+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ARRY-382 in Combination with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: Results from a Phase 1b/2 Study


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          ARRY-382 (PF-07265804) is a selective inhibitor of colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of ARRY-382 plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

          Patients and Methods:

          This was an open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study (NCT02880371) performed over September 1, 2016 to October 24, 2019. In the Phase 1b dose-escalation, patients with selected advanced solid tumors received ARRY-382 [starting dose 200 mg once daily (QD) orally] plus pembrolizumab [2 mg/kg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (Q3W)]. Phase 2 patients had: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA); programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor-refractory (PD-1/PD-L1 IR) advanced solid tumors; or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (prOVCA). Patients received ARRY-382 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 300 mg QD plus pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W.


          Primary endpoints of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT; Phase 1b) and objective response rate (Phase 2) were met. In Phase 1b, 19 patients received ARRY-382 200–400 mg. Three patients reported DLTs. The MTD of ARRY-382 (plus pembrolizumab) was 300 mg QD. In Phase 1b, 2 patients (10.5%) had confirmed partial response (PR): 1 with PDA and 1 with ovarian cancer, lasting 29.2 and 3.1 months, respectively. In Phase 2, there were 27, 19, and 11 patients in the PDA, PD-1/PD-L1 IR, and prOVCA cohorts, respectively. One patient (3.7%) with PDA had a PR lasting 2.4 months. The most frequent ARRY-382–related adverse events were increased transaminases (10.5%–83.3%) and increased creatine phosphokinase (18.2%–50.0%).


          Although limited clinical benefit was observed, ARRY-382 plus pembrolizumab was well tolerated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fundamental Mechanisms of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy

          Immune checkpoint blockade is able to induce durable responses across multiple types of cancer, which has enabled the oncology community to begin to envision potentially curative therapeutic approaches. However, the remarkable responses to immunotherapies are currently limited to a minority of patients and indications, highlighting the need for more effective and novel approaches. Indeed, an extraordinary amount of preclinical and clinical investigation is exploring the therapeutic potential of negative and positive costimulatory molecules. Insights into the underlying biological mechanisms and functions of these molecules have, however, lagged significantly behind. Such understanding will be essential for the rational design of next-generation immunotherapies. Here, we review the current state of our understanding of T-cell costimulatory mechanisms and checkpoint blockade, primarily of CTLA4 and PD-1, and highlight conceptual gaps in knowledge.Significance: This review provides an overview of immune checkpoint blockade therapy from a basic biology and immunologic perspective for the cancer research community. Cancer Discov; 8(9); 1069-86. ©2018 AACR.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors

            Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting CTLA-4 and the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have shown unprecedented clinical activity in several types of cancer and are rapidly transforming the practice of medical oncology. Whereas cytotoxic chemotherapy and small molecule inhibitors (‘targeted therapies’) largely act on cancer cells directly, immune checkpoint inhibitors reinvigorate anti-tumour immune responses by disrupting co-inhibitory T-cell signalling. While resistance routinely develops in patients treated with conventional cancer therapies and targeted therapies, durable responses suggestive of long-lasting immunologic memory are commonly seen in large subsets of patients treated with ICI. However, initial response appears to be a binary event, with most non-responders to single-agent ICI therapy progressing at a rate consistent with the natural history of disease. In addition, late relapses are now emerging with longer follow-up of clinical trial populations, suggesting the emergence of acquired resistance. As robust biomarkers to predict clinical response and/or resistance remain elusive, the mechanisms underlying innate (primary) and acquired (secondary) resistance are largely inferred from pre-clinical studies and correlative clinical data. Improved understanding of molecular and immunologic mechanisms of ICI response (and resistance) may not only identify novel predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers, but also ultimately guide optimal combination/sequencing of ICI therapy in the clinic. Here we review the emerging clinical and pre-clinical data identifying novel mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              CSF1/CSF1R blockade reprograms tumor-infiltrating macrophages and improves response to T-cell checkpoint immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer models.

              Cancer immunotherapy generally offers limited clinical benefit without coordinated strategies to mitigate the immunosuppressive nature of the tumor microenvironment. Critical drivers of immune escape in the tumor microenvironment include tumor-associated macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, which not only mediate immune suppression, but also promote metastatic dissemination and impart resistance to cytotoxic therapies. Thus, strategies to ablate the effects of these myeloid cell populations may offer great therapeutic potential. In this report, we demonstrate in a mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) that inhibiting signaling by the myeloid growth factor receptor CSF1R can functionally reprogram macrophage responses that enhance antigen presentation and productive antitumor T-cell responses. Investigations of this response revealed that CSF1R blockade also upregulated T-cell checkpoint molecules, including PDL1 and CTLA4, thereby restraining beneficial therapeutic effects. We found that PD1 and CTLA4 antagonists showed limited efficacy as single agents to restrain PDAC growth, but that combining these agents with CSF1R blockade potently elicited tumor regressions, even in larger established tumors. Taken together, our findings provide a rationale to reprogram immunosuppressive myeloid cell populations in the tumor microenvironment under conditions that can significantly empower the therapeutic effects of checkpoint-based immunotherapeutics. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

                Author and article information

                Clin Cancer Res
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research
                13 June 2022
                18 March 2022
                : 28
                : 12
                : 2517-2526
                [1 ]Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee.
                [2 ]HealthPartners Institute, Regions Cancer Care Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.
                [3 ]Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
                [4 ]Utah Cancer Specialists, Salt Lake City, Utah.
                [5 ]University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
                [6 ]University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado.
                [7 ]Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [8 ]Institute for Drug Development, Mays Cancer Center at University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, Texas.
                [9 ]Pfizer Inc., Boulder, Colorado.
                [10 ]David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding Author: Melissa Johnson, Thoracic Medical Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute at Tennessee Oncology, PLLC, 250 25th Avenue, North, Nashville, TN. Phone: 615-329-7274; E-mail: mjohnson@ 123456tnonc.com
                ©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research

                This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funded by: Pfizer, DOI ;
                Award ID: P30CA054174
                Clinical Trials: Targeted Therapy


                Comment on this article