inhibition in cancers, such as tyrosine kinases, cycle-dependent kinases, mitogen-activated protein kinases, phosphoinositide 3-kinases as well as their pathway "players" and aurora kinases. Aurora kinases play an important role in the control of the mitosis and are often altered in diverse human cancers. Here, we will describe the most interesting multi-kinase inhibitors which inhibit aurora kinases among other targets and their use in preclinical and clinical cancer studies.

Targeting protein kinases to reverse multidrug resistance in sarcoma

Sarcomas are a group of cancers that arise from transformed cells of mesenchymal origin. They can be classified into over 50 subtypes, accounting for approximately 1% of adult and 15% of pediatric cancers. Wide surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are the most common treatments for the majority of sarcomas. Among these therapies, chemotherapy can palliate symptoms and prolong life for some sarcoma patients. However, sarcoma cells can have intrinsic or acquired resistance after treatment with chemotherapeutics drugs, leading to the development of multidrug resistance (MDR). MDR attenuates the efficacy of anticancer drugs and results in treatment failure for sarcomas. Therefore, overcoming MDR is an unmet need for sarcoma therapy. Certain protein kinases demonstrate aberrant expression and/or activity in sarcoma cells, which have been found to be involved in the regulation of sarcoma cell progression, such as cell cycle, apoptosis, and survival. Inhibiting these protein kinases may not only decrease the proliferation and growth of sarcoma cells, but also reverse their resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs to subsequently reduce the doses of anticancer drugs and decrease drug side-effects. The discovery of novel strategies targeting protein kinases opens a door to a new area of sarcoma research and provides insight into the mechanisms of MDR in chemotherapy. This review will focus on the recent studies in targeting protein kinase to reverse chemotherapeutic drug resistance in sarcoma.

Aurora Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology Clinical Trials: Current State of the Progress

The Aurora kinase family of kinases (Aurora A, B, and C) are involved in multiple mitotic events, and aberrant expression of these kinases is associated with tumorigenesis. Aurora A and Aurora B are validated anticancer targets, and the development of Aurora kinase inhibitors has progressed from preclinical to clinical studies. A variety of Aurora A, B and pan-Aurora kinase inhibitors have entered the clinic. The main side effects include febrile neutropenia, stomatitis, gastrointestinal toxicity, hypertension, and fatigue. Responses including complete remissions have been described in diverse, advanced malignancies, most notably ovarian cancer and acute myelogenous leukemia. This review highlights the biologic rationale for Aurora kinase as a target, and clinical trials involving Aurora kinase inhibitors, with particular emphasis on published early phase studies, and the observed anti-tumor activity of these agents.

Inhibition of Aurora kinase B is important for biologic activity of the dual inhibitors of BCR-ABL and Aurora kinases R763/AS703569 and PHA-739358 in BCR-ABL transformed cells

ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) like Imatinib, Dasatinib and Nilotinib are the gold standard in conventional treatment of CML. However, the emergence of resistance remains a major problem. Alternative therapeutic strategies of ABL TKI-resistant CML are urgently needed. We asked whether dual inhibition of BCR-ABL and Aurora kinases A-C could overcome resistance mediated by ABL kinase mutations. We therefore tested the dual ABL and Aurora kinase inhibitors PHA-739358 and R763/AS703569 in Ba/F3- cells ectopically expressing wild type (wt) or TKI-resistant BCR-ABL mutants. We show that both compounds exhibited strong anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic activity in ABL TKI resistant cell lines including cells expressing the strongly resistant T315I mutation. Cell cycle analysis indicated polyploidisation, a consequence of continued cell cycle progression in the absence of cell division by Aurora kinase inhibition. Experiments using drug resistant variants of Aurora B indicated that PHA-739358 acts on both, BCR-ABL and Aurora Kinase B, whereas Aurora kinase B inhibition might be sufficient for the anti-proliferative activity observed with R763/AS703569. Taken together, our data demonstrate that dual ABL and Aurora kinase inhibition might be used to overcome ABL TKI resistant CML.

Aurora kinase inhibitor patents and agents in clinical testing: an update (2011 - 2013)

INTRODUCTION

Aurora kinase A, B and C, members of serine/threonine kinase family, are key regulators of mitosis. As Aurora kinases are overexpressed in many of the human cancers, small-molecule inhibitors of Aurora kinase have emerged as a possible treatment option for cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In 2009 and 2011, the literature pertaining to Aurora kinase inhibitors and their patents was reviewed. Here, the aim is to update the information for Aurora kinase inhibitors in clinical trials and the patents filed between the years 2011 and 2013. Pubmed, Scopus®, Scifinder®, USPTO, EPO and www.clinicaltrials.gov databases were used for searching the literature and patents for Aurora kinase inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

Even though both Aurora sub-type selective as well as pan-selective inhibitors show preclinical and clinical efficacy, so far no Aurora kinase inhibitor has been approved for clinical use. Particularly, dose-limiting toxicity (neutropenia) is a key issue that needs to be addressed. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of selective Aurora A inhibitors could avoid Aurora B-mediated neutropenia in clinical settings. Also, use of adjunctive agents such as granulocyte stimulating factor to overcome neutropenia associated with Aurora B inhibition could be an answer to overcome the toxicity and bring Aurora inhibitors to market in the future.

The aurora kinases in cell cycle and leukemia

The Aurora kinases, which include Aurora A (AURKA), Aurora B (AURKB) and Aurora C (AURKC), are serine/threonine kinases required for the control of mitosis (AURKA and AURKB) and meiosis (AURKC). Since their discovery nearly 20 years ago, Aurora kinases have been studied extensively in cell and cancer biology. Several early studies found that Aurora kinases are amplified and overexpressed at the transcript and protein level in various malignancies, including several types of leukemia. These discoveries and others provided a rationale for the development of small-molecule inhibitors of Aurora kinases as leukemia therapies. The first generation of Aurora kinase inhibitors did not fare well in clinical trials, owing to poor efficacy and high toxicity. However, the creation of second-generation, highly selective Aurora kinase inhibitors has increased the enthusiasm for targeting these proteins in leukemia. This review will describe the functions of each Aurora kinase, summarize their involvement in leukemia and discuss inhibitor development and efficacy in leukemia clinical trials.

A phase l study of three different dosing schedules of the oral aurora kinase inhibitor MSC1992371A in patients with solid tumors

Aurora kinase inhibitors (AKIs) are a class of antimitotic, small-molecule anticancer agents. MSC1992371A is an AKI being evaluated for the treatment of patients with solid tumors. This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MSC1992371A in different dosing schedules in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. MSC1992371A was administered on days 1 and 8 (schedule 1) or on days 1, 2, and 3 (schedule 2) of a 21-day cycle. The study was expanded with a third schedule (study drug on days 1-3 and 8-10). Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Antitumor efficacy, drug pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated. Ninety-two patients were enrolled. MSC1992371A was dosed over eight levels in schedules 1 and 2, and the MTD was determined as 74 mg/m(2) per cycle for both schedules and as 60 mg/m(2) in schedule 3, albeit only in three patients due to discontinuation of the study. Overall, the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and fatigue. The most frequent dose-limiting toxicity over all schedules was neutropenia. MSC1992371A plasma concentrations tended to increase with increasing dose levels. Although no complete or partial responses were seen, stable disease ≥3 months was observed in 11 patients. Analysis for markers of target modulation and pharmacodynamics effects was unsuccessful. MSC1992371A was generally well tolerated in patients, with mainly transient hematologic toxicities apparent at an MTD of 60-74 mg/m(2)/21-day cycle, independent of dosing frequency.