Dataset Information

Exposure-response analyses of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between selected efficacy and safety endpoints and serum phosphate (PO4) concentrations, a potential biomarker of efficacy and safety, in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients with FGFR alterations treated with erdafitinib.

Methods

Data from two dosing regimens of erdafitinib in a phase 2 study (NCT02365597), 6 and 8-mg/day with provision for pharmacodynamically guided titration per serum PO4 levels, were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard or logistic regression models. Efficacy endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Safety endpoints were adverse events typical for FGFR inhibitors.

Results

Exposure-efficacy analyses on 156 patients (6-mg = 68; 8-mg = 88) showed that patients with higher serum PO4 levels within the first 6 weeks showed better OS (hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.72] per mg/dL of PO4; p = 0.01), PFS (hazard ratio 0.80 [0.67-0.94] per mg/dL of PO4; p = 0.01), and ORR (odds ratio 1.38 [1.02-1.86] per mg/dL of PO4; p = 0.04). Exposure-safety analyses on 177 patients (6-mg = 78; 8-mg = 99) showed that the incidence of selected adverse events associated with on-target off-tumor effects significantly rose with higher PO4.

Conclusions

The exploratory relationship between serum PO4 levels and efficacy/safety outcomes supported the use of pharmacodynamically guided dose titration to optimize erdafitinib's therapeutic benefit/risk ratio.

Clinical trial registration number

NCT02365597.

SUBMITTER: Dosne AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8807442 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exposure-response analyses of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Dosne Anne-Gaëlle AG Valade Elodie E Goeyvaerts Nele N De Porre Peter P Avadhani Anjali A O'Hagan Anne A Li Lilian Y LY Ouellet Daniele D Perez Ruixo Juan Jose JJ

Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology 20220103 2

<h4>Background</h4>Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between selected efficacy and safety endpoints and serum phosphate (PO4) concentrations, a potential biomarker of efficacy and safety, in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients with FGFR alterations treated with erdafitinib.<h4>Methods</h4>Data from two dosing regimens of erdafitinib in a phase 2 study (NCT02365597), 6 and 8-mg/day with provision for pharmacodynamically guided titration ...[more]

PMID: 34977972

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: For patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Erdafitinib is an oral fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) kinase inhibitor approved by the FDA for the treatment of adults with la/mUC harboring FGFR alterations whose disease progressed following at least 1 prior line of therapy, including a PD-1 or PD-L(1) inhibitor, based on the phase 3, randomized THOR trial (NCT03390504, Cohort 1). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of erdafitinib vs enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (EV) in the absence of head-to-head comparison via an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods: An anchored MAIC was conducted according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance, with physician's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel/paclitaxel and vinflunine) as the common comparator. Individual patient data from THOR were adjusted to match published key eligibility criteria and average baseline characteristics of EV-301, such as Bellmunt risk score, liver or visceral metastases, primary site, among others. Erdafitinib was then indirectly compared with EV using the relative treatment effects for the reweighted THOR population and those published for EV-301. Results: After matching, the effective sample size for THOR was 126 patients. The MAIC-recalculated hazard ratio (95% credible interval) for erdafitinib vs EV was 0.92 (0.54, 1.57) for overall survival and 0.93 (0.55, 1.56) for progression-free survival, yielding Bayesian probabilities of erdafitinib being better than EV of 62.1% and 60.5%, respectively. For response outcomes, the MAIC-recalculated risk ratio was 1.49 (0.56, 3.90) for confirmed objective response rate and 2.89 (0.27, 30.33) for confirmed complete response with probabilities of 72.6% and 81.3% for erdafitinib being better than EV, respectively. For safety, MAIC-yielded risk ratios of 1.09 (0.99, 1.21) for any treatment-related adverse events, 0.86 (0.57, 1.28) for grade 3+ TRAEs, and 1.02 (0.98, 1.06) for any treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusion: The MAIC indicates comparable efficacy of erdafitinib vs EV for overall survival and progression-free survival, with erdafitinib showing a higher probability of achieving deep responses. While erdafitinib is associated with slightly more adverse events compared with EV, these events seem to be less severe.

Project description:Purpose: On 12 April 2019, erdafitinib gained the first FDA approval as the second-line treatment for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer following progression during or after at least one previous line of platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the long-term safety profile of erdafitinib in a large patient population remains unexplored. The current study aimed to assess the adverse events (AEs) associated with erdafitinib through data mining of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Method: The reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms based on disproportionality were employed to quantify the signals of erdafitinib-associated AEs. Results: A total of 6,322,279 reports of AEs were retrieved from the FAERS database spanning 2019 to 2022, out of which, 700 reports of erdafitinib as the "primary suspected" were identified. These erdafitinib-induced AEs were observed across 24 targeted system organ classes (SOCs). After conforming to the four algorithms at the same time, a total of 441 signals of erdafitinib-induced AEs were detected across 23 SOCs. Notably, signals associated with metabolism and nutrition disorders, eye disorders, and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders were among the most prevalent. The median onset time for AEs was found to be 54 days [interquartile range (IQR) 17-112 days], with a majority of AEs occurring within the initial 6 months after initiating erdafitinib (37.23% within the first month, 15.53% within the second month, and 16.79% within the third month). Conclusion: The findings of this study align with existing clinical observations, offering a comprehensive long-term post-marketing safety evaluation of erdafitinib. The results provide valuable evidence to enhance the understanding of erdafitinib's safety profile, aiding further research and guiding clinical practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The authors evaluated mocetinostat (a class I/IV histone deacetylase inhibitor) in patients with urothelial carcinoma harboring inactivating mutations or deletions in CREB binding protein [CREBBP] and/or E1A binding protein p300 [EP300] histone acetyltransferase genes in a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study. METHODS:Eligible patients with platinum-treated, advanced/metastatic disease received oral mocetinostat (at a dose of 70 mg 3 times per week [TIW] escalating to 90 mg TIW) in 28-day cycles in a 3-stage study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236195). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS:Genomic testing was feasible in 155 of 175 patients (89%). Qualifying tumor mutations were CREBBP (15%), EP300 (8%), and both CREBBP and EP300 (1%). A total of 17 patients were enrolled into stage 1 (the intent-to-treat population); no patients were enrolled in subsequent stages. One partial response was observed (11% [1 of 9 patients; the population that was evaluable for efficacy comprised 9 of the 15 planned patients]); activity was deemed insufficient to progress to stage 2 (null hypothesis: objective response rate of ≤15%). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, most commonly nausea (13 of 17 patients; 77%) and fatigue (12 of 17 patients; 71%). The median duration of treatment was 46 days; treatment interruptions (14 of 17 patients; 82%) and dose reductions (5 of 17 patients; 29%) were common. Mocetinostat exposure was lower than anticipated (dose-normalized maximum serum concentration [Cmax ] after TIW dosing of 0.2 ng/mL/mg). CONCLUSIONS:To the authors' knowledge, the current study represents the first clinical trial using genomic-based selection to identify patients with urothelial cancer who are likely to benefit from selective histone deacetylase inhibition. Mocetinostat was associated with significant toxicities that impacted drug exposure and may have contributed to modest clinical activity in these pretreated patients. The efficacy observed was considered insufficient to warrant further investigation of mocetinostat as a single agent in this setting.

Project description:Atezolizumab is a treatment for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, its use in patients with renal insufficiency or UC with mixed variant histology (MVH) is not well characterized. To report efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in these special subpopulations from an expanded access program (EAP). A total of 218 patients were enrolled at 36 US study sites (November 2015-August 2016), and the trial ended following the approval of atezolizumab by the US Food and Drug Administration. This post hoc analysis investigated outcomes in specific study subgroups. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit, unacceptable toxicity, death, consent withdrawal, decision to discontinue, commercial availability, or study closure. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 responses and safety were evaluated by baseline renal function and histology. Objective responses occurred in 0/6 (0%), 4/19 (21%), 1/27 (3.7%), and 12/62 (19%) of evaluable patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) <30, 30-45, 45-60, and ≥60 mL/min, respectively, and stable disease was seen in three patients with CrCl <30 mL/min. Objective responses were seen in 13/102 patients (13%) with urothelial carcinoma (UC) histology only and in 4/12 patients (33%) with UC with MVH. Treatment-related adverse event frequencies ranged from 35% to 54% across the earlier indicated CrCl subgroups and they were also similar in patients with pure UC or UC with MVH (46%). In this EAP mUC subgroup analysis, clinical benefit of atezolizumab occurred in patients with compromised renal function or MVH UC tumors. Safety was comparable across subgroups. We examined the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab for UC in certain patients participating in an EAP. We found that responses to atezolizumab occurred, and safety was similar, in most patient subgroups with varying levels of kidney functioning or less common types of tumor tissue histology.

Dataset Information

Exposure-response analyses of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration number

Publications

Exposure-response analyses of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets