Molecular design of dual inhibitors of PI3K and potential molecular target of cancer for its treatment: A review

Aberrant activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling network is a key event in many human cancers and therefore enormous efforts have been made in the development of PI3K inhibitors. However, due to intrinsic and acquired resistance as well as poor drug tolerance, limited therapeutic efficacy has been achieved with these agents. In view of the fact that PI3K inhibitors can show synergistic antitumor effects with other cancer agents, namely mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors, dual inhibition of both targets by a single-molecule is regarded as a promising complementary or alternative therapeutic strategy to overcome the drawbacks of just PI3K monotherapy. In this review, we discuss the theoretical foundation for designing PI3K-based dual-target inhibitors and summarize the structure-activity relationships and clinical progress of these dual-binding agents.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Targeting PI3K in cancer: mechanisms and advances in clinical trials

Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways, which can be considered as a master regulator for cancer. Enormous efforts have been dedicated to the development of drugs targeting PI3K signaling, many of which are currently employed in clinical trials evaluation, and it is becoming increasingly clear that PI3K inhibitors are effective in inhibiting tumor progression. PI3K inhibitors are subdivided into dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, pan-PI3K inhibitors and isoform-specific inhibitors. In this review, we performed a critical review to summarize the role of the PI3K pathway in tumor development, recent PI3K inhibitors development based on clinical trials, and the mechanisms of resistance to PI3K inhibition.

Kinase-targeted cancer therapies: progress, challenges and future directions

The human genome encodes 538 protein kinases that transfer a γ-phosphate group from ATP to serine, threonine, or tyrosine residues. Many of these kinases are associated with human cancer initiation and progression. The recent development of small-molecule kinase inhibitors for the treatment of diverse types of cancer has proven successful in clinical therapy. Significantly, protein kinases are the second most targeted group of drug targets, after the G-protein-coupled receptors. Since the development of the first protein kinase inhibitor, in the early 1980s, 37 kinase inhibitors have received FDA approval for treatment of malignancies such as breast and lung cancer. Furthermore, about 150 kinase-targeted drugs are in clinical phase trials, and many kinase-specific inhibitors are in the preclinical stage of drug development. Nevertheless, many factors confound the clinical efficacy of these molecules. Specific tumor genetics, tumor microenvironment, drug resistance, and pharmacogenomics determine how useful a compound will be in the treatment of a given cancer. This review provides an overview of kinase-targeted drug discovery and development in relation to oncology and highlights the challenges and future potential for kinase-targeted cancer therapies.

Judicious Toggling of mTOR Activity to Combat Insulin Resistance and Cancer: Current Evidence and Perspectives

The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), via its two distinct multiprotein complexes, mTORC1, and mTORC2, plays a central role in the regulation of cellular growth, metabolism, and migration. A dysregulation of the mTOR pathway has in turn been implicated in several pathological conditions including insulin resistance and cancer. Overactivation of mTORC1 and disruption of mTORC2 function have been reported to induce insulin resistance. On the other hand, aberrant mTORC1 and mTORC2 signaling via either genetic alterations or increased expression of proteins regulating mTOR and its downstream targets have contributed to cancer development. These underlined the attractiveness of mTOR as a therapeutic target to overcome both insulin resistance and cancer. This review summarizes the evidence supporting the notion of intermittent, low dose rapamycin for treating insulin resistance. It further highlights recent data on the continuous use of high dose rapamycin analogs and related second generation mTOR inhibitors for cancer eradication, for overcoming chemoresistance and for tumor stem cell suppression. Within these contexts, the potential challenges associated with the use of mTOR inhibitors are also discussed.

A Phase Ib Study of BEZ235, a Dual Inhibitor of Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase (PI3K) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR), in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

Our results highlight additional toxicities of dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition in the clinical setting that were unforeseen from preclinical models.

Because of toxicity and lack of efficacy, BEZ235 should not be further developed in the current formulation for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Background.

Allosteric inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) are approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Preclinical models have suggested that dual inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) and mTOR kinase may establish superior anticancer effect. We aimed to establish safety for BEZ235, a potent inhibitor of both PI3K and mTOR, in advanced RCC.

Methods.

Patients with advanced RCC who had previously failed standard therapy received escalating doses of BEZ235 in sachet formulation twice daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were to identify the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and to determine the recommended dose for the phase II study.

Results.

The study was terminated early because of high incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) across all dose levels tested. Ten patients were treated with BEZ235—six with clear cell and four with non-clear cell subtypes. Five of these patients suffered DLTs: 2 of 2 patients in the original 400 mg b.i.d. cohort, 1 of 6 in the 200 mg b.i.d. cohort, and 2 of 2 in the 300 mg b.i.d. cohort. DLTs included fatigue, rash, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, anorexia, and dysgeusia. Five patients were evaluable for response: Two had stable disease as best response, and three had progressive disease.

Conclusion.

BEZ235 twice daily resulted in significant toxicity without objective responses; further development of this compound will not be pursued in this disease.

Management of poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: current approaches, the role of temsirolimus and future directions

Targeted therapies have substantially improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). As expected, poor-risk patients have the worst outcomes. Temsirolimus is currently the only agent licensed for treatment of poor-risk mRCC patients. It is associated with meaningful improvements in survival and quality of life, highlighting the importance of correctly stratifying risk in mRCC patients so they receive optimal treatment. Currently, data for other targeted therapies in poor-risk patients are relatively sparse. Optimizing outcomes in these patients is the subject of ongoing research, including studies of biomarkers and studies to elucidate the role of nephrectomy and neoadjuvant targeted therapy in poor-risk mRCC patients. The impacts of novel combinations including temsirolimus have also been explored to further improve outcomes.

Activating Mutations in PIK3CB Confer Resistance to PI3K Inhibition and Define a Novel Oncogenic Role for p110β

Activation of the PI3K pathway occurs commonly in a wide variety of cancers. Experience with other successful targeted agents suggests that clinical resistance is likely to arise and may reduce the durability of clinical benefit. Here, we sought to understand mechanisms underlying resistance to PI3K inhibition in PTEN-deficient cancers. We generated cell lines resistant to the pan-PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 from parental PTEN-null breast cancer cell lines and identified a novel PIK3CB D1067Y mutation in both cell lines that was recurrent in cancer patients. Stable expression of mutant PIK3CB variants conferred resistance to PI3K inhibition that could be overcome by downstream AKT or mTORC1/2 inhibitors. Furthermore, we show that the p110β D1067Y mutant was highly activated and induced PIP3 levels at the cell membrane, subsequently promoting the localization and activation of AKT and PDK1 at the membrane and driving PI3K signaling to a level that could withstand treatment with proximal inhibitors. Finally, we demonstrate that the PIK3CB D1067Y mutant behaved as an oncogene and transformed normal cells, an activity that was enhanced by PTEN depletion. Collectively, these novel preclinical and clinical findings implicate the acquisition of activating PIK3CB D1067 mutations as an important event underlying the resistance of cancer cells to selective PI3K inhibitors.