CYP2C19 genotype-based phase I studies of a c-Met inhibitor tivantinib in combination with erlotinib, in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Designing phase I oncology dose escalation using dose-exposure-toxicity models as a complementary approach to model-based dose-toxicity models

One of the objectives of oncology phase I dose-escalation studies has been to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Although MTD is no longer set as the dose for further development in contemporary oncology drug development, MTD determination is still important for informing the therapeutic index. Bayesian adaptive model-based designs are becoming mainstream in oncology first-in-human trials. Herein, we illustrate via simulations the use of systemic exposure in Bayesian adaptive dose-toxicity models to estimate MTD. We extend traditional dose-toxicity models to incorporate pharmacokinetic exposure, which provides information on exposure-toxicity relationships. We pursue dose escalation until the maximum tolerated exposure (corresponding to the MTD) is reached. By leveraging pharmacokinetics, dose escalation considers exposure and interindividual variability on a continuous rather than discrete domain, offering additional information for dose-escalation decisions. To demonstrate this, we generated 1000 simulations (starting dose of 1/25th the reference dose and six dose levels) for several different scenarios. Both rule-based and model-based designs were compared using metrics of potential safety, accuracy, and reliability. The mean results over simulations and different toxicity scenarios showed that model-based designs were better than rule-based methods and that exposure-toxicity model-based methods have the potential to valuably complement dose-toxicity model-based methods. Exposure-toxicity model-based methods had decreased underdose risk accompanied by a relatively smaller increase in overdose risk, resulting in improved net reliability. MTD estimation accuracy was compromised when exposure variability was large, emphasizing the importance of appropriate control of pharmacokinetic variability in phase I dose-escalation studies.

Pharmacogenomics Testing in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials: Constructive Criticism Is Warranted

Simple Summary

Phase I clinical trials are a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development in oncology. Many studies have now attempted to incorporate pharmacogenomics into phase I studies; however, many of these studies have fundamental flaws that that preclude interpretation and application of their findings. Study populations are often small and heterogeneous with multiple disease states, multiple dose levels, and prior therapies. Genetic testing typically includes few variants in candidate genes that do no encapsulate the full range of phenotypic variability in protein function. Moreover, a plurality of these studies do not present scientifically robust clinical or preclinical justification for undertaking pharmacogenomics studies. A significant amount of progress in understanding pharmacogenomic variability has occurred since pharmacogenomics approaches first began appearing in the literature. This progress can be immediately leveraged for the vast majority of Phase I studies. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature pertaining to Phase I incorporation of pharmacogenomics studies, analyze potential flaws in study design, and suggest approaches that can improve design of future scientific efforts.

Abstract

While over ten-thousand phase I studies are published in oncology, fewer than 1% of these studies stratify patients based on genetic variants that influence pharmacology. Pharmacogenetics-based patient stratification can improve the success of clinical trials by identifying responsive patients who have less potential to develop toxicity; however, the scientific limits imposed by phase I study designs reduce the potential for these studies to make conclusions. We compiled all phase I studies in oncology with pharmacogenetics endpoints (n = 84), evaluating toxicity (n = 42), response or PFS (n = 32), and pharmacokinetics (n = 40). Most of these studies focus on a limited number of agent classes: Topoisomerase inhibitors, antimetabolites, and anti-angiogenesis agents. Eight genotype-directed phase I studies were identified. Phase I studies consist of homogeneous populations with a variety of comorbidities, prior therapies, racial backgrounds, and other factors that confound statistical analysis of pharmacogenetics. Taken together, phase I studies analyzed herein treated small numbers of patients (median, 95% CI = 28, 24–31), evaluated few variants that are known to change phenotype, and provided little justification of pharmacogenetics hypotheses. Future studies should account for these factors during study design to optimize the success of phase I studies and to answer important scientific questions.

BPI-9016M, a c-Met inhibitor, suppresses tumor cell growth, migration and invasion of lung adenocarcinoma via miR203-DKK1

Activation of c-Met plays a critical role in tumorigenesis, migration and invasion in lung cancer. Here, we explored the therapeutic efficacy of a novel small-molecule c-Met inhibitor (BPI-9016M) in lung adenocarcinoma and investigated the underlying molecular mechanisms. Method: BPI-9016M, a c-Met tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor, was used to treat patient-derived xenografts (PDX) from lung adenocarcinoma in NOD/SCID mice. Immunohistochemistry and Western blot analysis were used to determine the expression of c-Met and its downstream signaling molecules. CCK8, wound healing, and trans-well assays were used to analyze cell proliferation, spreading, migration and invasion. RNA sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to screen and validate the expression of downstream genes in lung adenocarcinoma cells treated with BPI-9016M. Luciferase reporter assay was used to detect the interaction between miRNA and the targeted gene. Results: BPI-9016M significantly suppressed growth in three out of four lung adenocarcinoma PDX models, particularly in the tumors with high expression of c-Met. In lung adenocarcinoma cell lines, BPI-9016M treatment resulted in increased miR203, which reduced migration and invasion and also repressed Dickkopf-related protein 1 (DKK1) expression. Forced overexpression of DKK1 or down-regulation of miR203 reversed the inhibitory effect of BPI-9016M on migration and invasion. C-Met was verified to positively and negatively associate with DKK1 and miR203, respectively. High expression of c-Met/DKK1 or low expression of miR203 related to poor outcome of lung adenocarcinoma patients. Furthermore, we observed significantly enhanced tumor cell growth inhibition upon combining BPI-9016M treatment with miR203 mimics or DKK1 siRNA. Conclusion: Our data indicated that BPI-9016M is an effective agent against lung adenocarcinoma, particularly in tumors with c-Met activation, and likely functions through upregulation of miR203 leading to reduced DKK1 expression.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic drug interaction potential of tivantinib (ARQ 197) using cocktail probes in patients with advanced solid tumours

AIMS

This phase 1, open-label, crossover study sought to evaluate drug-drug interactions between tivantinib and cytochrome P450 (CYP) substrates and tivantinib and P-glycoprotein.

METHODS

The effect of tivantinib doses on the pharmacokinetics of the probe drugs for CYP1A2 (caffeine), CYP2C9 (S-warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and CYP3A4 (midazolam), and for P-glycoprotein (digoxin) was investigated in 28 patients with advanced cancer using a cocktail probe approach. Patients received single doses of probe drugs alone and, after 5 days of treatment, with tivantinib 360 mg twice daily.

RESULTS

The ratios of geometric least squares mean (90% confidence interval) for the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration in the presence/absence of tivantinib were 0.97 (0.89-1.05) for caffeine, 0.88 (0.76-1.02) for S-warfarin, 0.89 (0.60-1.31) for omeprazole, 0.83 (0.67-1.02) for midazolam, and 0.69 (0.51-0.94) for digoxin. Similar effects were observed for maximum plasma concentrations; the ratio for digoxin in the presence/absence of tivantinib was 0.75 (0.60-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that tivantinib 360 mg twice daily has either a minimal or no effect on the pharmacokinetics of probe drugs for CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 substrates, and decreases the systemic exposure of P-glycoprotein substrates when administered with tivantinib.

The efficacy and safety of tivantinib in the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tivantinib was designed to kill cancers by targeting the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) protein. Although numerous tivantinib clinical trials are ongoing, tivantinib's efficacy and safety are still not clear. This meta-analysis was done to evaluate tivantinib's efficacy and safety in solid tumor treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PUBMED, EMBASE, and other databases were searched for eligible tivantinib clinical trials. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively) were pooled and analyzed to evaluate tivantinib's efficacy. Data concerning adverse events (Grade ≥ 3) were pooled to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CI for tivantinib-treated compared with control arms.

FINDINGS

Patients (1824) from six randomized control trials (RCTs) were enrolled. Compared with controls, tivantinib produced a significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.65-0.83) but not in OS. In the non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) subgroup, tivantinib combined with erlotinib prolonged patients' PFS when compared with controls (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). In the white population, tivantinib also significantly improve PFS between treatment and control arms (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87). Tivantinib significantly improved OS in patients with high levels of MET expression. Tivantinib was shown to increase the risk of anemia and neutropenia.

INTERPRETATION

Tivantinib was better in prolonging PFS (not OS) in patients with solid tumors. High MET expression cancers may benefit from tivantinib. Tivantinib appeared to be well-tolerated by patients.

A phase I study of tivantinib in combination with temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors

Background A wide variety of human cancers exhibit dysregulated c-Met activity that has implications in oncogenesis. Phosphorylation of c-Met results in activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Combined blockade of c-Met and mTOR pathways has shown efficacy in preclinical studies. Tivantinib is a c-Met inhibitor and temsirolimus is a selective mTOR inhibitor. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), adverse events (AEs), clinical activity and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of the combination. Methods This open-label phase I study used a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Patients (pts) were treated with escalating doses of tivantinib (120-360 mg tablets orally twice daily) and temsirolimus (20 mg IV weekly) followed by dose expansion at the MTD. Separate cohorts were planned for extensive (normal) and poor tivantinib metabolizers based on CYP2C19 genotypes. Cycles were 28 days besides cycle 1 that was 35 days to allow for PK analysis. Results Twenty-nine pts. [median age 58 (range 28-77)] were enrolled (21 in dose escalation and 8 in dose expansion). All were extensive CYP2C19 metabolizers. The most common types of cancer were colorectal, ovarian and non-small cell lung. Sixteen out of 21 and 6 out of 8 pts. were evaluable for DLT evaluation per protocol in the dose escalation and dose expansion phases, respectively. Pts remained on study for a median of 71 days (range 18-296). The MTD and RP2D was tivantinib 240 mg twice daily and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly. DLTs included grade (gr) 4 neutropenia (2 pts.; 1 with gr 3 febrile neutropenia), gr 3 abdominal pain (1 pt) and gr 2 mucositis resulting in inadequate drug delivery. The most common treatment related AEs grade ≥ 2 included: anemia (gr 2 in 9 pts., gr 3 in 3 pts), fatigue (gr 2 in 10 pts), anorexia (gr 2 in 9 pts), hypoalbuminemia (gr 2 in 6 pts., gr 3 in 2 pts), hypophosphatemia (gr 2 in 2 pts., gr 3 in 5 pts) and nausea (gr 2 in 6 pts., gr 3 in 1 pt). One pt. with ovarian cancer had a confirmed partial response and remained on study for 10 months, a second patient with ovarian cancer had stable disease and remained on study for 6 months and a third pt. with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue had stable disease and remained on study for 7 months. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that there is no interaction in the plasma concentrations between tivantinib and temsirolimus. Conclusions The combination of tivantinib with temsirolimus appears to be well tolerated with evidence of clinical activity.

Phase II study of erlotinib plus tivantinib (ARQ 197) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer just after progression on EGFR-TKI, gefitinib or erlotinib

Background

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) respond well to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), but eventually become resistant in most cases. The hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met (HGF/c-Met) pathway is reported as a poor prognostic factor in various cancers. As c-Met is involved in EGFR-TKI resistance, a c-Met inhibitor and EGFR-TKI combination may reverse the resistance. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a c-Met selective inhibitor, tivantinib (ARQ 197), in combination with erlotinib, in Japanese EGFR mutation-positive patients with NSCLC who progressed while on EGFR-TKIs.

Methods

This study enrolled 45 patients with NSCLC with acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs, who were orally administered a daily combination of tivantinib/erlotinib. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR) and secondary end points included disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The patients underwent a mandatory second biopsy just after progression on EGFR-TKIs. The predictive biomarkers were extensively analysed using tumour and blood samples.

Results

The ORR was 6.7% (95% CI 1.4% to 18.3%), and the lower limit of 95% CI did not exceed the target of 5%. The median PFS (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) were 2.7 months (95% CI 1.4 to 4.2) and 18.0 months (95% CI 13.4 to 22.2), respectively. Both were longer in c-Met high patients (c-Met high vs low: mPFS 4.1 vs 1.4 months; mOS 20.7 vs 13.9 months). Partial response was observed in three patients, all of whom were c-Met and HGF high. The common adverse events and their frequencies were similar to those known to occur with tivantinib or erlotinib alone.

Conclusions

Although this study did not prove clinical benefit of tivantinib in patients with acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs, activated HGF/c-Met signalling, a poor prognostic factor, may define a patient subset associated with longer survival by the tivantinib/erlotinib combination.

Trial registration number

NCT01580735.

Phase III Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tivantinib (ARQ 197) Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib Alone in Previously Treated Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%).

CONCLUSION

E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population.

Phase I study of tivantinib in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Distinctive pharmacokinetic profiles from other solid tumors

A c-Met inhibitor tivantinib is a candidate anticancer agent for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and CYP2C19 is the key metabolic enzyme for tivantinib. Previous Japanese phase I studies in patients with solid tumors (except HCC) recommend 360 mg twice daily (BID) and 240 mg BID for CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers (EM) and poor metabolizers (PM), respectively. In this study, Japanese patients with HCC in whom sorafenib treatment has failed were enrolled to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral tivantinib as a single agent. The dose was escalated separately in EM and PM, from 120 mg BID to 240 mg BID, in both capsule and tablet formulations. A total of 28 patients (EM: 21, PM: 7) received tivantinib. At a dose of 120 mg BID, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) did not develop in 12 EM (capsule: 6, tablet: 6) and 7 PM (capsule: 4, tablet: 3) during the DLT-observation period (for 29 days after first dosing). At this dose, the pharmacokinetic profiles of tivantinib (AUC_0–12 and C_max) did not remarkably differ between EM and PM. When treated with 240 mg BID, 5 of 9 EM (capsule: 4 of 6, tablet: 1 of 3) developed neutropenia-related DLT accompanying plasma tivantinib concentration higher than expected from the previous studies. Consequently, PM did not receive 240 mg BID. In conclusion, 120 mg BID of tivantinib is recommended among Japanese patients with HCC regardless of CYP2C19 phenotype.

This would be one of the first manuscripts demonstrating that the recommended dose of an anti-cancer agent for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be distinct from its recommended dose for patients with other solid tumors.

Pharmacogenomics: Current State-of-the-Art

The completion of the human genome project 10 years ago was met with great optimism for improving drug therapy through personalized medicine approaches, with the anticipation that an era of genotype-guided patient prescribing was imminent. To some extent this has come to pass and a number of key pharmacogenomics markers of inter-individual drug response, for both safety and efficacy, have been identified and subsequently been adopted in clinical practice as pre-treatment genetic tests. However, the universal application of genetics in treatment guidance is still a long way off. This review will highlight important pharmacogenomic discoveries which have been facilitated by the human genome project and other milestone projects such as the International HapMap and 1000 genomes, and by the continued development of genotyping and sequencing technologies, including rapid point of care pre-treatment genetic testing. However, there are still many challenges to implementation for the many other reported biomarkers which continue to languish within the discovery phase. As technology advances over the next 10 years, and the costs fall, the field will see larger genetic data sets, including affordable whole genome sequences, which will, it is hoped, improve patient outcomes through better diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers.