Purpose: Treatment with pembrolizumab, an anti–programmed death-1 antibody, at 10 mg/kg administered once every 2 weeks, displayed durable antitumor activity in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) –positive recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in the KEYNOTE-012 trial. Results from the expansion cohort, in which patients with HNSCC, irrespective of biomarker status, received a fixed dose of pembrolizumab at a less frequent dosing schedule, are reported. Patients and Methods: Patients with R/M HNSCC, irrespective of PD-L1 or human papillomavirus status, received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks. Imaging was performed every 8 weeks. Primary end points were overall response rate (ORR) per central imaging vendor (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) and safety. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and association of response and PD-L1 expression. Patients who received one or more doses of pembrolizumab were included in analyses. Results: Of 132 patients enrolled, median age was 60 years (range, 25 to 84 years), 83% were male, and 57% received two or more lines of therapy for R/M disease. ORR was 18% (95% CI, 12 to 26) by central imaging vendor and 20% (95% CI, 13 to 28) by investigator review. Median duration of response was not reached (range, ≥ 2 to ≥ 11 months). Six-month progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 23% and 59%, respectively. By using tumor and immune cells, a statistically significant increase in ORR was observed for PD-L1–positive versus –negative patients (22% v 4%; P = .021). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade and grade ≥ 3 events occurred in 62% and 9% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Fixed-dose pembrolizumab 200 mg administered once every 3 weeks was well tolerated and yielded a clinically meaningful ORR with evidence of durable responses, which supports further development of this regimen in patients with advanced HNSCC.

Purpose: This trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), a novel, oral small-molecule inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1), and determined the recommended phase II dose. Patients and Methods: In total, 189 patients with advanced solid tumors received selinexor (3 to 85 mg/m²) in 21- or 28-day cycles. Pre- and post-treatment levels of XPO1 mRNA in patient-derived leukocytes were determined by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and tumor biopsies were examined by immunohistochemistry for changes in markers consistent with XPO1 inhibition. Antitumor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines. Results: The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (70%), nausea (70%), anorexia (66%), and vomiting (49%), which were generally grade 1 or 2. Most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (15%), and hyponatremia (13%). Clinically significant major organ or cumulative toxicities were rare. The maximum-tolerated dose was defined at 65 mg/m² using a twice-a-week (days 1 and 3) dosing schedule. The recommended phase II dose of 35 mg/m² given twice a week was chosen based on better patient tolerability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared with higher doses. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with no evidence of drug accumulation. Dose-dependent elevations in XPO1 mRNA in leukocytes were demonstrated up to a dose level of 28 mg/m² before plateauing, and paired tumor biopsies showed nuclear accumulation of key tumor-suppressor proteins, reduction of cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial responses were observed (n = 7, 4%), with 27 patients (17%) achieving stable disease for ≥ 4 months. Conclusion: Selinexor is a novel and safe therapeutic with broad antitumor activity. Further interrogation into this class of therapy is warranted.

Purpose: Encorafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), has a pharmacologic profile that is distinct from that of other clinically active BRAFis. We evaluated encorafenib in a phase I study in patients with BRAFi treatment-naïve and pretreated BRAF-mutant melanoma. Experimental Design: The pharmacologic activity of encorafenib was first characterized preclinically. Encorafenib monotherapy was then tested across a range of once-daily (50–700 mg) or twice-daily (75–150 mg) regimens in a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study in adult patients with histologically confirmed advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. Study objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D), characterize the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile, and assess the preliminary antitumor activity of encorafenib. Results: Preclinical data demonstrated that encorafenib inhibited BRAF V600E kinase activity with a prolonged off-rate and suppressed proliferation and tumor growth of BRAF V600E–mutant melanoma models. In the dose-escalation phase, 54 patients (29 BRAFi-pretreated and 25 BRAFi-naïve) were enrolled. Seven patients in the dose-determining set experienced dose-limiting toxicities. Encorafenib at a dose of 300 mg once daily was declared the RP2D. In the expansion phase, the most common all-cause adverse events were nausea (66%), myalgia (63%), and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (54%). In BRAFi-naïve patients, the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 60% and 12.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.4–not reached (NR)]. In BRAFi-pretreated patients, the ORR and mPFS were 22% and 1.9 months (95% CI, 0.9–3.7). Conclusions: Once-daily dosing of single-agent encorafenib had a distinct tolerability profile and showed varying antitumor activity across BRAFi-pretreated and BRAFi-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5339–48. ©2017 AACR.

Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor (FGFR) pathway aberrations have been implicated in approximately 7% of the malignancies. As our knowledge of FGFR aberrations in cancer continues to evolve, FGFR inhibitors emerged as potential targeted therapeutic agents. The promising results of pemigatinib and infigratinib in advanced unresectable cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangement, and erdafitinib in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR2 and FGFR3 genetic aberrations, lead to their accelerated approval by the United States (USA) FDA. Along with these agents, many phase II/III clinical trials are currently evaluating the use of derazantinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib either alone or in combination with immunotherapy. Despite the encouraging results seen with FGFR inhibitors, resistance mechanisms and side effect profile may limit their clinical utility. A better understanding of the unique FGFR-inhibitor-related toxicities would invariably help us in the prevention and effective management of FGFR-inhibitor-induced adverse events thereby enhancing their clinical benefit. Herein, we summarized the physiology of FGF/FGFR signaling and briefly discussed the possible mechanisms that could lead to FGFR inhibitor resistance and side effects. In addition, we proposed treatment guidelines for the management of FGFR-inhibitor-associated toxicities. This work would invariably help practicing oncologists to effectively manage the unique toxicities of FGFR inhibitors.