Advertisement

A phase Ib study of a PI3Kinase inhibitor BKM120 in combination with panitumumab in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer

  • Rachel GoodwinEmail author
  • Derek Jonker
  • Eric Chen
  • Hagen Kennecke
  • Michael Cabanero
  • Ming-Sound Tsao
  • Michael Vickers
  • Caryn Bohemier
  • Howard Lim
  • Heather Ritter
  • Dongsheng Tu
  • Lesley Seymour
PHASE I STUDIES

Summary

Background Resistance to Epidermal Growth Factor inhibition (EGFRi) in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) Colorectal Cancer (CRC) may occur as a result of PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling. We conducted a study to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and response rate of panitumumab, an EGFRi, plus BKM120, a PI3K inhibitor, in advanced CRC. Methods Patients with chemotherapy refractory KRAS wt CRC, who were EGFRi naive were enrolled. A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized. The starting dose of panitumumab was 6 mg/kg iv every 2 weeks with BKM120 at 60 mg oral daily. Results Nineteen patients were treated and 17 were evaluable for response. The starting dose was not tolerable (mucositis, fatigue). At dose level (DL) 1, three of six patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity, DL − 1 had no significant toxicity. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. One patient (5.9%) who was PTEN and PIK3CA negative by IHC had a partial response, seven had stable disease, and nine had disease progression. Conclusion Panitumumab (6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks) with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. Toxicities including fatigue, rash and mucositis. There was little evidence of activity in this biomarker unselected cohort.

Keywords

Metastatic colon cancer Panitumumab BKM120 Phase 1 

Notes

Funding

CCTG is supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute to the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (grant #021039).

This study was carried out by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Novartis provided BKM120 and partial financial support for the trial.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

R Goodwin: Honorarium Novartis, Honorarium Amgen.

D Jonker: No conflicts of interest.

E. Chen: No conflicts of Interest.

H Kennecke: No Conflicts of Interest.

M Cabanero: No conflicts of Interest.

M Tsao: No conflicts of interest.

M Vickers: No Conflicts of Interest.

C Bohemier: No Conflicts of Interest.

H Lim: No conflicts of Interest.

H Ritter: No Conflicts of Interest.

D Tu: No Conflicts of Interest.

L Seymour: Funding to support conduct of the trial.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Cancer Statistics, Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malvezzi M et al (2013) European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2013. Ann Oncol 24(3):792–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyerhardt JA, Mayer RJ (2005) Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 352(5):476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciardiello F, Tortora G (2001) A novel approach in the treatment of cancer: targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Clin Cancer Res 7(10):2958–2970Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salomon DS et al (1995) Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 19(3):183–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayer A, Takimoto M, Fritz E, Schellander G, Kofler K, Ludwig H (1993) The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, epidermal growth factor receptor, and mdr gene expression in colorectal cancer. Cancer 71(8):2454–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Cutsem E (2007) Optimizing administration of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted agents in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 6(Suppl 2):S60–S65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, van Cutsem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, Juan T, Sikorski R, Suggs S, Radinsky R, Patterson SD, Chang DD (2008) Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(10):1626–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frattini M et al (2007) PTEN loss of expression predicts cetuximab efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 97(8):1139–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loupakis F et al (2009) PTEN expression and KRAS mutations on primary tumors and metastases in the prediction of benefit from cetuximab plus irinotecan for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(16):2622–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sartore-Bianchi A, Martini M, Molinari F, Veronese S, Nichelatti M, Artale S, di Nicolantonio F, Saletti P, de Dosso S, Mazzucchelli L, Frattini M, Siena S, Bardelli A (2009) PIK3CA mutations in colorectal cancer are associated with clinical resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res 69(5):1851–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mao C, Liao RY, Chen Q (2010) Loss of PTEN expression predicts resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 102(5):940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mao C, Yang ZY, Hu XF, Chen Q, Tang JL (2012) PIK3CA exon 20 mutations as a potential biomarker for resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 23(6):1518–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bendell JC, Rodon J, Burris HA, de Jonge M, Verweij J, Birle D, Demanse D, de Buck SS, Ru QC, Peters M, Goldbrunner M, Baselga J (2012) Phase I, dose-escalation study of BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 30(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenhauer EA et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lux MP et al (2016) The PI3K pathway: background and treatment approaches. Breast Care (Basel) (11, 6):398–404Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu J, Hu J, Cheng L, Ren W, Yang M, Liu B, Xie L, Qian X (2016) Biomarkers predicting resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS. Onco Targets Ther 9:557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perrone F et al (2009) PI3KCA/PTEN deregulation contributes to impaired responses to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol 20(1):84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Roock W et al (2010) Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol 11(8):753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang L et al (2014) Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody-based therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the effect of PIK3CA mutations in KRAS wild-type patients. Arch Med Sci 10(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mackay HJ, Eisenhauer EA, Kamel-Reid S, Tsao M, Clarke B, Karakasis K, Werner HMJ, Trovik J, Akslen LA, Salvesen HB, Tu D, Oza AM (2014) Molecular determinants of outcome with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in endometrial cancer. Cancer 120(4):603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laurent-Puig P et al (2009) Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild-type KRAS metastatic colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(35):5924–5930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sood A, McClain D, Maitra R, Basu-Mallick A, Seetharam R, Kaubisch A, Rajdev L, Mariadason JM, Tanaka K, Goel S (2012) PTEN gene expression and mutations in the PIK3CA gene as predictors of clinical benefit to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 11(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Razis E et al (2014) EGFR gene gain and PTEN protein expression are favorable prognostic factors in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140(5):737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Emburgh BO et al (2014) Acquired resistance to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer. Mol Oncol 8(6):1084–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leto SM, Trusolino L (2014) Primary and acquired resistance to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer: impact on future treatment strategies. J Mol Med (Berl) 92(7):709–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Goodwin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Derek Jonker
    • 1
  • Eric Chen
    • 3
  • Hagen Kennecke
    • 4
  • Michael Cabanero
    • 2
  • Ming-Sound Tsao
    • 2
  • Michael Vickers
    • 1
  • Caryn Bohemier
    • 1
  • Howard Lim
    • 5
  • Heather Ritter
    • 6
  • Dongsheng Tu
    • 6
  • Lesley Seymour
    • 6
  1. 1.Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathobiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Virginia Mason Cancer InstituteSeattleUSA
  5. 5.BCCA-Vancouver CentreVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Canadian Cancer Trials GroupQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations