Phase II randomized study of PM01183 versus topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory advanced ovarian cancer

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination Lurbinectedin plus Doxorubicin from a Phase 1b Trial in Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Soft-Tissue Sarcoma

PURPOSE

While cytotoxic chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), clinical outcomes remain suboptimal. Our prior study showed lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin is well tolerated with promising clinical activity in STS. We designed this phase 1b trial to optimize dosing as the basis for a randomized trial in leiomyosarcoma and to further explore the safety profile and efficacy signal.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients had advanced/metastatic STS and no prior anthracycline/lurbinectedin/trabectedin. Escalation followed a 3 + 3 design with 3-week cycles: lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 day 1) and two doxorubicin levels (DL1, 25 mg/m2 day 1; DL2, 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8). The primary objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose for subsequent randomized trials.

RESULTS

Ten patients were enrolled in a 6-month period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade (G) 2 fatigue and nausea, and G2 cytopenias with no febrile neutropenia events. There were two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at DL2 [day 8 (G2 alanine aminotransferase [ALT]/aspartate aminotransferase increase, G3 neutropenia)], and one DLT in DL1 (G3 ALT increase). These were reversible and all patients continued the study. DL1 was chosen for further study. At the time of data cutoff, the estimated median progression-free survival is 16.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-ND]. The objective response rate was 60% (6/10 confirmed partial responses).

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase 1b study, the recommended dose is lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 in combination with doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The study combination was well tolerated and demonstrated intriguing clinical activity.

A Comprehensive Review on the Role of Lurbinectedin in Soft Tissue Sarcomas

OPINION STATEMENT

Soft tissue sarcoma (STS), a substantial group of aggressive and rare tumors with tissue heterogeneity, is infrequently represented in clinical trials with an urgent necessity for newer treatment options. Lurbinectedin, an analog of trabectedin, is currently approved, in various countries, as a single agent, for the treatment of patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, preclinical and phase I and phase II trials have demonstrated the efficacy of lurbinectedin in different tumor types, including STS. The better understanding of the pathophysiology and evolution of STS as well as the mechanism of action of lurbinectedin in addition to the available data regarding the activity of this drug in this subset of patients will pave the way to newer therapeutic options and strategies.

Trabectedin and Lurbinectedin Modulate the Interplay between Cells in the Tumour Microenvironment-Progresses in Their Use in Combined Cancer Therapy

Trabectedin (TRB) and Lurbinectedin (LUR) are alkaloid compounds originally isolated from Ecteinascidia turbinata with proven antitumoral activity. Both molecules are structural analogues that differ on the tetrahydroisoquinoline moiety of the C subunit in TRB, which is replaced by a tetrahydro-β-carboline in LUR. TRB is indicated for patients with relapsed ovarian cancer in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, as well as for advanced soft tissue sarcoma in adults in monotherapy. LUR was approved by the FDA in 2020 to treat metastatic small cell lung cancer. Herein, we systematically summarise the origin and structure of TRB and LUR, as well as the molecular mechanisms that they trigger to induce cell death in tumoral cells and supporting stroma cells of the tumoral microenvironment, and how these compounds regulate immune cell function and fate. Finally, the novel therapeutic venues that are currently under exploration, in combination with a plethora of different immunotherapeutic strategies or specific molecular-targeted inhibitors, are reviewed, with particular emphasis on the usage of immune checkpoint inhibitors, or other bioactive molecules that have shown synergistic effects in terms of tumour regression and ablation. These approaches intend to tackle the complexity of managing cancer patients in the context of precision medicine and the application of tailor-made strategies aiming at the reduction of undesired side effects.

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated endometrial cancer: results from a phase 2 basket clinical trial and exploratory translational study

Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. Lurbinectedin showed promising antitumor activity in a phase I study in combination with doxorubicin in advanced endometrial cancer. This phase 2 Basket trial evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 73 patients with pretreated endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and an exploratory translational study. Confirmed complete (CR) and partial response (PR) was reported in two and six patients, respectively (ORR = 11.3%; 95%CI, 5.0-21.0%). Median DoR was 9.2 months (95%CI, 3.4-18.0 months), median PFS was 2.6 months (95%CI, 1.4-4.0 months) and median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI, 6.1-12.8 months). Molecular subtypes showed differences in PFS rate at 6 months (p53abn 23.7% vs. "No Specific Molecular Profile" [NSMP] 42.9%) and median OS (p53abn 6.6 months vs. NSMP 16.1 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (mostly grade 1/2) were fatigue (54.8% of patients), nausea (50.7%), vomiting (26.0%) decreased appetite (17.8%). and constipation, (19.2%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (43.8%; grade 4, 19.2%; febrile neutropenia, 4.1%). In conclusion, considering the exploratory aim of this trial and the hints of antitumor activity observed together with a predictable and manageable safety profile, further biomarker-based development of lurbinectedin is recommended in this indication in combination with other agents. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02454972.

Macrophage-Based Therapeutic Strategies in Hematologic Malignancies

Macrophages are types of immune cells, with ambivalent functions in tumor growth, which depend on the specific environment in which they reside. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are a diverse population of immunosuppressive myeloid cells that play significant roles in several malignancies. TAM infiltration in malignancies has been linked to a poor prognosis and limited response to treatments, including those using checkpoint inhibitors. Understanding the precise mechanisms through which macrophages contribute to tumor growth is an active area of research as targeting these cells may offer potential therapeutic approaches for cancer treatment. Numerous investigations have focused on anti-TAM-based methods that try to eliminate, rewire, or target the functional mediators released by these cells. Considering the importance of these strategies in the reversion of tumor resistance to conventional therapies and immune modulatory vaccination could be an appealing approach for the immunosuppressive targeting of myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME). The combination of reprogramming and TAM depletion is a special feature of this approach compared to other clinical strategies. Thus, the present review aims to comprehensively overview the pleiotropic activities of TAMs and their involvement in various stages of cancer development as a potent drug target, with a focus on hematologic tumors.

Advances in Ovarian Cancer Care and Unmet Treatment Needs for Patients With Platinum Resistance: A Narrative Review

Importance

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for ovarian cancer for the past 3 decades. Although most patients respond to platinum-based treatment, emergence of platinum resistance in recurrent ovarian cancer is inevitable during the disease course. Outcomes for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are poor, and options remain limited, highlighting a substantial unmet need for new treatment options.

Observations

This review summarizes the current and evolving treatment landscape for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with a focus on the development of novel compounds. Biologic and targeted therapies such as bevacizumab and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors-originally approved in the platinum-resistant setting but since withdrawn-are now used in the up-front or platinum-sensitive setting, prolonging the duration of platinum sensitivity and delaying the use of nonplatinum options. The greater use of maintenance therapy and the emphasis on using platinum beyond first-line treatment has most likely been associated with a greater number of lines of platinum therapy before a patient is designated as having platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. In this contemporary setting, recent trials in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have mostly had negative outcomes, with none having a clinically significant effect on progression-free or overall survival since the approval of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy. Nonetheless, a multitude of new therapies are under evaluation; preliminary results are encouraging. A focus on biomarker-directed treatment and patient selection may provide greater success in identifying novel therapies for treating platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although many clinical trials in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have had negative outcomes, these failures provide insights into how clinical trial design, biomarker-directed therapy, and patient selection could facilitate future successes in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treatment.

Trabectedin and lurbinectedin: Mechanisms of action, clinical impact, and future perspectives in uterine and soft tissue sarcoma, ovarian carcinoma, and endometrial carcinoma

The ecteinascidins trabectedin and lurbinectedin are very interesting antineoplastic agents, with a favorable toxicity profile and peculiar mechanisms of action. These drugs form adducts in the minor groove of DNA, which produce single-strand breaks (SSBs) and double-strand breaks (DSBs) and trigger a series of events resulting in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Moreover, the ecteinascidins interact with the tumor microenvironment, reduce the number of tumor-associated macrophages, and inhibit the secretion of cytokines and chemokines. Trabectedin has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who received a prior anthracycline-based regimen. Moreover, trabectedin in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) has been approved in the European Union for the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Lurbinectedin has been approved by the FDA for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The review assesses in vitro and in vivo experimental studies on the antineoplastic effects of both ecteinascidins as well as the clinical trials on the activity of trabectedin in uterine sarcoma and ovarian carcinoma and of lurbinectedin in ovarian carcinoma and endometrial carcinoma.

Lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, in patients with pretreated germline BRCA1/2 metastatic breast cancer: results from a phase II basket study

BACKGROUND

Lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, has shown preclinical antitumor activity against homologous recombination repair-deficient models and preliminary clinical activity in BRCA1/2 breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase II basket multitumor trial (NCT02454972) evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m² 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 21 patients with pretreated germline BRCA1/2 breast cancer. Patients with any hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety.

RESULTS

Confirmed partial response (PR) was observed in six patients [ORR = 28.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.3% to 52.2%] who had received a median of two prior advanced chemotherapy lines. Lurbinectedin was active in both BRCA mutations: four PRs in 11 patients (36.4%) with BRCA2 and two PRs in 10 patients (20.0%) with BRCA1. Median DoR was 8.6 months, median PFS was 4.1 months and median OS was 16.1 months. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 10 patients (47.6%), including 3 with unconfirmed response in a subsequent tumor assessment [ORR unconfirmed = 42.9% (95% CI 21.8% to 66.0%)]. Clinical benefit rate (PR + SD ≥ 4 months) was 76.2% (95% CI 52.8% to 91.8%). No objective response was observed among patients who had received prior poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (61.9%), fatigue (38.1%) and vomiting (23.8%). These AEs were mostly grade 1/2. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (42.9%: grade 4, 23.8%: with no febrile neutropenia).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase II study met its primary endpoint and showed activity of lurbinectedin in germline BRCA1/2 breast cancer. Lurbinectedin showed a predictable and manageable safety profile. Considering the exploratory aim of this trial as well as previous results in other phase II studies, further development of lurbinectedin in this indication is warranted.

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated neuroendocrine tumours: Results from a phase II basket study

BACKGROUND

Patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) need alternative therapies after failure of first-line therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, at 3.2 mg/m² as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in 32 NETs patients treated in the second- or third-line setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 assessed by the investigators. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety.

RESULTS

Two of 31 evaluable patients had confirmed partial responses (ORR = 6.5%; 95%CI, 0.8-21.4%). Median DoR was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.4 months), median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.2-3.0 months) and median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.4-16.2 months). Lurbinectedin showed an acceptable, predictable and manageable safety profile. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (40.6%; grade 4, 12.4%; febrile neutropenia, 3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the exploratory aim of this trial that evaluated a heterogeneous population of NETs patients, and the signs of antitumour activity observed (two confirmed partial responses and seven long disease stabilisations), further development of lurbinectedin is warranted in a more selected NETs population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Sponsor Study Code: PM1183-B-005-14. EudraCT number: 2014-003773-42.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov reference: NCT02454972.

Preclinical and Clinical Evidence of Lurbinectedin in Ovarian Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Lurbinectedin is an antitumor agent belonging to the natural marine-based tetrahydroisoquinoline family which has shown very promising clinical activity with a favorable safety profile in many types of cancer. Preclinical evidence showed that lurbinectedin inhibits active transcription and binds to GC-rich sequences, leading to irreversible degradation of RNA polymerase II and generation of single- and double-strand DNA breaks and, as a consequence, apoptosis of tumor cells. In addition, lurbinectedin has demonstrated modulation of the tumor microenvironment and activity against cancer cells harboring homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency. Although considerable improvements have been made in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer, most patients with advanced disease experience recurrence with a dismal prognosis due to chemotherapy (mainly platinum) resistance. Platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer remains a difficult-to-treat setting of disease, and currently, the exploration of new therapeutic approaches represents a main field of interest. Although the CORAIL phase III study did not meet its primary endpoint, the results suggest that lurbinectedin might be a valid alternative for patients that have exhausted therapeutic options. This article will focus on the clinical evidence, the most recent investigations, and the future perspective regarding the use of lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer.

Phase 2 Trial (POLA Study) of Lurbinectedin plus Olaparib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: Results of Efficacy, Tolerability, and the Translational Study

We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes DNA damage, thus increasing its efficacy. The POLA phase 1 trial established the recommended phase 2 dose of lurbinectedin as being 1.5 mg (day 1) and that of olaparib as being 250 mg/12 h (days 1-5) for a 21-day cycle. In phase 2, we explore the efficacy of the combination in terms of clinical response and its correlation with mutations in the HRR genes and the genomic instability (GI) parameters. Results: A total of 73 patients with high-grade ovarian (n = 46), endometrial (n = 26), and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) were treated with lurbinectedin and olaparib. Most patients (62%) received ≥3 lines of prior therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 9.6% and 72.6%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.54 months (95% CI 3.0-5.2). Twelve (16.4%) patients were considered long-term responders (LTR), with a median PFS of 13.3 months. No clinical benefit was observed for cases with HRR gene mutation. In ovarian LTRs, although a direct association with GI and a total loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events was observed, the association did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.055). Globally, the total number of LOHs might be associated with the ORR (p =0.074). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia and thrombocytopenia, in 6 (8.2%) and 3 (4.1%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: The POLA study provides evidence that the administration of lurbinectedin and olaparib is feasible and tolerable, with a DCR of 72.6%. Different GI parameters showed associations with better responses.

Exceptional response to lurbinectedin and irinotecan in BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patient: a case report

Lurbinectedin is responsible for DNA recognition and binding, producing double-strand DNA (dsDNA) breaks thus resulting in apoptosis. Sensitivity to lurbinectedin is linked to the nucleotide excision repair (NER) system. Furthermore, irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, provokes dsDNA breaks that could be reinforced abrogating the NER system using lurbinectedin. BRCA-mutated patients, already treated with platinum-derived drugs, who suffered DNA damage, cannot repair the breaks due to lurbinectedin interaction, whereas irinotecan provokes a dsDNA break that promotes synthetic lethality. This article describes an exceptional response to lurbinectedin alone followed by the association with irinotecan in a BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patient. A 44-year-old BRCA1-mutated ovarian cancer patient was treated in sixth line with lurbinectedin and irinotecan with a time to further progression (TTFP) equal to 8 months. In our case, the association with irinotecan overcame the resistance to lurbinectedin alone. In conclusion, lurbinectedin and irinotecan demonstrated a promising response in platinum-resistant patients. However, further studies should be conducted to validate our findings and future trials will be important to further define the clinical utility of lurbinectedin.

Phase I study of lurbinectedin in combination with weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors

Lurbinectedin and paclitaxel showed synergism in preclinical studies and have non-completely overlapping toxicity profiles. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of paclitaxel and lurbinectedin with/without bevacizumab in advanced tumors. This trial was divided into Group A, which evaluated weekly paclitaxel (60 or 80 mg) plus lurbinectedin (3.0-5.0 mg flat dose [FD] or 2.2 mg/m²) every 3 weeks in advanced solid tumors; and Group B, which evaluated bevacizumab (BEV, 15 mg/kg) added to the recommended dose (RD) defined in Group A in advanced epithelial ovarian or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 67 patients (A, n = 55; B, n = 12) were treated. The RD was paclitaxel 80 mg/m² on Day (D)1,D8 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m² on D1. At this RD, myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable, and most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. Adding BEV did not notably change tolerability. Twenty-five confirmed responses were observed: 20/51 evaluable patients in Group A (overall response rate [ORR] = 39% at all dose levels and at the RD), and 5/10 evaluable patients in Group B (ORR = 50%). Most responders had breast (n = 7/12 patients), small cell lung (SCLC) (n = 5/7), epithelial ovarian (n = 3/9) and endometrial cancer (n = 3/11) in Group A, and epithelial ovarian (n = 3/4) and NSCLC (n = 2/6) in Group B. Clinical benefit rate was 61% in Group A (58% at the RD), and 90% in Group B. No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions were observed. Paclitaxel/lurbinectedin and paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV are feasible combinations. Further development is warranted of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin in SCLC, breast, and endometrial cancer, and of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Macrophages in tumor: An inflammatory perspective

Inflammation is a part of carefully co-ordinated healing immune exercise to eliminate injurious stimuli. However, in substantial number of cancer types, it contributes in shaping up of robust tumor microenvironment (TME). Solid TME promotes infiltration of tumor associated macrophages (TAMs) that contributes to cancer promotion. TAMs are functionally heterogeneous and display an extraordinary degree of plasticity, which allow 'Switching' of macrophages into an 'M2', phenotype, linked with immunosuppression, advancement of tumor angiogenesis with metastatic consequences. In contrary to the classical M1 macrophages, these M2 TAMs are high-IL-10, TGF-β secreting-'anti-inflammatory'. In this review, we will discuss the modes of infiltration and switching of TAMs into M2 anti-inflammatory state in the TME to promote immunosuppression and inflammation-driven cancer.

Lurbinectedin versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label phase 3 study (CORAIL)

OBJECTIVE

The randomized phase 3 CORAIL trial evaluated whether lurbinectedin improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m² 1-h i.v. infusion q3wk (experimental arm), versus PLD 50 mg/m² 1-h i.v. infusion q4wk or topotecan 1.50 mg/m² 30-min i.v. infusion Days 1-5 q3wk (control arm). Stratification factors were PS (0 vs. ≥1), prior PFI (1-3 months vs. >3 months), and prior chemotherapy lines (1-2 vs. 3). The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee in all randomized patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02421588.

RESULTS

442 patients were randomized: 221 in lurbinectedin arm and 221 in control arm (127 PLD and 94 topotecan). With a median follow-up of 25.6 months, median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.7) in the lurbinectedin arm and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.7-3.8) in the control arm (stratified log-rank p = 0.6294; HR = 1.057). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were most frequent in the control arm: 64.8% vs. 47.9% (p = 0.0005), mainly due to hematological toxicities. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were: fatigue (7.3% of patients) and nausea (5.9%) with lurbinectedin; mucosal inflammation (8.5%) and fatigue (8.0%) in the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary endpoint of improvement in PFS was not met. Lurbinectedin showed similar antitumor efficacy and was better tolerated than current standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

New FDA oncology small molecule drugs approvals in 2020: Mechanism of action and clinical applications

In 2020, fifty-three new drugs, including forty small-molecules (thirty-six new chemical entities and four new diagnostic agents) and thirteen biologic drugs were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This year, small-molecules continue to play a role in innovative treatments representing around 75% of all drugs accepted by FDA. The dominant therapeutic area was oncology, accounting for twenty-three new approvals, including thirteen new chemical entities, four new diagnostic agents, and thirteen biologic drugs. Recognizing the importance of small-molecules on cancer treatment, this review aims to provide an overview regarding the clinical applications and mechanism of action of the thirteen new small-molecules (excluding new diagnostic agents) approved by FDA in 2020.

Topotecan plus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy versus Etoposide plus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Whether topotecan plus platinum-based chemotherapy (TP) can achieve better results than etoposide plus platinum-based chemotherapy (EP) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatment is still controversial in clinical applications. We compared the effectiveness and toxicity of TP versus EP in this meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for completeness one by one to find articles that met the conditions. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed as primary endpoints, and the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

In total, 2,480 articles were retrieved, and 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contained results based on 1,924 patients. EP suggested conspicuously better OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24 [1.02, 1.50], p = 0.03) and PFS (HR: 1.39 [1.17, 1.64], p = 0.0001) in SCLC treatment than TP, and ORR (54.1% vs. 60.2%, risk ratio [RR]: 0.77 [0.57, 1.06], p = 0.11), and DCR (74.9% vs. 84.4%, RR: 0.89 [0.79, 1.00], p = 0.06) tended to favor EP. Subgroup analysis of subsistence showed that EP had prominent benefit in the following subgroups: Asian, median age > 60, first-line treatment, ECOG 0-2, intravenous topotecan, and cisplatin. AEs illustrated that EP had conspicuously more anemia and alopecia than TP.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TP, EP was noticeably better in OS and PFS, but EP was toxic in terms of anemia and alopecia. More multicenter, better planned RCTs are needed.

Chemotherapy resistance in epithelial ovarian cancer: Mechanisms and emerging treatments

Ovarian cancer (OC) remains a fatal malignancy because most patients experience recurrent disease, which is resistant to chemotherapy. The outcomes for patients with platinum-resistant OC are poor, response rates to further chemotherapy are low and median survival is lower than 12 months. The complexity of platinum-resistant OC, which comprises a heterogeneous spectrum of diseases, is indeed far from being completely understood. Therefore, comprehending tumors' biological behaviour to identify reliable biomarkers, which may predict responses to therapies, is a demanding challenge to improve OC management. In the age of precision medicine, efforts to overcome platinum resistance in OC represent a dynamic and vast field in which innovative drugs and clinical trials rapidly develop. This review will present the exceptional biochemical environment implicated in OC and highlights mechanisms of chemoresistance. Furthermore, innovative molecules and new therapeutic opportunities are presented, along with currently available therapies and ongoing clinical trials.

Effect of molecular targeted agents in chemotherapy for treating platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to investigate the effect of molecular targeted agents (MTAs) in chemo on platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We performed this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements. Randomized controlled trials reporting data about platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated by MTAs were included. The endpoints for the present study included overall survival and progression-free survival. We analyzed 9 randomized controlled trials including 3631 patients with ROC. The pooled analysis indicated that a combination of MTAs with chemo could markedly increase objective response rate in those patients (P = .012). Nevertheless, the survival rate of those patients was not markedly changed (P = .19). Besides, the combination of MTAs with chemo dramatically aggravated the occurrence of adverse events (P < .05). Moreover, it resulted in the termination of treatment (P = .044) in those patients, but it had no effect on fatal adverse events (P = .16). Our results indicated that the combination of MTAs with chemo notably improved objective response rate in patients with platinum-resistant ROC, but its benefit did not translate into survival benefits.

Lurbinectedin: First Approval

The oncogenic transcription inhibitor lurbinectedin (ZEPZELCA™) is being developed by PharmaMar as a treatment for various cancers. The drug has been granted orphan drug status for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) by regulatory authorities in multiple countries worldwide and was approved in the USA in June 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic SCLC with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The US FDA and international regulators, including the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, are collaborating on the review of lurbinectedin under the Project Orbis initiative. Clinical investigation in other solid cancers is ongoing. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of lurbinectedin leading to this first approval for the treatment of metastatic SCLC.

Population Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Covariate Analyses of Neutropenia and Thrombocytopenia in Patients With Solid Tumors Treated With Lurbinectedin

Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Reversible myelosuppression is its most relevant toxicity. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses were conducted to characterize the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery and to detect and quantify the effect of relevant covariates in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with lurbinectedin. Absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and lurbinectedin total plasma concentration were assessed in 244 patients treated with lurbinectedin with varied dosing schedules and doses. A reference extended semimechanistic pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of myelosuppression was used. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration was modeled as a dichotomous covariate, and platelet transfusions were included as a bolus dose into the last compartment of the model, representing the central circulation. Final models were suitable to describe the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery. A lurbinectedin dose of 3.2 mg/m² every 3 weeks can be administered without primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. G-CSF followed by ≤2 dose reductions of 20%, if needed, gradually reduced grade 4 neutropenia from cycle 3 onward. BSA-based dosing reduced the incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia. One-week dose delays because of low absolute neutrophil count occurred in 3.5% of patients, thus supporting every-3-week administration. CYP3A inhibitors produced absolute 11.0% and 6.2% increases in grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia after lurbinectedin administration to cancer patients are noncumulative, reversible, short lasting, and clinically manageable with secondary prophylaxis of G-CSF or platelet transfusion and, if needed, dose reductions.

An overview of lurbinectedin as a new second-line treatment option for small cell lung cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly proliferative, aggressive form of lung cancer that carries a poor prognosis. Recent approvals with new therapeutic options represent the first in more than a decade for SCLC. Lurbinectedin, a newly approved second-line option, is a synthetic alkaloid that covalently binds DNA, generating double-strand breaks, and disrupts DNA-protein interactions and RNA transcription. Lurbinectedin may also modulate the tumor microenvironment by inducing apoptosis of peripheral blood monocytes and tumor associated macrophages, decreasing expression of the inflammatory chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2) and reducing tumor angiogenesis. A single-arm, open-label, basket trial included 105 patients with SCLC that had received one prior line of therapy. Patients received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m² as an intravenous infusion every 3 weeks, resulting in a response rate of 35.2% and a disease control rate of 68.6%. The response rate was 45% among those with >90 days chemotherapy free interval (CTFI) and 22% in the resistant group (CTFI < 90 days). The median overall survival was 9.3 months. Myelosuppression is the most frequent clinically significant adverse event, particularly neutropenia; however, neutropenic fever occurred in only 5% of those in the SCLC cohort of the basket trial. Nausea and fatigue were also noted. The side effect profile compares favorably to topotecan, while a direct comparison of tolerability can be made between lurbinectedin versus topotecan or pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin from CORAIL, a randomized study for platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer. A press release has reported the ongoing clinical trial for SCLC including combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus topotecan or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vinblastine to be negative. The details may provide more insight at publication, and future trials will be important to further define the clinical utility of lurbinectedin. Lurbinectedin represents a new option in second-line SCLC.

Evaluation of the Preclinical Efficacy of Lurbinectedin in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Simple Summary

The marine drug lurbinectedin revealed an unprecedented efficacy against patient-derived malignant pleural mesothelioma cells, regardless of the histological type and the BAP1 mutation status. By inducing strong DNA damages, it dramatically arrested cell cycle progression and induced apoptosis. These results may be translated into the use of lurbinectedin as an effective agent for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients.

Abstract

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive cancer generally diagnosed at an advanced stage and characterized by a poor prognosis. The absence of alterations in druggable kinases, together with an immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment, limits the use of molecular targeted therapies, making the treatment of MPM particularly challenging. Here we investigated the in vitro susceptibility of MPM to lurbinectedin (PM01183), a marine-derived drug that recently received accelerated approval by the FDA for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: A panel of primary MPM cultures, resembling the three major MPM histological subtypes (epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic), was characterized in terms of BAP1 status and histological markers. Subsequently, we explored the effects of lurbinectedin at nanomolar concentration on cell cycle, cell viability, DNA damage, genotoxic stress response, and proliferation. Results: Stabilized MPM cultures exhibited high sensitivity to lurbinectedin independently from the BAP1 mutational status and histological classification. Specifically, we observed that lurbinectedin rapidly promoted a cell cycle arrest in the S-phase and the activation of the DNA damage response, two conditions that invariably resulted in an irreversible DNA fragmentation, together with strong apoptotic cell death. Moreover, the analysis of long-term treatment indicated that lurbinectedin severely impacts MPM transforming abilities in vitro. Conclusion: Overall, our data provide evidence that lurbinectedin exerts a potent antitumoral activity on primary MPM cells, independently from both the histological subtype and BAP1 alteration, suggesting its potential activity in the treatment of MPM patients.

Lurbinectedin in the treatment of relapsed small cell lung cancer

Lurbinectedin is a marine-derived drug that inhibits transcription, a process that is frequently dysregulated in small cell lung cancer. The activity of lurbinectedin has been studied in many solid tumors, showing not only promising results but also a favorable safety profile. In relapsed small cell lung cancer, the drug has shown encouraging activity both as a single agent and in combination with doxorubicin, paclitaxel or irinotecan. The USA FDA has recently granted accelerated approval to lurbinectedin monotherapy in this setting. This article provides an update on available data and ongoing studies of lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer, including Phase I combination trials, the basket Phase II trial and the ATLANTIS Phase III trial.

A phase I dose-finding, pharmacokinetics and genotyping study of olaparib and lurbinectedin in patients with advanced solid tumors

The poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with ovarian or breast cancer with or without BRCA1/2 mutations. Lurbinectedin is an ecteinascidin that generates DNA double-strand breaks. We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes the DNA damage increasing the efficacy. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation study examined olaparib tablets with lurbinectedin every 21 days. The purpose of this phase I study is to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of the combination, to investigate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), efficacy, pharmacokinetics, in addition to genotyping and translational studies. In total, 20 patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers were included. The most common adverse events were asthenia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal pain, neutropenia, anemia. DLT grade 4 neutropenia was observed in two patients in dose level (DL) 5, DL4 was defined as the MTD, and the RP2D was lurbinectedin 1.5 mg/m² + olaparib 250 mg twice a day (BID). Mutational analysis revealed a median of 2 mutations/case, 53% of patients with mutations in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. None of the patients reached a complete or partial response; however, 60% of stable disease was achieved. In conclusion, olaparib in combination with lurbinectedin was well tolerated with a disease control rate of 60%. These results deserve further evaluation of the combination in a phase II trial.

Lurbinectedin: A New Treatment Option for Relapsed/Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical application of lurbinectedin and its role in the therapy of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed database and ClincialTrials.gov were utilized to perform a comprehensive literature search from August 2011 to mid-November 2020 with the terms lurbinectedin and PM01183.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

English-language clinical trials of lurbinectedin were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lurbinectedin, as second-line therapy in SCLC, demonstrated an overall response (OR) rate of 35.2% and median overall survival of 9.3 months. Phase II studies in multiple cancers revealed myelosuppression (>95%), increased liver enzymes (>70%), nausea (up to 80%), vomiting (54%), and fatigue (>50%) as the most common adverse events associated with lurbinectedin. CYP3A4 drug interactions affect lurbinectedin exposure (severe pancytopenia occurred after coadministration with aprepitant), and protein binding can affect its clearance. Patients with cardiac comorbidities were not included in published lurbinectedin trials because of cardiotoxicity associated with trabectedin.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Lurbinectedin is an option in SCLC after failure of a platinum-based regimen. Dose adjustments, drug interactions, antiemetic regimen choice, and patient comorbidities are important clinical considerations with lurbinectedin use. Likewise, its place in therapy in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors requires further exploration.

CONCLUSIONS

With a promising OR compared with other second-line options, lurbinectedin should be considered in patients who have failed first-line therapy. Studies are ongoing with lurbinectedin in combination with other agents in SCLC, and a phase III trial is assessing use in combination with doxorubicin compared with other second-line regimens.

Cell proliferation inhibitors and apoptosis promoters

Cancer is characterised by uncontrolled proliferation and prolonged cell survival. In some cases, tumour formation is the result from aberrant activity of various cell-cycle regulators leading to chromosome instability or from alteration of the apoptosis pathway. Ovarian cancer is an entity in which cell-cycle alterations are common. P53, a key regulator of checkpoint G1, is frequently altered in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Targeting cell-cycle regulators will lead to mitotic catastrophe and cell death in these tumours. Promoting apoptosis is another target that is gaining interest in ovarian cancer.

In this review, the most relevant evidence of clinical studies in ovarian cancer with compounds targeting cell cycle or promoting apoptosis is summarised.

• Cell cycle and apotosis pathways are relevant targets that are gaining interest in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

• Wee-1 inhibitors have shown clinical activity in a phase II in refractory of resistant ovarian cancer harbouring TP53 mutations.

• P53 modulators are a new family of compounds that are currently under clinical development.

• CHK1 inhibitors and apoptosis promoters or modulators are promising compounds.

Specific Effects of Trabectedin and Lurbinectedin on Human Macrophage Function and Fate-Novel Insights

BACKGROUND

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) play a crucial role in suppressing the immunosurveillance function of the immune system that prevents tumor growth. Indeed, macrophages can also be targeted by different chemotherapeutic agents improving the action over immune checkpoints to fight cancer. Here we describe the effect of trabectedin and lurbinectedin on human macrophage cell viability and function.

METHODS

Blood monocytes from healthy donors were differentiated into macrophages and exposed to different stimuli promoting functional polarization and differentiation into tumor-associated macrophages. Cells were challenged with the chemotherapeutic drugs and the effects on cell viability and function were analyzed.

RESULTS

Human macrophages exhibit at least two different profiles in response to these drugs. One-fourth of the blood donors assayed (164 individuals) were extremely sensitive to trabectedin and lurbinectedin, which promoted apoptotic cell death. Macrophages from other individuals retained viability but responded to the drugs increasing reactive oxygen production and showing a rapid intracellular calcium rise and a loss of mitochondrial oxygen consumption. Cell-membrane exposure of programmed-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) significantly decreased after treatment with therapeutic doses of these drugs, including changes in the gene expression profile of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α)-dependent genes, among other.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide evidence of additional onco-therapeutic actions for these drugs.

Development of new medical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer recurrence

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the scariest gynaecological cancer. Many advances have been done with evolving knowledge, leading to the introduction of new drugs, most in maintenance setting. The antiangiogenic Bevacizumab and the three approved PARP-inhibitors-olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib-are gradually improving PFS of patients with EOC, with initial effects on OS too. But recurrence is still a heavy sentence and lethality continues to be high. Ovarian cancer is a complex disease, with different clinical presentation, histological aspect, and molecular expression, leading to disappointing results, when using a single drug. Implementation of biobanking and analysis of patients' tumour samples, before starting a treatment, could be a promising way to better understand molecular aspects of this disease, to identify markers predictive of response and to allow a better use of experimental drugs, as immunomodulators, targeted therapies, and combinations of these, to fight tumour growth and clinical progression. We reviewed the literature on the updated treatments for recurrent ovarian cancer, summarizing all the available drugs and combinations to treat patients with this diagnosis, and focusing the attention on the new approved molecules and the contemporary Clinical Trials, investigating new target therapies and new associations.

Population-Pharmacokinetic and Covariate Analysis of Lurbinectedin (PM01183), a New RNA Polymerase II Inhibitor, in Pooled Phase I/II Trials in Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Lurbinectedin is an inhibitor of RNA polymerase II currently under clinical development for intravenous administration as a single agent and in combination with other anti-tumor agents for the treatment of several tumor types. The objective of this work was to develop a population-pharmacokinetic model in this patient setting and to elucidate the main predictors to guide the late stages of development.

METHODS

Data from 443 patients with solid and hematologic malignancies treated in six phase I and three phase II trials with lurbinectedin as a single agent or combined with other agents were included in the analysis. The potential influence of demographic, co-treatment, and laboratory characteristics on lurbinectedin pharmacokinetics was evaluated.

RESULTS

The final population-pharmacokinetic model was an open three-compartment model with linear distribution and linear elimination from the central compartment. Population estimates for total plasma clearance, and apparent volume at steady state were 11.2 L/h and 438 L, respectively. Inter-individual variability was moderate for all parameters, ranging from 20.9 to 51.2%. High α-1-acid glycoprotein and C-reactive protein, and low albumin reduced clearance by 28, 20, and 20%, respectively. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors reduced clearance by 30%. Combinations with other anti-tumor agents did not modify the pharmacokinetics of lurbinectedin significantly.

CONCLUSION

The population-pharmacokinetic model indicated neither a dose nor time dependency, and no clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic differences were found when co-administered with other anticancer agents. A chronic inflammation pattern characterized by decreased albumin and increased C-reactive protein and α-1-acid glycoprotein levels led to high lurbinectedin exposure. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors increased lurbinectedin exposure.

Orphan Drugs in Development for the Treatment of Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Emerging Data on Lurbinectedin

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death of all cancer entities and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most malignant subtype. Despite good initial response to chemotherapy, many patients relapse early and success of second line treatment remains poor. For years, no relevant improvement of second line treatment has been achieved in the field of SCLC. Lurbinectedin, a novel RNA-polymerase II inhibitor has shown promising results in pretreated SCLC patients as single agent and in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs leading to an orphan drug designation from the FDA. This article reviews the current data on this emerging substance and its impact on the treatment of SCLC.

A phase II multi-strata study of lurbinectedin as a single agent or in combination with conventional chemotherapy in metastatic and/or unresectable sarcomas

Chemotherapy objective response rates (ORRs) in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are typically 20-40% with median progression-free survival (PFS) less than 6 months. Lurbinectedin is a new anticancer agent under investigation. The primary objective of this three-arm, phase II study was to determine the disease control rate (DCR = ORR + stable disease [SD]) at 24 weeks of lurbinectedin alone or with chemotherapy in STS. Eligible patients included adults with ≤2 prior cytotoxic therapies. Study cohorts were: stratum A (StrA; anthracycline-naive), lurbinectedin/doxorubicin; stratum B (StrB; prior anthracycline), lurbinectedin/gemcitabine; stratum C (StrC; prior anthracycline/gemcitabine) lurbinectedin monotherapy. Each stratum was analysed separately by Simon two-stage design. Forty-two patients were accrued (StrA = 20, StrB = 10, StrC = 12) including leiomyosarcoma [LMS] (n = 20), synovial sarcoma [SS](n = 4), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (n = 3) and other STS histologies (n = 15). For StrA there were seven partial responses (PR) plus one stable disease (SD) at 24 weeks. For StrB, two patients met the 24-week DCR including one PR (leiomyosarcoma) and one SD (desmoplastic small round cell tumour [DSRCT]). StrB did not continue to the second stage. In StrC, no patients met the primary end-point. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was: StrA = 4.2 months (90% CI 1.4-7.8), StrB = 1.7 months (90% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-7.4), and StrC = 1.3 months (90% CI 1.1-3.0). Lurbinectedin as a single agent or with chemotherapy was well tolerated with haematologic adverse events (AE's) as the most common toxicity. There were no treatment-related deaths. The combination of lurbinectedin/doxorubicin reached the DCR end-point with seven PR and one patient with SD (ORR 35.0%, 24-week DCR 40.0%). Evidence of drug benefit was seen in leiomyosarcoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS), myxoid liposarcoma (MLS), synovial sarcoma (SS), and desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02448537.

A temperature-sensitive phase-change hydrogel of topotecan achieves a long-term sustained antitumor effect on retinoblastoma cells

Background

Retinoblastoma (Rb) is one of the most common malignancies among children. Following early diagnosis and prompt treatment, the clinical outcome or prognosis of Rb is promising. However, the prognosis or survival rates of patients with late-stage Rb remain poor. Current therapeutic strategies for advanced Rb mainly involve the use of advanced chemotherapeutic options. However, the efficacy of these strategies is not satisfactory. Therefore, the development of novel strategies to achieve a more effective antitumor effect on late-stage Rb is of crucial importance.

Methods and materials

Topotecan was dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline and prepared into a temperature-sensitive phase-change hydrogel (termed Topo-Gel). Moreover, Topo-Gel was injected into tumor tissues formed by Y79 cells (an Rb cell line) in nude mice to examine the long-term release and long-acting antitumor effect of Topo-Gel on Rb tumors.

Results

Topo-Gel transforms from liquid to a hydrogel at near body temperatures (phase-change temperature [T_1/2] was 37.23±0.473 °C), and maintains the slow release of topotecan in Rb tumor tissues. Following the subcutaneous injection of Topo-Gel, the treatment induced long-acting inhibition of tumor growth and relieved the adverse effects associated with topotecan. Topo-Gel, a temperature-sensitive phase-change hydrogel, is a slow-release system that prolongs the presence of topotecan in Rb tissues, and preserves the efficacy of topotecan in the long term.

Conclusion

Preparation of topotecan into a temperature-sensitive phase-change hydrogel achieves a long-term sustained antitumor effect on Rb cells, and may be a useful strategy for the treatment of intraocular Rb.

Tumor-associated macrophages in tumor metastasis: biological roles and clinical therapeutic applications

Tumor metastasis is a major contributor to the death of cancer patients. It is driven not only by the intrinsic alterations in tumor cells, but also by the implicated cross-talk between cancer cells and their altered microenvironment components. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are the key cells that create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) by producing cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and triggering the inhibitory immune checkpoint proteins release in T cells. In doing so, TAMs exhibit important functions in facilitating a metastatic cascade of cancer cells and, meanwhile, provide multiple targets of certain checkpoint blockade immunotherapies for opposing tumor progression. In this article, we summarize the regulating networks of TAM polarization and the mechanisms underlying TAM-facilitated metastasis. Based on the overview of current experimental evidence dissecting the critical roles of TAMs in tumor metastasis, we discuss and prospect the potential applications of TAM-focused therapeutic strategies in clinical cancer treatment at present and in the future.

Tumor-associated macrophages in tumor metastasis: biological roles and clinical therapeutic applications

Tumor metastasis is a major contributor to the death of cancer patients. It is driven not only by the intrinsic alterations in tumor cells, but also by the implicated cross-talk between cancer cells and their altered microenvironment components. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are the key cells that create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) by producing cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and triggering the inhibitory immune checkpoint proteins release in T cells. In doing so, TAMs exhibit important functions in facilitating a metastatic cascade of cancer cells and, meanwhile, provide multiple targets of certain checkpoint blockade immunotherapies for opposing tumor progression. In this article, we summarize the regulating networks of TAM polarization and the mechanisms underlying TAM-facilitated metastasis. Based on the overview of current experimental evidence dissecting the critical roles of TAMs in tumor metastasis, we discuss and prospect the potential applications of TAM-focused therapeutic strategies in clinical cancer treatment at present and in the future.

Marine-Derived Anticancer Agents: Clinical Benefits, Innovative Mechanisms, and New Targets

The role of the marine environment in the development of anticancer drugs has been widely reviewed, particularly in recent years. However, the innovation in terms of clinical benefits has not been duly emphasized, although there are important breakthroughs associated with the use of marine-derived anticancer agents that have altered the current paradigm in chemotherapy. In addition, the discovery and development of marine drugs has been extremely rewarding with significant scientific gains, such as the discovery of new anticancer mechanisms of action as well as novel molecular targets. Approximately 50 years since the approval of cytarabine, the marine-derived anticancer pharmaceutical pipeline includes four approved drugs and eighteen agents in clinical trials, six of which are in late development. Thus, the dynamic pharmaceutical pipeline consisting of approved and developmental marine-derived anticancer agents offers new hopes and new tools in the treatment of patients afflicted with previously intractable types of cancer.

Ovarian cancer relapse: From the latest scientific evidence to the best practice

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Despite treatment options have continued to improve in recent years, the recurrence rate is still high; in fact around 80% of patients relapses within 18 months. Recently, the scientific landscape is agree in asserting that the ovarian cancer is not a single disease but the outcome of patients depends from the molecular and biological characterization of tumor tissue. In this scenario, molecular targeted therapy given alone or in combination with chemotherapy is showing significant results. We review the different options for the treatment of ovarian cancer recurrence, including the role of surgery, in order to try outlining a possible treatment algorithm evaluating the recent scientific literature and the most important trials.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Lurbinectedin in BRCA-Mutated and Unselected Metastatic Advanced Breast Cancer and Biomarker Assessment Substudy

PURPOSE

This multicenter phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin (PM01183), a selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A unicenter translational substudy assessed potential mechanisms of lurbinectedin resistance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two arms were evaluated according to germline BRCA1/2 status: BRCA1/2 mutated (arm A; n = 54) and unselected ( BRCA1/2 wild-type or unknown status; arm B; n = 35). Lurbinectedin starting dose was a 7-mg flat dose and later, 3.5 mg/m² in arm A. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The translational substudy of resistance mechanisms included exome sequencing (n = 13) and in vivo experiments with patient-derived xenografts (n = 11) from BRCA1/2-mutated tumors.

RESULTS

ORR was 41% (95% CI, 28% to 55%) in arm A and 9% (95% CI, 2% to 24%) in arm B. In arm A, median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 6.0 months), and median overall survival was 20.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 26.6 months). Patients with BRCA2 mutations showed an ORR of 61%, median progression-free survival of 5.9 months, and median overall survival of 26.6 months. The safety profile improved with lurbinectedin dose adjustment to body surface area. The most common nonhematologic adverse events seen at 3.5 mg/m² were nausea (74%; grade 3, 5%) and fatigue (74%; grade 3, 21%). Neutropenia was the most common severe hematologic adverse event (grade 3, 47%; grade 4, 10%). Exome sequencing showed mutations in genes related to the nucleotide excision repair pathway in four of seven tumors at primary or acquired resistance and in one patient with short-term stable disease. In vivo, sensitivity to cisplatin and lurbinectedin was evidenced in lurbinectedin-resistant (one of two) and cisplatin-resistant (two of three) patient-derived xenografts.

CONCLUSION

Lurbinectedin showed noteworthy activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Response and survival was notable in those with BRCA2 mutations. Additional clinical development in this subset of patients with metastatic breast cancer is warranted.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Lurbinectedin in BRCA-Mutated and Unselected Metastatic Advanced Breast Cancer and Biomarker Assessment Substudy

Purpose

This multicenter phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin (PM01183), a selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A unicenter translational substudy assessed potential mechanisms of lurbinectedin resistance.

Patients and Methods

Two arms were evaluated according to germline BRCA1/2 status: BRCA1/2 mutated (arm A; n = 54) and unselected (BRCA1/2 wild-type or unknown status; arm B; n = 35). Lurbinectedin starting dose was a 7-mg flat dose and later, 3.5 mg/m² in arm A. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The translational substudy of resistance mechanisms included exome sequencing (n = 13) and in vivo experiments with patient-derived xenografts (n = 11) from BRCA1/2-mutated tumors.

Results

ORR was 41% (95% CI, 28% to 55%) in arm A and 9% (95% CI, 2% to 24%) in arm B. In arm A, median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 6.0 months), and median overall survival was 20.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 26.6 months). Patients with BRCA2 mutations showed an ORR of 61%, median progression-free survival of 5.9 months, and median overall survival of 26.6 months. The safety profile improved with lurbinectedin dose adjustment to body surface area. The most common nonhematologic adverse events seen at 3.5 mg/m² were nausea (74%; grade 3, 5%) and fatigue (74%; grade 3, 21%). Neutropenia was the most common severe hematologic adverse event (grade 3, 47%; grade 4, 10%). Exome sequencing showed mutations in genes related to the nucleotide excision repair pathway in four of seven tumors at primary or acquired resistance and in one patient with short-term stable disease. In vivo, sensitivity to cisplatin and lurbinectedin was evidenced in lurbinectedin-resistant (one of two) and cisplatin-resistant (two of three) patient-derived xenografts.

Conclusion

Lurbinectedin showed noteworthy activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Response and survival was notable in those with BRCA2 mutations. Additional clinical development in this subset of patients with metastatic breast cancer is warranted.