-
1.
ARDD 2020: from aging mechanisms to interventions.
Mkrtchyan, GV, Abdelmohsen, K, Andreux, P, Bagdonaite, I, Barzilai, N, Brunak, S, Cabreiro, F, de Cabo, R, Campisi, J, Cuervo, AM, et al
Aging. 2020;(24):24484-24503
Abstract
Aging is emerging as a druggable target with growing interest from academia, industry and investors. New technologies such as artificial intelligence and advanced screening techniques, as well as a strong influence from the industry sector may lead to novel discoveries to treat age-related diseases. The present review summarizes presentations from the 7th Annual Aging Research and Drug Discovery (ARDD) meeting, held online on the 1st to 4th of September 2020. The meeting covered topics related to new methodologies to study aging, knowledge about basic mechanisms of longevity, latest interventional strategies to target the aging process as well as discussions about the impact of aging research on society and economy. More than 2000 participants and 65 speakers joined the meeting and we already look forward to an even larger meeting next year. Please mark your calendars for the 8th ARDD meeting that is scheduled for the 31st of August to 3rd of September, 2021, at Columbia University, USA.
-
2.
The conundrum of human immune system "senescence".
Pawelec, G, Bronikowski, A, Cunnane, SC, Ferrucci, L, Franceschi, C, Fülöp, T, Gaudreau, P, Gladyshev, VN, Gonos, ES, Gorbunova, V, et al
Mechanisms of ageing and development. 2020;:111357
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
There is a great deal of debate on the question of whether or not we know what ageing is (Ref. Cohen et al., 2020). Here, we consider what we believe to be the especially confused and confusing case of the ageing of the human immune system, commonly referred to as "immunosenescence". But what exactly is meant by this term? It has been used loosely in the literature, resulting in a certain degree of confusion as to its definition and implications. Here, we argue that only those differences in immune parameters between younger and older adults that are associated in some definitive manner with detrimental health outcomes and/or impaired survival prospects should be classed as indicators of immunosenescence in the strictest sense of the word, and that in humans we know remarkably little about their identity. Such biomarkers of immunosenescence may nonetheless indicate beneficial effects in other contexts, consistent with the notion of antagonistic pleiotropy. Identifying what could be true immunosenescence in this respect requires examining: (1) what appears to correlate with age, though generality across human populations is not yet confirmed; (2) what clearly is part of a suite of canonical changes in the immune system that happen with age; (3) which subset of those changes accelerates rather than slows aging; and (4) all changes, potentially population-specific, that accelerate agig. This remains an immense challenge. These questions acquire an added urgency in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the clearly greater susceptibility of older adults to COVID-19.
-
3.
A phase 2 randomised study of veliparib plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab versus placebo plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer.
Gorbunova, V, Beck, JT, Hofheinz, RD, Garcia-Alfonso, P, Nechaeva, M, Cubillo Gracian, A, Mangel, L, Elez Fernandez, E, Deming, DA, Ramanathan, RK, et al
British journal of cancer. 2019;(2):183-189
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has low survival rates. We assessed if addition of veliparib, concurrent to FOLFIRI, improves survival in patients with previously untreated mCRC. METHODS This study compared veliparib (200 mg BID for 7 days of each 14-day cycle) to placebo, each with FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was allowed in both arms. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Patients were randomised to receive veliparib (n = 65) or placebo (n = 65) in combination with FOLFIRI. Median PFS was 12 vs 11 months (veliparib vs placebo) [HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.48)]. Median OS was 25 vs 27 months [HR = 1.26 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.16)]. Response rate was 57% vs 62%. Median DOR was 11 vs 9 months [HR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.40)]. AEs with significantly higher frequency (p < 0.05) in the veliparib group were anaemia (39% vs 19%, p = 0.019) and neutropenia (66% vs 37%, p = 0.001) for common AEs (≥20%); neutropenia (59% vs 22%, p < 0.001) for common Grade 3/4 AEs (≥5%); none in serious AEs. Haematopoietic cytopenias were more common with veliparib (79% vs 52%, p = 0.003). Fourteen percent of patients on veliparib and 15% on placebo discontinued treatment due to AEs. CONCLUSION Veliparib added to FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab demonstrated similar efficacy as FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab in frontline mCRC patients. No unexpected safety concerns occurred.
-
4.
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Weekly Farletuzumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Taxane in Patients With Ovarian Cancer in First Platinum-Sensitive Relapse.
Vergote, I, Armstrong, D, Scambia, G, Teneriello, M, Sehouli, J, Schweizer, C, Weil, SC, Bamias, A, Fujiwara, K, Ochiai, K, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2016;(19):2271-8
Abstract
PURPOSE Farletuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to folate receptor-α, which is highly expressed in ovarian carcinoma and largely absent from normal tissue. Farletuzumab was investigated in a double-blind, randomized phase III study in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had first recurrent ovarian cancer 6-24 months following completion of platinum-taxane chemotherapy. All patients received carboplatin plus paclitaxel or docetaxel (for six cycles combined with randomly assigned test products in a 1:1:1 ratio: farletuzumab 1.25 mg/kg, farletuzumab 2.5 mg/kg, or placebo). The single-agent test product was continued weekly until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Additional analyses not outlined in the original protocol were prespecified in the final statistical analysis plan, including a subgroup analysis by baseline CA-125 and farletuzumab exposure levels. RESULTS A total of 1,100 women were randomly assigned to treatment dose or placebo. PFS from the primary analysis was 9.0, 9.5, and 9.7 months for the placebo, farletuzumab 1.25 mg/kg, and farletuzumab 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively. Neither farletuzumab group was statistically different from the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.21] and 0.86 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06] for farletuzumab 1.25 mg/kg and 2.5 mg/kg group v placebo, respectively). In the prespecified subgroup, baseline CA-125 levels not more than three times the upper limit of normal (ULN) correlated with longer PFS (HR, 0.49; P = .0028) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.44; P = .0108) for farletuzumab 2.5 mg/kg versus placebo. Subgroup analysis of farletuzumab exposure above the median, regardless of dose, showed significantly better PFS versus placebo. The most common adverse events were those associated with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Neither farletuzumab dose met the study's primary PFS end point. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients with CA-125 levels not more than three times the ULN and patients with higher farletuzumab exposure showed superior PFS and OS compared with placebo.
-
5.
Linifanib versus Sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.
Cainap, C, Qin, S, Huang, WT, Chung, IJ, Pan, H, Cheng, Y, Kudo, M, Kang, YK, Chen, PJ, Toh, HC, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;(2):172-9
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.
-
6.
Randomized phase II open-label study of mFOLFOX6 in combination with linifanib or bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.
O'Neil, BH, Cainap, C, Van Cutsem, E, Gorbunova, V, Karapetis, CS, Berlin, J, Goldberg, RM, Qin, Q, Qian, J, Ricker, JL, et al
Clinical colorectal cancer. 2014;(3):156-163.e2
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, second-line CRC treatment is limited. In this trial we examined the efficacy and safety of linifanib, an oral, potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor families, with mFOLFOX6, compared with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6, in previously treated metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred forty-eight patients with advanced CRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine or irinotecan received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenous), low-dose linifanib (7.5 mg), or high-dose linifanib (12.5 mg), with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS No statistically significant differences in PFS occurred between bevacizumab and linifanib doses (low, hazard ratio [HR], 1.453 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.830-2.539]; high, HR, 1.257 [95% CI, 0.672-2.351]). Median OS values were similar for bevacizumab and high-dose linifanib (bevacizumab, 16.5 months [95% CI, 13.0-not available]; high-dose linifanib, 16.4 months [95% CI, 11.9-21.7]; low-dose linifanib, 12.0 months [95% CI, 10.1-13.0]). ORRs were similar (bevacizumab, 34.7% [95% CI, 21.7-49.6]; low-dose linifanib, 24.0% [95% CI, 13.1-38.2]; high-dose linifanib, 22.4% [95% CI, 11.8-36.6]). Median cycles of 5-fluorouracil were reduced in the linifanib arms, versus the bevacizumab arm. Grade 3/4 adverse event occurrences were more frequent with linifanib. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and thrombocytopenia were more common with high-dose linifanib than bevacizumab. CONCLUSION Combining linifanib with mFOLFOX6 as a second-line treatment for metastatic CRC did not improve PFS, radiographic findings, or duration of response versus bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6.
-
7.
SIRT1 as a therapeutic target in inflammaging of the pulmonary disease.
Rahman, I, Kinnula, VL, Gorbunova, V, Yao, H
Preventive medicine. 2012;(Suppl):S20-8
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Chronic inflammation and cellular senescence are intertwined in the pathogenesis of premature aging, which is considered as an important contributing factor in driving chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Sirtuin1 (SIRT1), a nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD(+))-dependent protein/histone deacetylase, regulates inflammation, senescence/aging, stress resistance, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage repair via deacetylating intracellular signaling molecules and chromatin histones. The present review describes the mechanism and regulation of SIRT1 by environmental agents/oxidants/reactive aldehydes and pro-inflammatory stimuli in lung inflammation and aging. The role of dietary polyphenols in regulation of SIRT1 in inflammaging is also discussed. METHODS Analysis of current research findings on the mechanism of inflammation and senescence/aging (i.e., inflammaging) and their regulation by SIRT1 in premature aging of the lung. RESULTS COPD is a disease of the lung inflammaging, which is associated with the DNA damage response, transcription activation and chromatin modifications. SIRT1 regulates inflammaging via regulating forkhead box class O 3, p53, nuclear factor kappa B, histones and various proteins involved in DNA damage and repair. Polyphenols and its analogs have been shown to activate SIRT1 although they have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. CONCLUSIONS Targeting lung inflammation and cellular senescence as well as premature lung aging using pharmacological SIRT1 activators or polyphenols would be a promising therapeutic intervention for COPD/emphysema.
-
8.
Irinotecan in combination with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid or with cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric or esophageal-gastric junction adenocarcinoma: results of a randomized phase II study.
Pozzo, C, Barone, C, Szanto, J, Padi, E, Peschel, C, Bükki, J, Gorbunova, V, Valvere, V, Zaluski, J, Biakhov, M, et al
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2004;(12):1773-81
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND To identify the most effective of two combinations, irinotecan/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) and irinotecan/cisplatin, in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, for investigation in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to receive irinotecan [80 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.)], FA (500 mg/m2 i.v.) and a 22-h infusion of 5-FU (2000 mg/m2 i.v.), weekly for 6 weeks with a 1-week rest, or irinotecan (200 mg/m2 i.v.) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2 i.v.), on day 1 for 3 weeks. RESULTS A total of 115 patients were eligible for analysis in the per-protocol population. The overall response rate in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm (n=59) was 42.4%, with a complete response rate of 5.1%. Corresponding figures for the irinotecan/cisplatin arm (n=56) were 32.1% and 1.8%, respectively. The median time to progression was 6.5 months (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) and 4.2 months (irinotecan/cisplatin) (P < 0.0001), with median survival times of 10.7 and 6.9 months, respectively (P=0.0018). The major toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenia, which was more pronounced with irinotecan/cisplatin than with irinotecan/5-FU/FA (65.7% versus 27%). Diarrhea was the main grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity with both irinotecan/5-FU/FA (27.0%) and irinotecan/cisplatin (18.1%). CONCLUSIONS Both combinations were active, with acceptable safety profiles. Irinotecan/5-FU/FA was selected as the most effective combination for investigation in a phase III trial in advanced gastric cancer.
-
9.
Phase III study of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19.
Reyno, L, Seymour, L, Tu, D, Dent, S, Gelmon, K, Walley, B, Pluzanska, A, Gorbunova, V, Garin, A, Jassem, J, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2004;(2):269-76
Abstract
PURPOSE N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m(2). Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P =.021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.