Ning Li

Objective: The development of ABCB1-mediated resistance limits the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel. Lapatinib is a small-molecule reversible tyrosine kinase and ABCB1 inhibitor that could prevent resistance. Our objective was to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination of paclitaxel and lapatinib. Methods: A phase 1 dose-escalation study utilizing a Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design in recurrent ovarian cancer patients was conducted. Patients were pretreated with pulsed lapatinib in the 48 h preceding weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) in 28-day cycles for up to three cycles. We evaluated three lapatinib doses, escalating from 750 to 2000 mg orally twice daily. Results: Sixteen patients were eligible and evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Patients received a median of three prior therapies. Three patients were treated at dose level 1, six at dose level 2, and seven at dose level 3. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in dose level 2 (diarrhea) and another in dose level 3 (neutropenia), with a posterior DLT estimate of 0.17, 95% credible interval of (0.01, 0.53) for dose level 3 based on isotonic regression. The most common grade 1–2 adverse effects were diarrhea (87.5%), leukopenia (56.3%), and anemia (50%). One (6.25%) patient had a complete response, and seven (43.75%) patients had partial responses for an overall response rate (ORR) of 50%. The clinical responses are supported by a significant decreasing trend in CA 125 over six cycles (p = 0.0001). Among the seven patients treated at the RP2D, the ORR was 71.4%. Conclusions: The combination of paclitaxel and lapatinib was safe and demonstrated an efficacy signal. The RP2D was weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m² combined with lapatinib 2000 mg twice daily two days before the paclitaxel dose. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04608409.

Objective: The development of ABCB1-mediated resistance limits the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel. Lapatinib is a small-molecule reversible tyrosine kinase and ABCB1 inhibitor that could prevent resistance. Our objective was to de-termine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination of paclitax-el and lapatinib. Methods: A phase 1 dose-escalation study utilizing a Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design in recurrent ovarian cancer patients. Patients were pretreated with pulsed lapatinib in the 48 hours preceding weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) in 28-day cycles for up to 3 cycles. We evaluated three lapatinib doses, escalating from 750 to 2,000 mg orally twice daily. Results: Sixteen patients were eligible and evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Patients received a median of three prior therapies. Three patients were treated at dose level 1, six at dose level 2, and seven at dose level 3. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in dose level 2 (diarrhea) and another in dose level 3 (neutropenia), with a posterior DLT estimate of 0.17, 95% credible in-terval of (0.01, 0.53) for dose level 3 based on isotonic regression. The most common grade 1-2 adverse effects were diarrhea (87.5%), leukopenia (56.3%), and anemia (50%). One (6.25%) patient had a complete response, and 7 (43.75%) patients had partial responses for an overall response rate (ORR) of 50%. The clinical responses are supported by a significant decreasing trend in CA 125 over six cycles (p=0.0001). Among the seven patients treated at the RP2D, the ORR was 71.4%. Conclusions: The combination of paclitaxel and lapatinib is safe and with an efficacy signal. The RP2D is weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 combined with lapatinib 2,000 mg twice daily two days before the paclitaxel dose. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04608409.

PURPOSE: Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs. METHODS: Our institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR). RESULTS: Of the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40). CONCLUSION: The MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of implementing a Nurse Navigator (NN) to improve the rate and timeliness of molecular tumor testing. Methods: This is an evaluation of the impact of education sessions, consensus building, and NN implementation for molecular tumor testing in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. The NNs’ responsibilities included attending tumor boards and ensuring Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is ordered, reviewed, and coordinated for appropriate patients. Results: NNs significantly improved NGS testing rates from 35.29% to 77.27%, p = 0.002. Ordering a targeted panel test (TPT) was the most common reason for not ordering NGS in the pre-NN cohort (13/22, 59%). The total turnaround time for testing was reduced after the introduction of NNs from 145.2 days to 42.8 days, p < 0.0001. The post-NN group had a significantly higher rate of actionable mutations identified for the recurrent setting [67.6% versus 20.8% (p = 0.0005)] and a trend towards a higher rate of actionable mutations identified in the frontline setting [41.2% versus 33.3% (p = 0.41)]. Conclusion: NNs significantly improved somatic tumor testing rates and timeliness for patients with ovarian cancer. Discontinuing TPT in favor of NGS revealed a higher rate of actionable tumor mutations that would have been missed with TPT alone.

Purpose: Cannabinoids (CBD) have anti-tumor activity against prostate cancer (PCa). Preclinical studies have demonstrated a significant decrease in prostate specific antigen (PSA) protein expression and reduced tumor growth in xenografts of LNCaP and DU-145 cells in athymic mice when treated with CBD. Over-the-counter CBD products may vary in activity without clear standardization, and Epidiolex is a standardized FDA-approved oral CBD solution for treatment of certain types of seizures. We aimed to assess the safety and preliminary anti-tumor activity of Epidiolex in patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) PCa. Experimental design: This was an open-label, single center, phase I dose escalation study followed by a dose expansion in BCR patients after primary definitive local therapy (prostatectomy +/− salvage radiotherapy or primary definitive radiotherapy). Eligible patients were screened for urine tetrahydrocannabinol prior to enrollment. The starting dose level of Epidiolex was 600 mg by mouth once daily and escalated to 800 mg daily with the use of a Bayesian optimal interval design. All patients were treated for 90 days followed by a 10-day taper. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Changes in PSA, testosterone levels, and patient-reported health-related quality of life were studied as secondary endpoints. Results: Seven patients were enrolled into the dose escalation cohort. There were no dose-limiting toxicities at the first two dose levels (600 mg and 800 mg). An additional 14 patients were enrolled at the 800 mg dose level into the dose expansion cohort. The most common adverse events were 55% diarrhea (grade 1–2), 25% nausea (grade 1–2), and 20% fatigue (grade 1–2). The mean PSA at baseline was 2.9 ng/mL. At the 12-week landmark time-point, 16 out of 18 (88%) had stable biochemical disease, one (5%) had partial biochemical response with the greatest measurable decline being 41%, and one (5%) had PSA progression. No statistically significant changes were observed in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but PROs changed in the direction of supporting the tolerability of Epidiolex (e.g., emotional functioning improved). Conclusion: Epidiolex at a dose of 800 mg daily appears to be safe and tolerable in patients with BCR prostate cancer supporting a safe dose for future studies.