Neoplasia publishes the results of novel investigations in all areas of oncology research.

Purpose: To evaluate a triplet regimen combining immune checkpoint blockade, AKT pathway inhibition, and (nab-) paclitaxel as first-line therapy for locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Patients and Methods: The single-arm CO40151 phase Ib study (NCT03800836), the single-arm signal-seeking cohort of IPATunity130 (NCT03337724), and the randomized phase III IPATunity170 trial (NCT04177108) enrolled patients with previously untreated mTNBC. Triplet therapy comprised intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg (days 1 and 15), oral ipatasertib 400 mg/day (days 1–21), and intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (or nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2; days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days. Exploratory translational research aimed to elucidate mechanisms and molecular markers of sensitivity and resistance. Results: Among 317 patients treated with the triplet, efficacy ranged across studies as follows: median progression-free survival (PFS) 5.4 to 7.4 months, objective response rate 44% to 63%, median duration of response 5.6 to 11.1 months, and median overall survival 15.7 to 28.3 months. The safety profile was consistent with the known toxicities of each agent. Grade ≥3 adverse events were more frequent with the triplet than with doublets or single-agent paclitaxel. Patients with PFS >10 months were characterized by NF1, CCND3, and PIK3CA alterations and increased immune pathway activity. PFS <5 months was associated with CDKN2A/CDKN2B/MTAP alterations and lower predicted phosphorylated AKT-S473 levels. Conclusions: In patients with mTNBC receiving an ipatasertib/atezolizumab/taxane triplet regimen, molecular characteristics may identify those with particularly favorable or unfavorable outcomes, potentially guiding future research efforts.

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg; oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m²; intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.83; p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00–4.98; p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61–1.30); 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy and exploratory biomarkers of continuing palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) beyond progression on prior palbociclib-based regimen in patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods: The multicenter, open-label, phase II BioPER trial included women who had experienced a progressive disease (PD) after having achieved clinical benefit on the immediately prior palbociclib plus ET regimen. Palbociclib (125 mg, 100 mg, or 75 mg daily orally for 3 weeks and 1 week off as per prior palbociclib-based regimen) plus ET of physician's choice were administered in 4-week cycles until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (CBR) and percentage of tumors with baseline loss of retinoblastoma (Rb) protein expression. Additional endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis. Results: Among 33 patients enrolled, CBR was 34.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.6–53.2; P < 0.001] and 13.0% of tumors (95% CI, 5.2–27.5) showed loss of Rb protein expression, meeting both coprimary endpoints. Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.8–6.7). No new safety signals were reported. A signature that included baseline mediators of therapeutic resistance to palbociclib and ET (low Rb score, high cyclin E1 score, ESR1 mutation) was independently associated with shorter median progression-free survival (HR, 22.0; 95% CI, 1.71–282.9; P = 0.018). Conclusions: Maintaining palbociclib after progression on prior palbociclib-based regimen seems to be a reasonable, investigational approach for selected patients. A composite biomarker signature predicts a subset of patients who may not derive a greater benefit from palbociclib rechallenge, warranting further validation in larger randomized controlled trials.

Anticancer systemic therapy comprises a complex and growing group of drugs. Some of the new agents with novel mechanisms of action that have appeared are difficult to fit in the groups of classical chemotherapy, hormones, tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies. We propose a classification based on two levels of information: the site of action and the mechanism of action. Regarding the former, drugs can exert their action in the tumor cell, the tumor vasculature, the immune system, or the endocrine system. The mechanism of action refers to the molecular target.