Purpose:

In phase I testing, alisertib tablets with irinotecan and temozolomide showed significant antitumor activity in patients with neuroblastoma. This study sought to confirm activity of this regimen; evaluate an alisertib oral solution; and evaluate biomarkers of clinical outcomes.

Patients and Methods:

We conducted a two-stage phase II trial of alisertib tablets (60 mg/m2/dose × 7 days), irinotecan (50 mg/m2/dose i.v. × 5 days), and temozolomide (100 mg/m2/dose orally × 5 days) in patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma. The primary endpoint was best objective response. A separate cohort was treated with alisertib at 45 mg/m2 using oral solution instead of tablets. Exploratory analyses sought to identify predictors of toxicity, response, and progression-free survival (PFS) using pooled data from phase I, phase II, and oral solution cohorts.

Results:

Twenty and 12 eligible patients were treated in the phase II and oral solution cohorts, respectively. Hematologic toxicities were the most common adverse events. In phase II, partial responses were observed in 19 evaluable patients (21%). The estimated PFS at 1 year was 34%. In the oral solution cohort, 3 patients (25%) had first cycle dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Alisertib oral solution at 45 mg/m2 had significantly higher median Cmax and exposure compared with tablets at 60 mg/m2. Higher alisertib trough concentration was associated with first cycle DLT, whereas MYCN amplification was associated with inferior PFS.

Conclusions:

This combination shows antitumor activity, particularly in patients with MYCN nonamplified tumors. Data on an alisertib oral solution expand the population able to be treated with this agent.

Translational Relevance

Preclinical data have demonstrated activity of the Aurora A kinase inhibitor, alisertib, as monotherapy or in combination with conventional chemotherapy in models of neuroblastoma. A phase I study of alisertib, irinotecan, and temozolomide in children with relapsed neuroblastoma defined the recommended dosing for this combination and showed promising response and progression-free survival rates. To extend that observation, this report describes the results of a phase II trial of this combination and also provides data on the use of an alisertib oral solution that allowed younger patients to be treated. Companion biomarker studies from all patients treated with this combination provide potential tools to predict response and toxicity following treatment with this regimen. These results provide a fuller understanding of the toxicity, antineuroblastoma activity, and potential biomarkers in patients treated with this combination.

Children with advanced neuroblastoma require novel approaches to improve their outcomes (1). Preclinical and clinical data suggest a role for Aurora A kinase inhibition in this disease (2–6). The combination of irinotecan and temozolomide is a common regimen utilized in the management of patients with recurrent neuroblastoma (7). We previously conducted a phase I study of escalating doses of the oral Aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib (formerly known as MLN8237) together with fixed doses of irinotecan and temozolomide in children with relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma (2). We demonstrated a MTD of 60 mg/m2 alisertib as enteric-coated tablets, with hematologic toxicities being the most common adverse events. We observed significant antitumor activity in this context, with a 31.8% response rate and a 52% estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 2 years.

Given that children with neuroblastoma are most commonly diagnosed as toddlers and infants, development of an alisertib liquid formulation is of interest for this indication. An oral solution (OS) had previously been evaluated in adult subjects and compared with a capsule formulation (8). This experience demonstrated a relative bioavailability of 1.26 and higher peak plasma concentration for the solution compared with capsule. On the basis of these data, we hypothesized that an alisertib dose of 45 mg/m2 using the oral solution would yield similar exposure to the alisertib MTD of 60 mg/m2 obtained with enteric-coated tablets.

Our experience in the phase I setting as well as prior publications suggested potential predictors of toxicity and response to this regimen. For example, there appeared to be a higher rate of first cycle dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in patients with higher alisertib exposure (AUC; ref. 2). In addition, no irinotecan-pretreated patients had an objective response. Given the importance of glucuronidation in irinotecan metabolism (9–11), we also hypothesized that UGT1A1 genotype would be associated with toxicity of this regimen. As Aurora A plays a role in stabilizing Myc proteins (3, 6, 12), we predicted that tumors characterized by MYCN amplification or increased Myc expression (13, 14) would be particularly sensitive to alisertib. Other potential markers of clinical benefit include Aurora A protein expression (15), AURKA single-nucleotide polymorphisms (16), and LIN28B expression (17).

We therefore conducted this study with the following goals. First, we sought to confirm the tolerability and antitumor activity of alisertib, irinotecan, and temozolomide at the MTD in a phase II trial. Second, we evaluated a cohort of patients treated with an alisertib oral solution formulation to describe toxicity and pharmacokinetic parameters in the context of this combination regimen. Third, we performed a detailed assessment of potential clinical, biologic, pharmacogenomic, and pharmacokinetic predictors of response and toxicity to this regimen using pooled data from phase I, phase II, and oral solution cohorts.

Patient eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria included the following: age 1–30 years; high-risk neuroblastoma; relapsed or refractory disease; and presence of evaluable disease by bone marrow morphology, CT/MRI scan, and/or MIBG scans obtained within 4 weeks of enrollment. In addition, patients were required to have adequate performance score (Lansky or Karnofsky score ≥ 50) and to meet the following required washout periods: 3 weeks from last systemic therapy; 12 weeks from prior myeloablative therapy; 2 weeks from prior small port radiation; 6 weeks from prior 131I-MIBG therapy; and 3 months from large field radiation.

Organ function requirements for entry were as follows: absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 1,000/μL; unsupported platelet count ≥ 100,000/μL; serum creatinine ≤ 1.5 times the upper limit of age-adjusted normal value; total bilirubin ≤ 1.5 times upper limit of normal; and ALT < 135 U/L.

Exclusion criteria included the following: pregnant; breast feeding; prior allogeneic stem cell transplant; need for hemodialysis; active infection; known history of HIV or hepatitis B or C infection; known active intraparenchymal brain metastasis; and prior treatment with alisertib. Patients previously treated with irinotecan and/or temozolomide were eligible if they did not have prior disease progression when treated on a regimen containing those agents. Patients unable to swallow intact pills were excluded from the phase II cohort, but were eligible for the oral solution cohort.

The study was conducted by the New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy (NANT) consortium following ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Each NANT site's Institutional Review Board approved the study. Patients and/or legal guardians provided written informed consent with assent obtained as appropriate.

Protocol therapy

Patients received irinotecan 50 mg/m2/dose intravenously over 60 minutes and temozolomide 100 mg/m2/dose orally 1 hour prior to irinotecan on days 1 to 5. Alisertib was administered orally once daily on days 1 to 7 (at the time of temozolomide on days 1–5). Patients on the phase II cohort received alisertib 60 mg/m2/dose as enteric-coated tablets. Patients on the oral solution cohort received alisertib 45 mg/m2/dose as the oral solution. All patients received mandatory myeloid growth factor support (short- or long-acting at the discretion of the treating investigator) starting on day 8 and oral cefixime or cefpodoxime diarrhea prophylaxis for a minimum of 10 days starting two days prior to each cycle (18). Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to 34 cycles. Patients with DLT (defined in next section) were able to receive subsequent cycles with defined dose modifications.

Toxicity assessment

Adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. The definition of DLT was initially identical to that used in the phase I portion of the study (2). The definition was amended during the phase II and oral solution portions of the study to remove prolonged neutropenia or thrombocytopenia from the definition unless these toxicities resulted in > 14-day delay in starting the subsequent cycle. Postamendment, only failure to meet neutrophil or platelet criteria to start a subsequent course by day 36 remained as a criterion for hematologic DLT. For the purposes of this report, hematologic toxicities observed prior to the amendment were reassessed to be consistent with amended definition for the summaries of toxicity and associations with biomarkers.

Response assessment

Patients underwent disease staging at baseline and then after cycles 2, 4, and then every 4 cycles. Response was graded according to version 1.2 of the NANT response criteria that classifies patients as having one of the following overall response categories based upon underlying response at soft tissue sites, MIBG-positive sites, and bone marrow disease: complete response (CR); CR with minimal residual disease (CR-MRD); partial response (PR); minor response (MR); stable disease (SD); and progressive disease (PD). These criteria utilize RECIST criteria for measurable tumors (19), Curie score for MIBG scan response (20), and bone marrow morphology (21). Bone marrow response was graded as CR (required two time points to confirm), CR unconfirmed (one time point only), CR-MRD (bone marrow involvement ≤ 5% at study entry with negative follow-up biopsies), SD, or PD. Patients with at least SD or better underwent central review of MIBG scans, CT scans, and bone marrow pathology slides. Overall responses of CR, CR-MRD, or PR were considered objective responses.

Pharmacokinetic studies

Submission of serial plasma samples for alisertib and irinotecan pharmacokinetic testing was required for patients in the oral solution cohort and optional for patients in the phase II cohort. The sampling schedule, sample analysis, and pharmacokinetic analysis were identical to that described for the phase I study (2) and included detailed testing around cycle 1, day 4 dosing.

Correlative biomarker studies

The study included optional pharmacogenomics and tissue biomarkers aims. Patients consenting to the pharmacogenomics aim provided whole blood in EDTA tubes. DNA was extracted using a QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit (QIAGEN) as per the manufacturer's instructions. UGT1A1*28 (rs8175347) genotyping was performed as described previously (22) using a modified method of Akaba and colleagues (23). AURKA was genotyped at two SNPs. Genotyping for the G > A polymorphism (rs1047972 in codon 57) and T > A polymorphism (rs2273535 in codon 31) was performed by amplification and detected on a Bio-Rad CFX384 Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad). The real-time PCR methods were validated against a standard PCR with sequence detection of the polymorphisms. Primer and probe sequences were provided by Takeda. The forward and reverse primer sequences for rs227353 were CTGGCCACTATTTACAGGTAATGGA and TGGAGGTCCAAAACGTGTTCTC, respectively, with probe/reporter 1 (VIC-labeled) sequence ACTCAGCAATTTCCTT and probe/reporter 2 (FAM-labeled) sequence CTCAGCAAATTCCTT. The forward and reverse primer sequences for rs1047972 were CGGCTTGTGACTGGAGACA and GGGTCTTGTGTCCTTCAAATTCTTC, respectively, with probe/reporter 1 (VIC-labeled) sequence CAGCGCGTTCCTT and probe/reporter 2 (FAM-labeled) sequence CAGCGCATTCCTT.

Patients consenting to the tissue biomarkers aim provided archival paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. IHC was performed for Mycn, Myc, Aurora A, and Lin28B (see Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2 for representative images). Assays for Mycn and Myc were performed as described previously (14). We utilized these results as well as results of MYCN amplification status collected at baseline to create a composite variable that coded a patient with MYCN amplification or positivity for Mycn or Myc protein expression into a composite “MYCN/Myc”-positive group. Patients with MYCN nonamplified tumors that were also negative for Mycn and for Myc protein expression were coded as “MYCN/Myc” negative. Aurora A and Lin28B immunostaining was performed using Leica Bond Epitope Retrieval Solution 1 and Bond Polymer Refine Detection Kit (Leica Biosystems). The Aurora A primary antibody was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich and used at a concentration of 1:400. The Lin28B primary antibody was obtained from Cell Signaling Technology) and used at a concentration of 1:160.

Study design and statistical methods

The phase II cohort utilized a two-stage design intended to exclude a null objective response rate < 15%. This design included 14 patients in the first stage and the addition of 6 patients in a second stage, if at least one objective response was observed among the first 14 patients. Under the hypothesis of a true response rate, that is ≥15%, there was a 90% chance that at least 1 of the 14 patients in the first stage would experience an objective response. Conversely, zero responders in the first 14 patients would lead us to conclude that the true response rate is less than 15%.

The oral solution cohort was intended to follow the rolling 6-dose escalation design (24) starting at the 45 mg/m2 dose level, with pharmacokinetic data and DLTs in the first cycle of therapy impacting dose escalation decisions. Dose escalation was allowed only if pharmacokinetic data demonstrated alisertib levels were below those predicted on the basis of adult bioavailability data. The protocol included a provision to expand a dose level to 12 patients to obtain additional toxicity and pharmacokinetic data before deciding to escalate.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the time from start of treatment until progression or death, whichever occurred first. Patients who were alive and free of progression were censored at the date when their status was last documented. Patients who started another therapy prior to progression were censored at that time. The Kaplan–Meier product limit method was used to display the PFS pattern over time. One-year PFS probabilities were based on Kaplan–Meier plots; associated standard errors for one-year PFS were based on Greenwood formula. Potential associations between binary biomarkers and occurrence of DLT or objective response were assessed using Fisher exact tests. Potential associations between ordered groups defined by increasing number of copies of variant alleles for UGT1A1 or AURKA were assessed using an exact logistic regression test for trend. Potential associations between groups defined by biomarkers and PFS were assessed using log-rank tests. Differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between alisertib oral solution and tablet formulations utilized Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. All P values were two sided and there was no adjustment for multiple testing. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Inc.) and figures were generated using R version 3.4.2 (R Core Team).

Patient characteristics

Thirty-four patients were enrolled to both cohorts (phase II and oral solution) from May 2014 to May 2015. Results presented in this report are current through the January 10, 2018 data cutoff. One patient in the oral solution cohort developed rising hepatic transaminase levels after receiving cefixime prophylaxis only and did not receive anticancer therapy prior to removal from study. Another patient in the OS cohort completed one cycle of therapy before molecular profiling of his tumor revealed the presence of an EWSR1 translocation diagnostic of Ewing sarcoma instead of neuroblastoma. He was declared ineligible and removed from study after one cycle. The remaining 32 patients comprise the main analytic cohort of patients for this report (Table 1).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics of 20 patients in phase II cohort and 12 patients in OS cohort

Phase IIOS
Characteristics(n = 20)(n = 12)
Median age (range), years 10.7 (4.3–19.4) 3.0 (1.6–7.2) 
Male:Female 14:6 6:6 
MYCN Amplified:Nonamplified 3:14 6:5 
Prior irinotecan 11 (55%) 2 (17%) 
Prior temozolomide 10 (50%) 2 (17%) 
Median number of prior regimens (range) 3 (1–10) 1 (1–2) 
>3 prior regimens 8 (40%) 0 (0%) 
Phase IIOS
Characteristics(n = 20)(n = 12)
Median age (range), years 10.7 (4.3–19.4) 3.0 (1.6–7.2) 
Male:Female 14:6 6:6 
MYCN Amplified:Nonamplified 3:14 6:5 
Prior irinotecan 11 (55%) 2 (17%) 
Prior temozolomide 10 (50%) 2 (17%) 
Median number of prior regimens (range) 3 (1–10) 1 (1–2) 
>3 prior regimens 8 (40%) 0 (0%) 

Patients in the phase II cohort were heavily pretreated with 40% having had more than 3 prior regimens, 55% with prior irinotecan, and 50% with prior temozolomide. Six of 11 patients in the oral solution cohort with known MYCN status had MYCN-amplified tumors. Patients received a median of 4.5 (range 1–34) and 2 cycles (range 1–24) in the phase II and OS cohorts, respectively.

Antitumor activity

Responses are summarized in Table 2 according to cohort. In phase II, 1 patient enrolled with site-reported evaluable disease at baseline that was not observed/confirmed on central review, leaving 19 patients evaluable for response. Of these 19 patients, 4 patients had an objective response (21.1%; all partial responses). Two of these patients had previously received irinotecan and temozolomide. In the OS cohort, all 12 patients were evaluable for response, with 1 patient with CR-MRD for a response rate of 8.3%. The estimated 1-year PFS was 34% (±12%) in the phase II cohort and 20% (±16%) in the oral solution cohort (Fig. 1A).

Table 2.

Best response for patients in the phase II and oral solution cohorts

Response categoryPhase IIOS
(n = 20)(n = 12)
CR 
CR-MRD 
PR 
MR 2a 2b 
SD 
PD 
Not evaluable 
Response rate (CR + CR-MRD + PR) 4/19 = 21.1% 1/12 = 8.3% 
Response categoryPhase IIOS
(n = 20)(n = 12)
CR 
CR-MRD 
PR 
MR 2a 2b 
SD 
PD 
Not evaluable 
Response rate (CR + CR-MRD + PR) 4/19 = 21.1% 1/12 = 8.3% 

aMRs in the phase II consisted of 1 patient with bone marrow CR in setting of SD by MIBG scan and 1 patient with bone marrow CR-MRD in setting of SD by MIBG and CT scans.

bMRs in the oral solution cohort consisted of 1 patient with an MIBG CR in setting of SD by CT scan and bone marrow criteria and 1 patient with a PR by CT scan in setting of SD by MIBG scan and bone marrow criteria.

Figure 1.

Estimated PFS for patients on phase II and oral solution cohorts (A) and for groups defined by MYCN amplification status (B).

Figure 1.

Estimated PFS for patients on phase II and oral solution cohorts (A) and for groups defined by MYCN amplification status (B).

Close modal

Toxicity

Details of first course toxicity according to cohort are shown in Table 3. In the phase II cohort, hematologic adverse events were the most common grade 3+ toxicities. Fourteen (70%) patients had first cycle grade 3+ neutropenia, 11 (55%) patients had first cycle grade 3+ thrombocytopenia, and 15 (75%) had either grade 3+ thrombocytopenia or grade 3+ neutropenia. Ten patients (50%) had a delay of any duration in starting the second cycle because of delayed hematologic recovery. Nonhematologic toxicities were generally lower grade, though 20% of patients in the phase II cohort had grade 3 diarrhea in the first cycle. Four of the 20 patients (20%) who were evaluable for toxicity had first cycle DLT [1 DLT was nonhematologic (grade 3 dehydration and grade 3 vomiting) and 3 were hematologic]. One patient had first cycle hematologic toxicity that was initially classified as DLT, but was then reclassified as non-DLT according to the amended definition of hematologic toxicity. Of the 4 patients with first cycle DLT, 3 had DLT in subsequent cycles (cycles 2, 2, and 3). Among the 19 patients who received >1 cycle, 10 (53%) had DLT in subsequent cycles. Among the 7 patients who had first DLT occurring in a subsequent cycle beyond the first cycle, these first DLTs occurred in cycles 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 8, and 15.

Table 3.

Grade 3 and higher hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events reported as at least possibly related to protocol therapy in the first cycle in phase II and oral solution cohorts

Phase II (n = 20)Oral solution (n = 12)
Adverse eventGrade 3Grade 4Grade 3Grade 4
Hematologic 
 Neutropenia 50% 20% 17% 42% 
 Thrombocytopenia 15% 40%  33% 
 Lymphopenia 25% 10% 8% 17% 
 Leukopenia 25% 15% 17% 25% 
 Anemia 15%  33%  
Nonhematologic 
 Diarrhea 20%  8%  
 AST elevation 5%  8%  
 ALT elevation 5%    
 Nausea   8%  
 Hypoalbuminemia   8%  
 Pleural effusion   8%  
 Febrile neutropenia   8%  
 Vomiting 5%    
 Dehydration 5%    
Phase II (n = 20)Oral solution (n = 12)
Adverse eventGrade 3Grade 4Grade 3Grade 4
Hematologic 
 Neutropenia 50% 20% 17% 42% 
 Thrombocytopenia 15% 40%  33% 
 Lymphopenia 25% 10% 8% 17% 
 Leukopenia 25% 15% 17% 25% 
 Anemia 15%  33%  
Nonhematologic 
 Diarrhea 20%  8%  
 AST elevation 5%  8%  
 ALT elevation 5%    
 Nausea   8%  
 Hypoalbuminemia   8%  
 Pleural effusion   8%  
 Febrile neutropenia   8%  
 Vomiting 5%    
 Dehydration 5%    

For the oral solution cohort, 1 of the first 6 patients treated with alisertib oral solution at 45 mg/m2/dose had first cycle DLT (grade 3 diarrhea qualifying as DLT, and grade 4 neutropenia > 7 days – with the neutropenia DLT based on the initial DLT definition, but not based on the amended definition). This dose level was expanded to a total of 12 patients to obtain additional tolerability and pharmacokinetic data (see below). In the second group of 6 patients, 2 patients had first cycle DLT (one with grade 3 hypoalbuminemia, and one with grade 3 pleural effusion who also had prolonged neutropenia and prolonged thrombocytopenia that had not resolved by day 36), such that 3 of 12 patients (25%) had first cycle DLT. As exposure was not below levels observed with tablets at 60 mg/m2 (see below), the dose was not escalated and 45 mg/m2 was determined to be the recommended dose of oral solution in this combination. First cycle grade 3+ thrombocytopenia and grade 3 diarrhea were seen in 33% and 8% of oral solution cohort patients, respectively (Table 3). Two patients (16.7%) had a delay of any duration in starting the second cycle because of delayed hematologic recovery. Among 10 patients who received >1 cycle, 2 (20%) had first DLT (1 nonhematologic and 1 hematologic) in subsequent cycles (cycles 3 and 16).

Alisertib and irinotecan pharmacokinetics

Detailed alisertib pharmacokinetic data were available for all 12 patients in the OS cohort treated with 45 mg/m2 (Supplementary Table S1). In addition, alisertib pharmacokinetic data were available for 8 patients in the phase II cohort and for 6 patients treated with alisertib tablets at the 60 mg/m2 dose level from our previously published phase I study (2). Compared with data from these 14 patients treated with 60 mg/m2 tablets, the oral solution yielded higher peak plasma concentrations (Fig. 2A; median 8.67 vs. 3.86 μmol/L; P < 0.001) and higher exposure (AUC; Fig. 2B; median 58 vs. 45 μmol/L·hour; P = 0.025). There was a trend to suggest earlier time to peak concentration with the OS (Fig. 2C; median 2 vs. 3 hours; P = 0.081). There were no differences in half-life (median 8.3 vs. 10.4 hours; P = 0.57) or trough concentration (median 0.58 vs. 0.72 μmol/L; P = 0.72) between formulations.

Figure 2.

Alisertib peak plasma concentration (Cmax; A), time to peak plasma concentration (B), and exposure (C) after cycle 1, day 4 dosing for patients treated with alisertib oral solution at 45 mg/m2 (n = 12) or enteric-coated tablets at 60 mg/m2 (n = 14).

Figure 2.

Alisertib peak plasma concentration (Cmax; A), time to peak plasma concentration (B), and exposure (C) after cycle 1, day 4 dosing for patients treated with alisertib oral solution at 45 mg/m2 (n = 12) or enteric-coated tablets at 60 mg/m2 (n = 14).

Close modal

Detailed irinotecan pharmacokinetic data were available for 8 patients in the OS cohort, with 4 patients without samples for irinotecan pharmacokinetics due to blood volume considerations in smaller patients. Irinotecan pharmacokinetic data were also available for 6 patients in the phase II and for 6 patients treated with alisertib tablets at the 60 mg/m2 dose level from our previously published phase I study (2). Irinotecan exposure and clearance were qualitatively similar for patients receiving alisertib as oral solution or as enteric-coated tablets (Supplementary Table S2). Likewise, SN-38 and SN-38G peak plasma concentration and exposure appeared similar between groups treated with alisertib oral solution or enteric-coated tablet.

Predictors of toxicity and antitumor activity

We next pooled data from phase I, phase II, and oral solution cohorts to identify potential predictors of DLT, response, and PFS in 54 patients (22 previously reported and 32 patients in this report; Table 4). We examined the association between first course DLT and any DLT in any cycle with predictors of interest. Only alisertib day 5 trough in the first cycle was significantly associated with first cycle DLT (5% with trough below median of 0.46 μmol/L vs. 38% with trough ≥ 0.46 μmol/L; P = 0.045). Only 1 (14%) of the 7 patients < 4 years old experienced grade 2+ diarrhea at any time, compared with 28 (60%) of 47 patients aged 4 or older (P = 0.041). No other variables were significantly associated with grade 2+ diarrhea (data not shown).

Table 4.

Association between biomarkers and measures of toxicity and clinical benefit in a pooled dataset consisting of patients treated on the phase I (n = 22), phase II (n = 20), and OS (n = 12) cohorts

Measures of toxicityMeasures of clinical benefit
BiomarkerNFirst cycle DLTa (n = 11)PDLT in any cyclea (n = 27)PObjective response (n = 12)bP1-Yr PFSP
Age < 4 years 14% 1.0 29% 0.42 0% 0.33 29% 0.002 
Age ≥ 4 years 47 21%  53%  26%  42%  
Age < 8 years 28 18% 0.74 39% 0.17 18% 0.52 31% 0.16 
Age ≥ 8 years 26 23%  62%  27%  47%  
Prior irinotecan 18 28% 0.48 50% 1.0 11% 0.30 30% 0.41 
No prior irinotecan 36 17%  50%  28%  43%  
Prior temozolomide 17 35% 0.081 53% 1.0 12% 0.30 32% 0.56 
No prior temozolomide 37 14%  49%  27%  41%  
≤2 Prior regimens 37 14% 0.081 43% 0.24 22% 1.0 42% 0.97 
>2 Prior regimens 17 35%  65%  24%  32%  
Alisertib Cmax > median 21 24% 0.70 48% 1.0 19% 1.0 28% 0.09 
Alisertib Cmax ≤ median 21 14%  43%  24%  55%  
Alisertib day 5 trough > median 21 33% 0.045 57% 0.21 24% 1.0 45% 0.26 
Alisertib day 5 trough ≤ median 21 5%  33%  19%  33%  
Alisertib exposure > median 21 24% 0.70 52% 0.54 19% 1.0 41% 0.97 
Alisertib exposure ≤ median 21 14%  38%  24%  38%  
UGT1A1 genotype 6/6 17 12% 0.094 47% 0.63 35% 0.24 57% 0.62 
UGT1A1 genotype 6/7 17 18%  35%  6%  26%  
UGT1A1 genotype 7/7 60%  80%  20%  40%  
AURKA Codon 31 wild type 27 22% 0.96 48% 0.82 19% 0.90 32% 0.33 
AURKA Codon 31 heterozygote 12 17%  42%  25%  54%  
AURKA Codon 31 homozygote 0%  0%  0%  100%  
AURKA Codon 57 wild type 27 15% 0.40 41% 0.51 19% 1.0 37% 0.56 
AURKA Codon 57 heterozygote 13 21%  54%  23%  43%  
AURKA Codon 57 homozygote —  —  —  —  
MYCN amplified 15 13% 0.47 33% 0.22 7% 0.14 10% 0.018 
MYCN nonamplified 33 24%  55%  27%  47%  
MYCN amplified or Myc/Mycn + 18 17% 1.0 39% 1.0 11% 0.21 12% 0.019 
MYCN nonamplified and Myc/Mycn − 16 19%  44%  31%  56%  
Aurora A protein + 12 25% 0.36 50% 0.46 17% 1.0 69% 0.078 
Aurora A protein − 18 11%  33%  22%  31%  
Lin28B protein + 17 18% 1.0 47% 0.47 12% 0.36 56% 0.37 
Lin28B protein − 13 15%  31%  31%  34%  
Measures of toxicityMeasures of clinical benefit
BiomarkerNFirst cycle DLTa (n = 11)PDLT in any cyclea (n = 27)PObjective response (n = 12)bP1-Yr PFSP
Age < 4 years 14% 1.0 29% 0.42 0% 0.33 29% 0.002 
Age ≥ 4 years 47 21%  53%  26%  42%  
Age < 8 years 28 18% 0.74 39% 0.17 18% 0.52 31% 0.16 
Age ≥ 8 years 26 23%  62%  27%  47%  
Prior irinotecan 18 28% 0.48 50% 1.0 11% 0.30 30% 0.41 
No prior irinotecan 36 17%  50%  28%  43%  
Prior temozolomide 17 35% 0.081 53% 1.0 12% 0.30 32% 0.56 
No prior temozolomide 37 14%  49%  27%  41%  
≤2 Prior regimens 37 14% 0.081 43% 0.24 22% 1.0 42% 0.97 
>2 Prior regimens 17 35%  65%  24%  32%  
Alisertib Cmax > median 21 24% 0.70 48% 1.0 19% 1.0 28% 0.09 
Alisertib Cmax ≤ median 21 14%  43%  24%  55%  
Alisertib day 5 trough > median 21 33% 0.045 57% 0.21 24% 1.0 45% 0.26 
Alisertib day 5 trough ≤ median 21 5%  33%  19%  33%  
Alisertib exposure > median 21 24% 0.70 52% 0.54 19% 1.0 41% 0.97 
Alisertib exposure ≤ median 21 14%  38%  24%  38%  
UGT1A1 genotype 6/6 17 12% 0.094 47% 0.63 35% 0.24 57% 0.62 
UGT1A1 genotype 6/7 17 18%  35%  6%  26%  
UGT1A1 genotype 7/7 60%  80%  20%  40%  
AURKA Codon 31 wild type 27 22% 0.96 48% 0.82 19% 0.90 32% 0.33 
AURKA Codon 31 heterozygote 12 17%  42%  25%  54%  
AURKA Codon 31 homozygote 0%  0%  0%  100%  
AURKA Codon 57 wild type 27 15% 0.40 41% 0.51 19% 1.0 37% 0.56 
AURKA Codon 57 heterozygote 13 21%  54%  23%  43%  
AURKA Codon 57 homozygote —  —  —  —  
MYCN amplified 15 13% 0.47 33% 0.22 7% 0.14 10% 0.018 
MYCN nonamplified 33 24%  55%  27%  47%  
MYCN amplified or Myc/Mycn + 18 17% 1.0 39% 1.0 11% 0.21 12% 0.019 
MYCN nonamplified and Myc/Mycn − 16 19%  44%  31%  56%  
Aurora A protein + 12 25% 0.36 50% 0.46 17% 1.0 69% 0.078 
Aurora A protein − 18 11%  33%  22%  31%  
Lin28B protein + 17 18% 1.0 47% 0.47 12% 0.36 56% 0.37 
Lin28B protein − 13 15%  31%  31%  34%  

aUtilizing amended DLT definition (see Materials and Methods).

bIncludes patients with CR, CR-MRD, or PR.

None of the variables were significantly associated with response. Patients with tumors with evidence of Mycn or Myc activity (analyzed either as MYCN amplification or who were positive for the composite variable with positivity for MYCN amplification, Mycn protein expression, and/or Myc protein expression) had numerically lower objective response rates (Table 4). MYCN status did result in statistically significant differences in terms of PFS. The 1-year PFS rate for patients with MYCN amplification was 10% (±9%) versus 47% (±10%) for patients without MYCN amplification (P = 0.018; Fig. 2B). A similar pattern was seen using the composite of MYCN amplification or Mycn or Myc protein expression. The only other significant association with PFS included lower 1-year PFS rate for patients < 4 years old [29% (±0%)] compared with older patients [42% (±8%); P = 0.002]. Patients with positive Aurora A protein expression had higher 1-year PFS rate than patients with negative Aurora A protein (69% vs. 31%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.078). We also investigated PFS using the combination of Aurora A protein expression and the composite of MYCN amplification or Mycn or Myc protein expression. Only 3 patients had tumors that were positive for both Aurora A expression and positive for the composite of MYCN amplification or Mycn or Myc protein expression. These 3 patients had a 100% 1-year PFS compared with 0% for the 8 patients who had tumors that were negative for Aurora A expression, but positive for the composite of MYCN amplification or Mycn or Myc protein expression (P = 0.002).

In this study, we have extended our prior phase I experience to understand more fully the antitumor activity and toxicity of the combination of alisertib with irinotecan and temozolomide. We present phase II data that highlight the activity of this regimen in neuroblastoma. Our evaluation of an alisertib oral solution provides important new data that will be critical in the clinical development of this agent in an indication that preferentially occurs in young children. Our investigation of biomarkers across the full cohort of patients treated on the phase I, phase II, and oral solution portions of the study has improved our understanding of patients most likely to experience severe toxicity with this regimen, another key set of data needed to advance the pediatric clinical development of this agent.

Our phase II experience demonstrates antitumor activity greater than might be expected based upon the published experience with irinotecan and temozolomide alone (7, 25, 26). Specifically, a prior phase II trial of irinotecan and temozolomide in patients with first relapsed neuroblastoma reported an objective response rate of 16% and 1-year PFS rate of approximately 20% (7). Nevertheless, our phase II response rate and estimated 1-year PFS are lower than observed in our published phase I experience. We note that the phase II population was paradoxically more heavily pretreated (median 3 prior regimens; range 1–10) than our phase I population (median 1 prior regimen; range 1–7) and more heavily pretreated than the prior phase II trial of irinotecan and temozolomide alone. Our biomarker studies complement these clinical findings and demonstrate that patients with MYCN/Myc-driven tumors have poor outcomes despite treatment with this regimen. This finding is contrary to preclinical rationale demonstrating a role for Aurora A kinase inhibitors in destabilizing Myc proteins, although newer Aurora A kinase inhibitors may have a greater effect on Myc protein stability (3). Importantly, the poor outcomes seen in this population may also simply reflect the known adverse prognostic effect of MYCN amplification in the setting of recurrent high-risk neuroblastoma (27). Our nonrandomized study design is not able to differentiate a prognostic marker from a predictive marker that might enable patient selection for this trial (28).

Evaluation of an alisertib oral solution in adults demonstrated higher exposure with the use of an oral solution (8). Based upon a relative bioequivalence of 1.26, we investigated the oral solution at a dose of 45 mg/m2, which represents 75% of the dose established for use with the tablet formulation in the context of this combination (2). We show that this dose level is tolerable and, as expected, based upon other comparisons of liquid versus tablet formulations of other agents, we observed higher Cmax and a trend toward earlier Tmax with the oral solution. We hypothesized that exposures would be comparable between solution at 45 mg/m2 and tablet at 60 mg/m2. We observed extensive interpatient variability in both groups and a slightly higher median exposure with the oral solution. The wide range of exposures with both formulations allowed us to investigate exposure as a potential predictor of toxicity and antitumor activity, with no associations seen. Despite higher exposure, patients on the oral solution cohort had a low response rate, which may have been because of the high incidence of MYCN amplification (55%) in this cohort.

As in our phase I experience, cumulative toxicity was substantial. In the phase II cohort, 1 patient who experienced grade 3 diarrhea (not a DLT) discontinued therapy after the first course; of the 19 patients who received more than 1 course, 10 (53%) required a dose reduction of at least one agent in subsequent courses of therapy. We designed our biomarker studies to provide new insights into subgroups at higher risk of severe toxicity. The most promising marker was higher trough concentration on day 5 of the first cycle. Whether this or other biomarkers can be used to modify drug doses in this regimen will require further investigation.

In conclusion, we have further defined the antitumor activity of this regimen in a heavily pretreated population. Our investigation of an alisertib oral solution now allows younger children and older patients unable to swallow pills to be able to receive this agent. Our findings suggest a potential role for Aurora A kinase inhibition in the management of patients with advanced neuroblastoma, although the toxicity profile is more consistent with regimens utilized during the frontline management of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. Future studies should focus on evaluating this combination in a more homogeneous population earlier in the course of their illness (e.g., first relapsed disease or during initial induction chemotherapy). Moreover, testing novel Aurora A kinase inhibitors with greater effects on Mycn protein stability (3) as well as novel combinations with Aurora A kinase inhibitors is a high priority.

S.G. DuBois is a consultant/advisory board member for Loxo Oncology and Genentech. E. Fox reports other remuneration from PSI/Helsinn. J.R. Park is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol, Myers, Squibb. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, J.M. Reid, S. Groshen, R. Bagatell, J.M. Maris, G. Yanik, L.M. Wagner, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian

Development of methodology: S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, E. Fox, J.M. Reid, A. Marachelian

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, E. Fox, R.A. Kudgus, J.M. Reid, R. McGovern, J.M. Maris, C.J. Twist, K. Goldsmith, M.M. Granger, B. Weiss, J.R. Park, M.E. Macy, S.L. Cohn, R. Hawkins, J. Courtier, H. Shimada, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, E. Fox, R.A. Kudgus, J.M. Reid, R. McGovern, S. Groshen, J.M. Maris, M.M. Granger, G. Yanik, R. Hawkins, J. Courtier, F. Goodarzian, H. Shimada, N. Boucher, C. Luo, D. Tsao-Wei, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, E. Fox, R.A. Kudgus, J.M. Reid, S. Groshen, R. Bagatell, J.M. Maris, K. Goldsmith, M.M. Granger, B. Weiss, J.R. Park, M.E. Macy, S.L. Cohn, G. Yanik, L.M. Wagner, J. Courtier, H. Lai, H. Shimada, C. Luo, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): Y.P. Mosse, J.M. Reid, S. Groshen, J.M. Maris, S. Czarnecki, A. Marachelian

Study supervision: S.G. DuBois, Y.P. Mosse, J.M. Reid, S. Groshen, M.M. Granger, J.R. Park, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian

The authors gratefully acknowledge the NANT Operations Center, NANT institutions, research nurses, research assistants, participating patients and families, as well as the alisertib team at Millennium. Supported by NCI P01 81403 (to S. Groshen, N. Boucher, S. Czarnecki, C. Luo, D. Tsao-Wei, K.K. Matthay, A. Marachelian); P30 CA15083 (to R.A. Kudgus, J.M. Reid, R. McGovern); NIH/NCRR UCSF-CTSI UL1 RR024131; Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation (to K. Matthay and S. DuBois); and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Pinto
NR
,
Applebaum
MA
,
Volchenboum
SL
,
Matthay
KK
,
London
WB
,
Ambros
PF
, et al
Advances in risk classification and treatment strategies for neuroblastoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
3008
17
.
2.
DuBois
SG
,
Marachelian
A
,
Fox
E
,
Kudgus
RA
,
Reid
JM
,
Groshen
S
, et al
Phase I study of the Aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib in combination with irinotecan and temozolomide for patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a NANT (New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy) Trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
1368
75
.
3.
Gustafson
WC
,
Meyerowitz
JG
,
Nekritz
EA
,
Chen
J
,
Benes
C
,
Charron
E
, et al
Drugging MYCN through an allosteric transition in Aurora kinase A
.
Cancer Cell
2014
;
26
:
414
27
.
4.
Maris
JM
,
Morton
CL
,
Gorlick
R
,
Kolb
EA
,
Lock
R
,
Carol
H
, et al
Initial testing of the aurora kinase A inhibitor MLN8237 by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program (PPTP)
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2010
;
55
:
26
34
.
5.
Mosse
YP
,
Lipsitz
E
,
Fox
E
,
Teachey
DT
,
Maris
JM
,
Weigel
B
, et al
Pediatric phase I trial and pharmacokinetic study of MLN8237, an investigational oral selective small-molecule inhibitor of Aurora kinase A: a Children's Oncology Group Phase I Consortium study
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
6058
64
.
6.
Otto
T
,
Horn
S
,
Brockmann
M
,
Eilers
U
,
Schüttrumpf
L
,
Popov
N
, et al
Stabilization of N-Myc is a critical function of Aurora A in human neuroblastoma
.
Cancer Cell
2009
;
15
:
67
78
.
7.
Bagatell
R
,
London
WB
,
Wagner
LM
,
Voss
SD
,
Stewart
CF
,
Maris
JM
, et al
Phase II study of irinotecan and temozolomide in children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
208
13
.
8.
Falchook
GS
,
Venkatakrishnan
K
,
Sarantopoulos
J
,
Kurzrock
R
,
Mita
AC
,
Fu
S
, et al
Relative bioavailability of a prototype oral solution of the Aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) in patients with advanced solid tumors
.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther
2015
;
53
:
563
72
.
9.
Deeken
JF
,
Slack
R
,
Marshall
JL
. 
Irinotecan and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 pharmacogenetics: to test or not to test, that is the question
.
Cancer
2008
;
113
:
1502
10
.
10.
Hu
ZY
,
Yu
Q
,
Zhao
YS
. 
Dose-dependent association between UGT1A1*28 polymorphism and irinotecan-induced diarrhoea: a meta-analysis
.
Eur J Cancer
2010
;
46
:
1856
65
.
11.
Stewart
CF
,
Panetta
JC
,
O'Shaughnessy
MA
,
Throm
SL
,
Fraga
CH
,
Owens
T
, et al
UGT1A1 promoter genotype correlates with SN-38 pharmacokinetics, but not severe toxicity in patients receiving low-dose irinotecan
.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
2594
600
.
12.
Richards
MW
,
Burgess
SG
,
Poon
E
,
Carstensen
A
,
Eilers
M
,
Chesler
L
, et al
Structural basis of N-Myc binding by Aurora-A and its destabilization by kinase inhibitors
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2016
;
113
:
13726
31
.
13.
Wang
LL
,
Suganuma
R
,
Ikegaki
N
,
Tang
X
,
Naranjo
A
,
McGrady
P
, et al
Neuroblastoma of undifferentiated subtype, prognostic significance of prominent nucleolar formation, and MYC/MYCN protein expression: a report from the Children's Oncology Group
.
Cancer
2013
;
119
:
3718
26
.
14.
Wang
LL
,
Teshiba
R
,
Ikegaki
N
,
Tang
XX
,
Naranjo
A
,
London
WB
, et al
Augmented expression of MYC and/or MYCN protein defines highly aggressive MYC-driven neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study
.
Br J Cancer
2015
;
113
:
57
63
.
15.
Shang
X
,
Burlingame
SM
,
Okcu
MF
,
Ge
N
,
Russell
HV
,
Egler
RA
, et al
Aurora A is a negative prognostic factor and a new therapeutic target in human neuroblastoma
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2009
;
8
:
2461
9
.
16.
Pan
JY
,
Ajani
JA
,
Gu
J
,
Gong
Y
,
Qin
A
,
Hung
M
, et al
Association of Aurora-A (STK15) kinase polymorphisms with clinical outcome of esophageal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation
.
Cancer
2012
;
118
:
4346
53
.
17.
Schnepp
RW
,
Khurana
P
,
Attiyeh
EF
,
Raman
P
,
Chodosh
SE
,
Oldridge
DA
, et al
A LIN28B-RAN-AURKA signaling network promotes neuroblastoma tumorigenesis
.
Cancer Cell
2015
;
28
:
599
609
.
18.
Wagner
LM
,
Crews
KR
,
Stewart
CF
,
Rodriguez-Galindo
C
,
McNall-Knapp
RY
,
Albritton
K
, et al
Reducing irinotecan-associated diarrhea in children
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2008
;
50
:
201
7
.
19.
Therasse
P
,
Arbuck
SG
,
Eisenhauer
EA
,
Wanders
J
,
Kaplan
RS
,
Rubinstein
L
, et al
New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2000
;
92
:
205
16
.
20.
Matthay
KK
,
Shulkin
B
,
Ladenstein
R
,
Michon
J
,
Giammarile
F
,
Lewington
V
, et al
Criteria for evaluation of disease extent by (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scans in neuroblastoma: a report for the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
102
:
1319
26
.
21.
Villablanca
JG
,
Ji
L
,
Shapira-Lewinson
A
,
Marachelian
A
,
Shimada
H
,
Hawkins
RA
, et al
Predictors of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival using NANT Response Criteria (v1.0) in relapsed and refractory high-risk neuroblastoma
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2018
;
65
:
e26940
.
22.
Goetz
MP
,
McKean
HA
,
Reid
JM
,
Mandrekar
SJ
,
Tan
AD
,
Kuffel
MA
, et al
UGT1A1 genotype-guided phase I study of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine
.
Invest New Drugs
2013
;
31
:
1559
67
.
23.
Akaba
K
,
Kimura
T
,
Sasaki
A
,
Tanabe
S
,
Ikegami
T
,
Hashimoto
M
, et al
Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and mutation of the bilirubin uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase gene: a common missense mutation among Japanese, Koreans and Chinese
.
Biochem Mol Biol Int
1998
;
46
:
21
6
.
24.
Skolnik
JM
,
Barrett
JS
,
Jayaraman
B
,
Patel
D
,
Adamson
PC
. 
Shortening the timeline of pediatric phase I trials: the rolling six design
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
190
5
.
25.
Kushner
BH
,
Kramer
K
,
Modak
S
,
Cheung
NK
. 
Irinotecan plus temozolomide for relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
5271
6
.
26.
Wagner
LM
,
Crews
KR
,
Iacono
LC
,
Houghton
PJ
,
Fuller
CE
,
McCarville
MB
, et al
Phase I trial of temozolomide and protracted irinotecan in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors
.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
840
8
.
27.
London
WB
,
Castel
V
,
Monclair
T
,
Ambros
PF
,
Pearson
AD
,
Cohn
SL
, et al
Clinical and biologic features predictive of survival after relapse of neuroblastoma: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group project
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
3286
92
.
28.
Ballman
KV
. 
Biomarker: predictive or prognostic?
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
3968
71
.