User login
Sharon Worcester is an award-winning medical journalist for MDedge News. She has been with the company since 1996, first as the Southeast Bureau Chief (1996-2009) when the company was known as International Medical News Group, then as a freelance writer (2010-2015) before returning as a reporter in 2015. She previously worked as a daily newspaper reporter covering health and local government. Sharon currently reports primarily on oncology and hematology. She has a BA from Eckerd College and an MA in Mass Communication/Print Journalism from the University of Florida. Connect with her via LinkedIn and follow her on twitter @SW_MedReporter.
Managing 2nd trimester loss: Shared decision making, honor patient preference
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to Sara W. Prager, MD.
Information transfer between the physician and patient, as opposed to a provider-driven or patient-driven decision-making process, better ensures that “the best possible decision” will be reached, Dr. Prager, director of the family planning division and family planning fellowship at the University of Washington in Seattle, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Engaging the patient in the process – actively involving and supporting her in health care and treatment decision-making activities – is critically important, especially when dealing with pregnancy loss, which involves an acute sense of powerlessness, she said. Patient engagement is essential for respecting her autonomy, enhancing her agency, improving health status, reducing decisional conflict, and improving overall satisfaction.
Shared decision making requires a discussion about how the two approaches compare, particularly with respect to specific complications associated with each, Dr. Prager said, noting that discussion of values also should be encouraged.
Although surgical management is used more often, both approaches are safe and effective, and in the absence of clear contraindications in settings where both medication and a practitioner skilled in dilatation and evacuation are available, patient preference should honored, she said.
In this video interview, Dr. Prager further explains her position. “Using evidence-based medicine to have a shared decision-making process ... is extremely helpful for patients to feel like they have some control in this out-of-control situation where they’re experiencing a pregnancy loss.”
She also discussed how the use of mifepristone plus misoprostol for medical management of second-trimester loss has the potential to improve access.
“This is medication that, because of stigma surrounding abortion, is not always available ... so actually using it for non–abortion-related activities can be a way to help reduce that stigma around the medication itself, and get it into clinical sites, because it really does meaningfully improve management in the second trimester, as well as in the first trimester.”
In fact, the combination can cut nearly in half the amount of time it takes from the start of an induction until the end of the induction process, she said.
Dr. Prager also discussed surgical training resources and how to advocate for patient access to family planning experts who have the appropriate training.
Dr. Prager said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to Sara W. Prager, MD.
Information transfer between the physician and patient, as opposed to a provider-driven or patient-driven decision-making process, better ensures that “the best possible decision” will be reached, Dr. Prager, director of the family planning division and family planning fellowship at the University of Washington in Seattle, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Engaging the patient in the process – actively involving and supporting her in health care and treatment decision-making activities – is critically important, especially when dealing with pregnancy loss, which involves an acute sense of powerlessness, she said. Patient engagement is essential for respecting her autonomy, enhancing her agency, improving health status, reducing decisional conflict, and improving overall satisfaction.
Shared decision making requires a discussion about how the two approaches compare, particularly with respect to specific complications associated with each, Dr. Prager said, noting that discussion of values also should be encouraged.
Although surgical management is used more often, both approaches are safe and effective, and in the absence of clear contraindications in settings where both medication and a practitioner skilled in dilatation and evacuation are available, patient preference should honored, she said.
In this video interview, Dr. Prager further explains her position. “Using evidence-based medicine to have a shared decision-making process ... is extremely helpful for patients to feel like they have some control in this out-of-control situation where they’re experiencing a pregnancy loss.”
She also discussed how the use of mifepristone plus misoprostol for medical management of second-trimester loss has the potential to improve access.
“This is medication that, because of stigma surrounding abortion, is not always available ... so actually using it for non–abortion-related activities can be a way to help reduce that stigma around the medication itself, and get it into clinical sites, because it really does meaningfully improve management in the second trimester, as well as in the first trimester.”
In fact, the combination can cut nearly in half the amount of time it takes from the start of an induction until the end of the induction process, she said.
Dr. Prager also discussed surgical training resources and how to advocate for patient access to family planning experts who have the appropriate training.
Dr. Prager said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to Sara W. Prager, MD.
Information transfer between the physician and patient, as opposed to a provider-driven or patient-driven decision-making process, better ensures that “the best possible decision” will be reached, Dr. Prager, director of the family planning division and family planning fellowship at the University of Washington in Seattle, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Engaging the patient in the process – actively involving and supporting her in health care and treatment decision-making activities – is critically important, especially when dealing with pregnancy loss, which involves an acute sense of powerlessness, she said. Patient engagement is essential for respecting her autonomy, enhancing her agency, improving health status, reducing decisional conflict, and improving overall satisfaction.
Shared decision making requires a discussion about how the two approaches compare, particularly with respect to specific complications associated with each, Dr. Prager said, noting that discussion of values also should be encouraged.
Although surgical management is used more often, both approaches are safe and effective, and in the absence of clear contraindications in settings where both medication and a practitioner skilled in dilatation and evacuation are available, patient preference should honored, she said.
In this video interview, Dr. Prager further explains her position. “Using evidence-based medicine to have a shared decision-making process ... is extremely helpful for patients to feel like they have some control in this out-of-control situation where they’re experiencing a pregnancy loss.”
She also discussed how the use of mifepristone plus misoprostol for medical management of second-trimester loss has the potential to improve access.
“This is medication that, because of stigma surrounding abortion, is not always available ... so actually using it for non–abortion-related activities can be a way to help reduce that stigma around the medication itself, and get it into clinical sites, because it really does meaningfully improve management in the second trimester, as well as in the first trimester.”
In fact, the combination can cut nearly in half the amount of time it takes from the start of an induction until the end of the induction process, she said.
Dr. Prager also discussed surgical training resources and how to advocate for patient access to family planning experts who have the appropriate training.
Dr. Prager said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACOG 2019
Online counseling clarifies treatment options for menopausal women
NASHVILLE, TENN. – a post-intervention survey showed.
Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.
Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.
The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.
A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.
In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.
Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.
“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”
Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.
This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – a post-intervention survey showed.
Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.
Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.
The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.
A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.
In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.
Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.
“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”
Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.
This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – a post-intervention survey showed.
Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.
Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.
The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.
A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.
In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.
Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.
“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”
Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.
This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.
REPORTING FROM ACOG 2019
Liletta IUD efficacy extends to 6 years
NASHVILLE, TENN. – The 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system Liletta, which is currently approved as a contraceptive for up to 5 years of use, remains highly effective and safe for an additional year of use, according to findings from an ongoing 10-year trial.
Of 1,714 women enrolled in the multicenter phase 3 trial and for whom demographic information is available, 379 have completed 6 years of use. Nine pregnancies have occurred to date, including 2 in year 1, 4 in year 2, and 1 each in years 3-5, for a cumulative life-table pregnancy rate through year 6 of 0.87, Carolyn L. Westhoff, MD, MSc, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Six (67%) of the pregnancies were ectopic, noted Dr. Westhoff of Columbia University, N.Y.
Study subjects include 1,568 women aged 16-35 years at enrollment (986 were nulliparous and 433 were obese) and 146 aged 36 to 45 years. All were followed after device placement, with 138 having completed 8 years of use.
Two perforations occurred following device placement–both within the first year, and none have occurred since, Dr. Westhoff noted.
Other adverse events included expulsion in 68 women (4.0%), with 50 of those (73.5%) occurring in the first year of use, and pelvic infection in 15 women (0.9%), with 11 (73.3%) of those occurring after 6 or more months of use.
Only 40 women (2.3%) discontinued the study due to bleeding, and 30 of those (75%) did so in the first 2 years.
in both nulliparous and parous women, and in both non-obese and obese women, Dr. Westhoff concluded. She added that “there were no additional pregnancies in 6 years, and this study will be continuing to look all the way to 10-year effectiveness.”
This study is funded by Medicines360, a non-profit pharmaceutical company. Dr. Westhoff is a consultant or advisory board member for Agile and Cooper Surgical, and a Data and Safety Monitoring Board member for phase 4 studies for Bayer and Merck.
SOURCE: Westhoff C et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 13M.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – The 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system Liletta, which is currently approved as a contraceptive for up to 5 years of use, remains highly effective and safe for an additional year of use, according to findings from an ongoing 10-year trial.
Of 1,714 women enrolled in the multicenter phase 3 trial and for whom demographic information is available, 379 have completed 6 years of use. Nine pregnancies have occurred to date, including 2 in year 1, 4 in year 2, and 1 each in years 3-5, for a cumulative life-table pregnancy rate through year 6 of 0.87, Carolyn L. Westhoff, MD, MSc, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Six (67%) of the pregnancies were ectopic, noted Dr. Westhoff of Columbia University, N.Y.
Study subjects include 1,568 women aged 16-35 years at enrollment (986 were nulliparous and 433 were obese) and 146 aged 36 to 45 years. All were followed after device placement, with 138 having completed 8 years of use.
Two perforations occurred following device placement–both within the first year, and none have occurred since, Dr. Westhoff noted.
Other adverse events included expulsion in 68 women (4.0%), with 50 of those (73.5%) occurring in the first year of use, and pelvic infection in 15 women (0.9%), with 11 (73.3%) of those occurring after 6 or more months of use.
Only 40 women (2.3%) discontinued the study due to bleeding, and 30 of those (75%) did so in the first 2 years.
in both nulliparous and parous women, and in both non-obese and obese women, Dr. Westhoff concluded. She added that “there were no additional pregnancies in 6 years, and this study will be continuing to look all the way to 10-year effectiveness.”
This study is funded by Medicines360, a non-profit pharmaceutical company. Dr. Westhoff is a consultant or advisory board member for Agile and Cooper Surgical, and a Data and Safety Monitoring Board member for phase 4 studies for Bayer and Merck.
SOURCE: Westhoff C et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 13M.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – The 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system Liletta, which is currently approved as a contraceptive for up to 5 years of use, remains highly effective and safe for an additional year of use, according to findings from an ongoing 10-year trial.
Of 1,714 women enrolled in the multicenter phase 3 trial and for whom demographic information is available, 379 have completed 6 years of use. Nine pregnancies have occurred to date, including 2 in year 1, 4 in year 2, and 1 each in years 3-5, for a cumulative life-table pregnancy rate through year 6 of 0.87, Carolyn L. Westhoff, MD, MSc, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Six (67%) of the pregnancies were ectopic, noted Dr. Westhoff of Columbia University, N.Y.
Study subjects include 1,568 women aged 16-35 years at enrollment (986 were nulliparous and 433 were obese) and 146 aged 36 to 45 years. All were followed after device placement, with 138 having completed 8 years of use.
Two perforations occurred following device placement–both within the first year, and none have occurred since, Dr. Westhoff noted.
Other adverse events included expulsion in 68 women (4.0%), with 50 of those (73.5%) occurring in the first year of use, and pelvic infection in 15 women (0.9%), with 11 (73.3%) of those occurring after 6 or more months of use.
Only 40 women (2.3%) discontinued the study due to bleeding, and 30 of those (75%) did so in the first 2 years.
in both nulliparous and parous women, and in both non-obese and obese women, Dr. Westhoff concluded. She added that “there were no additional pregnancies in 6 years, and this study will be continuing to look all the way to 10-year effectiveness.”
This study is funded by Medicines360, a non-profit pharmaceutical company. Dr. Westhoff is a consultant or advisory board member for Agile and Cooper Surgical, and a Data and Safety Monitoring Board member for phase 4 studies for Bayer and Merck.
SOURCE: Westhoff C et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 13M.
REPORTING FROM ACOG 2019
ACOG guidance addresses cardiac contributors to maternal mortality
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to new comprehensive guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The toolkit algorithm is called the California Improving Health Care Response to Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy and Postpartum Toolkit. It was developed by the Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy Postpartum Task Force to serve as a resource for obstetrics, primary care and emergency medicine providers who provide prenatal care or interact with women during the postpartum period. It incldues an overview of clinical assessment and comprehensive management strategies for cardiovascular disease based on risk factors and presenting symptoms.
The guidance also calls for all pregnant and postpartum women with known or suspected CVD to undergo further evaluation by a “Pregnancy Heart Team that includes a cardiologist and maternal–fetal medicine subspecialist, or both, and other subspecialists as necessary.” The guidance was issued in Practice Bulletin 212, Pregnancy and Heart Disease, which is published in the May edition of Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-e356).
In all, 27 specific recommendations and conclusions relating to screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women during the prepregnancy period through the postpartum period are included in the guidance.
ACOG president Lisa Hollier, MD, convened the task force that developed this guidance to address cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, she said during a press briefing at the ACOG annual clinical and scientific meeting.
“When I began my presidency a year ago, my goal was to bring together a multidisciplinary group of clinicians ... to create clinical guidance that would make a difference in the lives of women," said Dr. Hollier, who is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. 
Part of her presidential initiative was centered on eliminating preventable maternal death, and this guidance has the potential to make strides toward that goal, she said. When it comes to CVD in pregnancy, “there is so much we can do to prevent negative outcomes and ensure that moms go home with their babies and are around to see them grow up,” she noted.
CVD is the leading cause of death in pregnant women and women in the postpartum period, accounting for 26.5% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths.
“It’s critical that we as physicians and health care professionals develop expertise in recognizing the signs and symptoms so that we can save women’s lives,” she said in the press breifing. Dr. Hollier also implored her colleagues to “start using this guidance immediately and prevent more women from dying from cardiovascular complications of pregnancy.”
In this video interview, Dr. Hollier further explains the need for the guidance and its potential for improving maternal mortality rates.
Dr. Hollier reported having no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Hollier L et al., Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-56.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to new comprehensive guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The toolkit algorithm is called the California Improving Health Care Response to Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy and Postpartum Toolkit. It was developed by the Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy Postpartum Task Force to serve as a resource for obstetrics, primary care and emergency medicine providers who provide prenatal care or interact with women during the postpartum period. It incldues an overview of clinical assessment and comprehensive management strategies for cardiovascular disease based on risk factors and presenting symptoms.
The guidance also calls for all pregnant and postpartum women with known or suspected CVD to undergo further evaluation by a “Pregnancy Heart Team that includes a cardiologist and maternal–fetal medicine subspecialist, or both, and other subspecialists as necessary.” The guidance was issued in Practice Bulletin 212, Pregnancy and Heart Disease, which is published in the May edition of Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-e356).
In all, 27 specific recommendations and conclusions relating to screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women during the prepregnancy period through the postpartum period are included in the guidance.
ACOG president Lisa Hollier, MD, convened the task force that developed this guidance to address cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, she said during a press briefing at the ACOG annual clinical and scientific meeting.
“When I began my presidency a year ago, my goal was to bring together a multidisciplinary group of clinicians ... to create clinical guidance that would make a difference in the lives of women," said Dr. Hollier, who is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Part of her presidential initiative was centered on eliminating preventable maternal death, and this guidance has the potential to make strides toward that goal, she said. When it comes to CVD in pregnancy, “there is so much we can do to prevent negative outcomes and ensure that moms go home with their babies and are around to see them grow up,” she noted.
CVD is the leading cause of death in pregnant women and women in the postpartum period, accounting for 26.5% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths.
“It’s critical that we as physicians and health care professionals develop expertise in recognizing the signs and symptoms so that we can save women’s lives,” she said in the press breifing. Dr. Hollier also implored her colleagues to “start using this guidance immediately and prevent more women from dying from cardiovascular complications of pregnancy.”
In this video interview, Dr. Hollier further explains the need for the guidance and its potential for improving maternal mortality rates.
Dr. Hollier reported having no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Hollier L et al., Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-56.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – according to new comprehensive guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The toolkit algorithm is called the California Improving Health Care Response to Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy and Postpartum Toolkit. It was developed by the Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy Postpartum Task Force to serve as a resource for obstetrics, primary care and emergency medicine providers who provide prenatal care or interact with women during the postpartum period. It incldues an overview of clinical assessment and comprehensive management strategies for cardiovascular disease based on risk factors and presenting symptoms.
The guidance also calls for all pregnant and postpartum women with known or suspected CVD to undergo further evaluation by a “Pregnancy Heart Team that includes a cardiologist and maternal–fetal medicine subspecialist, or both, and other subspecialists as necessary.” The guidance was issued in Practice Bulletin 212, Pregnancy and Heart Disease, which is published in the May edition of Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-e356).
In all, 27 specific recommendations and conclusions relating to screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women during the prepregnancy period through the postpartum period are included in the guidance.
ACOG president Lisa Hollier, MD, convened the task force that developed this guidance to address cardiac contributors to maternal mortality, she said during a press briefing at the ACOG annual clinical and scientific meeting.
“When I began my presidency a year ago, my goal was to bring together a multidisciplinary group of clinicians ... to create clinical guidance that would make a difference in the lives of women," said Dr. Hollier, who is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Part of her presidential initiative was centered on eliminating preventable maternal death, and this guidance has the potential to make strides toward that goal, she said. When it comes to CVD in pregnancy, “there is so much we can do to prevent negative outcomes and ensure that moms go home with their babies and are around to see them grow up,” she noted.
CVD is the leading cause of death in pregnant women and women in the postpartum period, accounting for 26.5% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths.
“It’s critical that we as physicians and health care professionals develop expertise in recognizing the signs and symptoms so that we can save women’s lives,” she said in the press breifing. Dr. Hollier also implored her colleagues to “start using this guidance immediately and prevent more women from dying from cardiovascular complications of pregnancy.”
In this video interview, Dr. Hollier further explains the need for the guidance and its potential for improving maternal mortality rates.
Dr. Hollier reported having no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Hollier L et al., Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;133[5]:e320-56.
REPORTING FROM ACOG 2019
Myc signaling, monocytes predict NSCLC response to second-line entinostat + pembro
ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.
Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.
“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”
Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.
The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.
ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.
Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.
The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.
“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.
The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”
Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.
SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.
ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.
Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.
“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”
Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.
The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.
ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.
Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.
The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.
“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.
The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”
Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.
SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.
ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.
Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.
“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”
Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.
The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.
ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.
Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.
The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.
“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.
The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”
Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.
SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019
SRA737 + anti–PD-L1 therapy and low-dose gemcitabine shows early promise for SCLC
ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.
The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.
The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.
She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.
PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.
“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.
Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.
The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.
To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.
Again, none of the agents worked on their own.
“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”
“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.
Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.
“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”
Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.
“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.
“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.
“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.
Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.
ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.
The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.
The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.
She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.
PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.
“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.
Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.
The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.
To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.
Again, none of the agents worked on their own.
“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”
“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.
Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.
“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”
Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.
“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.
“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.
“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.
Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.
ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.
The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.
The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.
She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.
PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.
“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.
Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.
The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.
To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.
Again, none of the agents worked on their own.
“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”
“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.
Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.
“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”
Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.
“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.
“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.
“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.
Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019
MYSTIC trial: bTMB correlates with tTMB, predicts survival in mNSCLC
ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.
Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).
Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.
“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.
Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).
“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.
Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.
The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”
The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).
Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.
“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.
Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.
“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.
Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).
No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.
“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.
MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.
Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).
Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.
“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.
Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).
“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.
Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.
The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”
The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).
Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.
“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.
Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.
“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.
Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).
No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.
“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.
MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.
Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).
Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.
“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.
Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).
“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.
Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.
The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”
The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).
Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.
“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.
Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.
“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.
Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).
No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.
“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.
MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019
Factors emerge for mitigating CD19 CAR T toxicity
HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.
These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.
In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).
However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.
Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).
ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.
Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.
In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.
Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.
“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.
Neurotoxicity
In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).
Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.
Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.
“Endothelial cells and pericytes contribute to the integrity of the blood-brain barrier; this suggests a potential role for IL-6 and vascular endothelial growth factor from pericytes to augment endothelial permeability,” Dr. Turtle said.
CRS
In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).
Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.
Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
Potential modifications
The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.
Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.
“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.
Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”
One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.
Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.
Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.
A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.
“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”
Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.
HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.
These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.
In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).
However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.
Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).
ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.
Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.
In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.
Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.
“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.
Neurotoxicity
In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).
Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.
Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.
“Endothelial cells and pericytes contribute to the integrity of the blood-brain barrier; this suggests a potential role for IL-6 and vascular endothelial growth factor from pericytes to augment endothelial permeability,” Dr. Turtle said.
CRS
In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).
Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.
Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
Potential modifications
The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.
Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.
“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.
Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”
One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.
Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.
Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.
A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.
“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”
Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.
HOUSTON – Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity frequently occur with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, but targetable factors for mitigating the risk and effects of these complications are emerging, according to Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD.
These factors include infused CAR T-cell dose, bone marrow disease burden, immune response, and the lymphodepletion regimen used, Dr. Turtle, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings. This list is based on an analysis of several studies that included a total of 195 patients with B-cell malignancies who were treated with defined-composition CD19 CAR T cells.
In a 2016 study included in the analysis, for instance, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues found that CD19 CAR T cells administered to adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after lymphodepletion chemotherapy were “remarkably potent.” Remission was achieved in 27 of 29 patients (J Clin Invest. 2016 Jun 1;126[6]:2123-38).
However, the study also established that high CAR T-cell doses and tumor burden increased the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle said at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
“Importantly, we identified serum biomarkers that allow testing of early intervention strategies in the patients who have the highest risk of toxicity,” he said.
Dr. Turtle explained that significantly higher peak interleuken-6 (IL-6) and interferon (IFN)-gamma levels were seen after CAR T-cell infusion in patients with high bone marrow tumor burden and in patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU).
ICU care correlated with a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts before lymphodepletion chemotherapy, he added.
Elevations of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin also correlated with bone marrow disease burden and with the occurrence of severe CRS requiring ICU care, he said, noting that ferritin and CRP levels declined after tocilizumab or corticosteroid therapy.
In addition, all patients in the study who developed neurotoxicity had evidence of CRS. Peak levels of IL-6, IFN-gamma, ferritin, and CRP were significantly higher in those who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity. Further, serum IL-6 and IFN-gamma concentrations on day 1 after infusion were significantly higher in those who required ICU care and in those who subsequently developed grade 4 neurotoxicity than in patients who developed grade 3 neurotoxicity.
Multivariate analysis indicated that serum IL-6 concentration of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 and the total number of CD19+ cells in bone marrow before therapy were independent predictors of subsequent development of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Notably, serum IL-6 of more than 30 pg/mL on day 1 identified all patients in the study who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity, Dr. Turtle and his colleagues noted.
“The findings suggested that evaluation of serum IL-6 concentration early after CAR T-cell infusion might be useful for identifying patients at high risk of severe neurotoxicity and to evaluate early intervention approaches,” he said.
Neurotoxicity
In a 2017 study from Juliane Gust, MD, PhD, and her colleagues, bone marrow disease burden, lymphodepletion regimen, and CAR T-cell dose were found to be significantly associated with neurotoxicity during multivariate analysis (Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7[12]:1404-19).
Patients with severe neurotoxicity in that study demonstrated evidence of endothelial activation, including disseminated intravascular coagulation, capillary leak, and increased blood-brain barrier permeability – with the latter leading to a failure to protect the cerebrospinal fluid from high concentrations of systemic cytokines, including IFN-gamma. These high levels of cytokines may cause vascular pericyte activation and stress, Dr. Turtle explained.
Patients who subsequently developed grade 4 or higher neurotoxicity had higher pretreatment levels of endothelial activation biomarkers.
“Endothelial cells and pericytes contribute to the integrity of the blood-brain barrier; this suggests a potential role for IL-6 and vascular endothelial growth factor from pericytes to augment endothelial permeability,” Dr. Turtle said.
CRS
In another 2017 study, from Kevin A. Hay, MD, and his colleagues, similar factors were found to be associated with CRS (Blood. 2017 Nov 23;130[21]:2295-306).
Multivariable analysis identified high marrow tumor burden, lymphodepletion using cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, higher CAR T-cell dose, thrombocytopenia before lymphodepletion, and manufacturing of CAR T cells without selection of CD8+ central memory T cells as independent predictors of CRS.
Severe CRS was characterized by hemodynamic instability, capillary leak, and consumptive coagulopathy. As in the study by Dr. Gust and her colleagues, biomarkers of endothelial activation, including angiopoietin-2 and von Willebrand factor, were increased during severe CRS and before lymphodepletion in patients who subsequently developed CRS.
Potential modifications
The findings to date suggest that risk stratification, prophylaxis, early intervention and therapeutic intervention are among potential strategies for mitigating the risk of CD19-directed CAR T toxicity, Dr. Turtle said. Steroids, tocilizumab, siltuximab, anakinra, anti-GM-CSF, small molecules, plasma exchange, angiopoietin-1, and hypertransfusion are among candidates under consideration for such interventions, he noted.
Other approaches that have been tested in small studies, and which may reduce toxicity and improve the therapeutic index of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL, include split dosing and risk-adapted dosing.
“These approaches do appear to mitigate toxicity, but larger studies are needed to confirm that treatment efficacy is maintained,” Dr. Turtle said.
Toxicity prediction and early intervention to maintain the CAR T-cell dose while avoiding grade 4 or greater toxicities would be helpful and is within reach, he said, noting that the findings by Dr. Hay and his colleagues led to the development of “day-1 cytokine combination algorithms that predict grade 4-5 CRS and could direct preemptive intervention.”
One algorithm based on three cytokines had high sensitivity and specificity, but would require screening of all patients.
Early intervention in patients in whom toxicity is predicted has not been extensively evaluated in clinical studies, he said.
Dr. Hay and his colleagues did, however, develop a “classification tree model of early intervention strategies” using their findings.
A complicating factor in predicting risk and intervening is that each CAR T-cell product is associated with differing levels of toxicity risk. The varying rates of toxicity suggest that promising approaches for addressing CAR T toxicity require validation for each product with respect to cutpoints, efficacy, and maintenance of response, Dr. Turtle said.
“The findings to date are encouraging and show that potentially targetable factors for mitigating the toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy can be identified,” he said. “But clinical studies have yet to convincingly establish the best approach.”
Dr. Turtle has served on advisory boards for Juno/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Humanigen, and Aptevo; has intellectual property rights licensed to Juno; has stock options with Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences; and has received research funding from Juno and Nektar Therapeutics.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
ENCORE-601: Entinostat/pembrolizumab safe, active for melanoma
ATLANTA – Combined therapy with the class I selective histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat and the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has significant clinical activity and acceptable safety in melanoma patients who progressed on prior PD-1 blockade, according to findings from the open-label ENCORE-601 trial.
Of 53 patients with recurrent or metastatic melanoma who were treated with 5 mg of oral entinostat weekly plus 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 1 had a complete response, and 9 had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 19%, Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The median duration of response at the January 2018 data cut-off was 13 months, and four responders had ongoing responses. An additional nine patients had stable disease for at least 6 months at that time, for a clinical benefit rate of 36%, said Dr. Sullivan of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“At 1 year, 10 patients remained on therapy or in response,” he said, noting that, although one patient had received only a very short course of therapy before developing “significant hepatitis” and coming off therapy, but this patient still had a response at 1 year. Five others also went off therapy and continue to have a response, and four patients remain on active therapy and are being followed, he said.
Study participants are adults with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of less than 2 who were previously treated with a PD-1–blocking antibody and experienced progression on or after therapy. The 23% of patients with a BRAF V600 mutation were required to have received BRAF/MEK therapy, and 70% of patients had received both a prior PD-1 inhibitor and ipilimumab, either in combination or in sequence.
The response rate to prior anti–PD-1 therapy was 13%, which was “much lower than you would imagine in all-comers,” Dr Sullivan said.
Inhibitors of PD-1 and its ligand (PD-L1) have improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but despite the progress, most patients develop resistance and most will still die from metastatic melanoma, he said.
“I think its always important to define what the unmet need is, and here it’s quite clear: Most patients are not receiving ultimate benefit, and as a result we need a better therapeutic approach,” he said, adding that “the front-line treatment setting is a critical place to be in terms of clinical trials ... but the most relevant and most unmet need now is what do we do in patients who have received anti–PD-1 therapy and need something else.”
Addressing the unmet need requires an improved understanding of the mechanisms of resistance and the development of more effective therapies, he said.
Dr. Sullivan and his colleagues previously reported preliminary data from the current cohort showing promising activity with entinostat in combination with pembrolizumab, which was found to alter the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The rationale for using entinostat in this setting relates to its down-regulation of immunosuppressive cell types in the tumor microenvironment and its “quite robust” synergy with PD-1 inhibition as demonstrated in preclinical models, he explained.
Following those initial dose and safety findings, four phase 2 expansion cohorts were opened, including two non–small cell lung cancer cohorts, one mismatched-repair proficient colorectal cancer cohort, and the melanoma cohort. The current report, which focused on the latter, showed that the treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 15% of patients included nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and myelosuppression.
“Six patients discontinued due to related AEs, and importantly, there were only five grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs,” Dr. Sullivan said, adding that these included one case each of immune-related hepatitis, pneumonitis, and colitis and two cases of significant dermatitis.
The findings show that in this group of patients with limited treatment options, entinostat with pembrolizumab is “clearly safe and tolerable,” he said.
Additionally, “very preliminary biomarker analyses” in a small number of patients demonstrated findings consistent with the mechanism of action of entinostat, including a reduction in circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he said.
Dr. Sullivan reported consulting or serving on an advisory board for Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Array, Syndax, Replimmune, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving research sponsorship from Amgen and Merck & Co.
SOURCE: Sullivan R et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT-072.
ATLANTA – Combined therapy with the class I selective histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat and the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has significant clinical activity and acceptable safety in melanoma patients who progressed on prior PD-1 blockade, according to findings from the open-label ENCORE-601 trial.
Of 53 patients with recurrent or metastatic melanoma who were treated with 5 mg of oral entinostat weekly plus 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 1 had a complete response, and 9 had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 19%, Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The median duration of response at the January 2018 data cut-off was 13 months, and four responders had ongoing responses. An additional nine patients had stable disease for at least 6 months at that time, for a clinical benefit rate of 36%, said Dr. Sullivan of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“At 1 year, 10 patients remained on therapy or in response,” he said, noting that, although one patient had received only a very short course of therapy before developing “significant hepatitis” and coming off therapy, but this patient still had a response at 1 year. Five others also went off therapy and continue to have a response, and four patients remain on active therapy and are being followed, he said.
Study participants are adults with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of less than 2 who were previously treated with a PD-1–blocking antibody and experienced progression on or after therapy. The 23% of patients with a BRAF V600 mutation were required to have received BRAF/MEK therapy, and 70% of patients had received both a prior PD-1 inhibitor and ipilimumab, either in combination or in sequence.
The response rate to prior anti–PD-1 therapy was 13%, which was “much lower than you would imagine in all-comers,” Dr Sullivan said.
Inhibitors of PD-1 and its ligand (PD-L1) have improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but despite the progress, most patients develop resistance and most will still die from metastatic melanoma, he said.
“I think its always important to define what the unmet need is, and here it’s quite clear: Most patients are not receiving ultimate benefit, and as a result we need a better therapeutic approach,” he said, adding that “the front-line treatment setting is a critical place to be in terms of clinical trials ... but the most relevant and most unmet need now is what do we do in patients who have received anti–PD-1 therapy and need something else.”
Addressing the unmet need requires an improved understanding of the mechanisms of resistance and the development of more effective therapies, he said.
Dr. Sullivan and his colleagues previously reported preliminary data from the current cohort showing promising activity with entinostat in combination with pembrolizumab, which was found to alter the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The rationale for using entinostat in this setting relates to its down-regulation of immunosuppressive cell types in the tumor microenvironment and its “quite robust” synergy with PD-1 inhibition as demonstrated in preclinical models, he explained.
Following those initial dose and safety findings, four phase 2 expansion cohorts were opened, including two non–small cell lung cancer cohorts, one mismatched-repair proficient colorectal cancer cohort, and the melanoma cohort. The current report, which focused on the latter, showed that the treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 15% of patients included nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and myelosuppression.
“Six patients discontinued due to related AEs, and importantly, there were only five grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs,” Dr. Sullivan said, adding that these included one case each of immune-related hepatitis, pneumonitis, and colitis and two cases of significant dermatitis.
The findings show that in this group of patients with limited treatment options, entinostat with pembrolizumab is “clearly safe and tolerable,” he said.
Additionally, “very preliminary biomarker analyses” in a small number of patients demonstrated findings consistent with the mechanism of action of entinostat, including a reduction in circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he said.
Dr. Sullivan reported consulting or serving on an advisory board for Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Array, Syndax, Replimmune, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving research sponsorship from Amgen and Merck & Co.
SOURCE: Sullivan R et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT-072.
ATLANTA – Combined therapy with the class I selective histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat and the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has significant clinical activity and acceptable safety in melanoma patients who progressed on prior PD-1 blockade, according to findings from the open-label ENCORE-601 trial.
Of 53 patients with recurrent or metastatic melanoma who were treated with 5 mg of oral entinostat weekly plus 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 1 had a complete response, and 9 had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 19%, Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The median duration of response at the January 2018 data cut-off was 13 months, and four responders had ongoing responses. An additional nine patients had stable disease for at least 6 months at that time, for a clinical benefit rate of 36%, said Dr. Sullivan of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“At 1 year, 10 patients remained on therapy or in response,” he said, noting that, although one patient had received only a very short course of therapy before developing “significant hepatitis” and coming off therapy, but this patient still had a response at 1 year. Five others also went off therapy and continue to have a response, and four patients remain on active therapy and are being followed, he said.
Study participants are adults with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of less than 2 who were previously treated with a PD-1–blocking antibody and experienced progression on or after therapy. The 23% of patients with a BRAF V600 mutation were required to have received BRAF/MEK therapy, and 70% of patients had received both a prior PD-1 inhibitor and ipilimumab, either in combination or in sequence.
The response rate to prior anti–PD-1 therapy was 13%, which was “much lower than you would imagine in all-comers,” Dr Sullivan said.
Inhibitors of PD-1 and its ligand (PD-L1) have improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but despite the progress, most patients develop resistance and most will still die from metastatic melanoma, he said.
“I think its always important to define what the unmet need is, and here it’s quite clear: Most patients are not receiving ultimate benefit, and as a result we need a better therapeutic approach,” he said, adding that “the front-line treatment setting is a critical place to be in terms of clinical trials ... but the most relevant and most unmet need now is what do we do in patients who have received anti–PD-1 therapy and need something else.”
Addressing the unmet need requires an improved understanding of the mechanisms of resistance and the development of more effective therapies, he said.
Dr. Sullivan and his colleagues previously reported preliminary data from the current cohort showing promising activity with entinostat in combination with pembrolizumab, which was found to alter the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The rationale for using entinostat in this setting relates to its down-regulation of immunosuppressive cell types in the tumor microenvironment and its “quite robust” synergy with PD-1 inhibition as demonstrated in preclinical models, he explained.
Following those initial dose and safety findings, four phase 2 expansion cohorts were opened, including two non–small cell lung cancer cohorts, one mismatched-repair proficient colorectal cancer cohort, and the melanoma cohort. The current report, which focused on the latter, showed that the treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 15% of patients included nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and myelosuppression.
“Six patients discontinued due to related AEs, and importantly, there were only five grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs,” Dr. Sullivan said, adding that these included one case each of immune-related hepatitis, pneumonitis, and colitis and two cases of significant dermatitis.
The findings show that in this group of patients with limited treatment options, entinostat with pembrolizumab is “clearly safe and tolerable,” he said.
Additionally, “very preliminary biomarker analyses” in a small number of patients demonstrated findings consistent with the mechanism of action of entinostat, including a reduction in circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he said.
Dr. Sullivan reported consulting or serving on an advisory board for Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Array, Syndax, Replimmune, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving research sponsorship from Amgen and Merck & Co.
SOURCE: Sullivan R et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT-072.
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019
Novel CAR T, anti-PD-1 combo shows promise in MPD
ATLANTA – Intrapleurally administered, mesothelin-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibition showed CAR T-cell antitumor activity without toxicity in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with malignant pleural disease.
The findings are encouraging, particularly given the aggressive nature of such tumors and the poor prognosis associated with mesothelin – a cell-surface antigen expressed on them, Prasad S. Adusumilli, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
In 21 patients, including 19 with malignant pleural mesothelioma and 1 each with metastatic lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, a single dose of a second-generation, CD28-costimulated mesothelin CAR T-cell therapy (iCasM28z) was administered intrapleurally either with or without cyclophosphamide preconditioning.
Antitumor activity, as evidenced by the presence of CAR T cells in the blood for several months, was noted in 13 patients, and the presence of the cells was associated with a reduction in a mesothelin-related peptide in the blood, as well as with evidence of tumor regression on imaging studies, said Dr. Adusumilli, deputy chief of the thoracic service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and lead study author.
Intense clinical, laboratory, and radiological monitoring along with electrocardiography showed no evidence of toxicity.
“Most importantly, the neurotoxicity, serious cytokine release syndrome, and on-target off-target tumor toxicity that has been seen in other CAR T-cell trials, we did not notice in our trial,” he said.
Additionally, one patient successfully underwent curative-intent surgical resection 6 weeks after CAR T-cell infusion, followed by radiation therapy to the chest, said Dr. Adusumilli, who also is director of the mesothelioma program and head of solid tumor cell therapy at the at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cellular Therapeutic Center.
That patient is doing well at 20 months without further treatment, he noted.
Of a subset of 14 patients who received off-protocol anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade once lack of toxicity was established for the CAR T-cell therapy, 2 achieved a complete metabolic response at 38 and 60 weeks following checkpoint blockade, 5 had a partial response, and 4 had stable disease.
The anti-PD-1 therapy was initiated in those patients based on prior preclinical data, showing that CAR T cells can become functionally exhausted in large tumors and that anti-PD-1 therapy can reactivate the exhausted cells and eradicate the tumors, he explained.
The findings are notable because malignant pleural disease from primary malignant pleural mesothelioma or secondary metastatic disease affects more than 150,000 patients a year in the United States alone, and effective therapies are lacking.
“[Our finding] strongly supports pursuing a CAR T-cell therapy combined with anti-PD-1 strategies is in solid tumors,” Dr. Adusumilli said, adding that such a trial is being planned for 2019, and another, with CAR T-cell intrinsic PD-1 dominant negative receptor (a decoy receptor) is planned for 2020.
Press briefing moderator Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings represent “potentially the most compelling CAR T data that we’ve ever seen in solid tumors at this point,” and noted that a “vast number of patients” could potentially benefit from the approach.
Dr. Adusumilli agreed, suggesting that, with a system of regional factories and distribution centers and development of “some clever strategies,” it is possible the technology and treatment approach could be scaled up to the level necessary to help increasing numbers of patients.
Dr. Adusumilli reported receiving federal grant support from the National Cancer Institute and Department of Defense; peer-reviewed grant support from the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, Experimental Therapeutics Center, Baker Street Foundation, Batishwa Fellowship, Dallepezze Foundation, Derfner Foundation, Emerson Collective Foundation, and MSK Technology Development Fund; and research grant support from OSE Immunotherapeutics, ACEA Biosciences, and Atara Biotherapeutics. He also has a licensing/royalty agreement for Mesothelin CAR and PD-1 DNR (licensed to Atara Biotherapeutics).
SOURCE: Adusumilli PS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT036.
ATLANTA – Intrapleurally administered, mesothelin-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibition showed CAR T-cell antitumor activity without toxicity in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with malignant pleural disease.
The findings are encouraging, particularly given the aggressive nature of such tumors and the poor prognosis associated with mesothelin – a cell-surface antigen expressed on them, Prasad S. Adusumilli, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
In 21 patients, including 19 with malignant pleural mesothelioma and 1 each with metastatic lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, a single dose of a second-generation, CD28-costimulated mesothelin CAR T-cell therapy (iCasM28z) was administered intrapleurally either with or without cyclophosphamide preconditioning.
Antitumor activity, as evidenced by the presence of CAR T cells in the blood for several months, was noted in 13 patients, and the presence of the cells was associated with a reduction in a mesothelin-related peptide in the blood, as well as with evidence of tumor regression on imaging studies, said Dr. Adusumilli, deputy chief of the thoracic service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and lead study author.
Intense clinical, laboratory, and radiological monitoring along with electrocardiography showed no evidence of toxicity.
“Most importantly, the neurotoxicity, serious cytokine release syndrome, and on-target off-target tumor toxicity that has been seen in other CAR T-cell trials, we did not notice in our trial,” he said.
Additionally, one patient successfully underwent curative-intent surgical resection 6 weeks after CAR T-cell infusion, followed by radiation therapy to the chest, said Dr. Adusumilli, who also is director of the mesothelioma program and head of solid tumor cell therapy at the at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cellular Therapeutic Center.
That patient is doing well at 20 months without further treatment, he noted.
Of a subset of 14 patients who received off-protocol anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade once lack of toxicity was established for the CAR T-cell therapy, 2 achieved a complete metabolic response at 38 and 60 weeks following checkpoint blockade, 5 had a partial response, and 4 had stable disease.
The anti-PD-1 therapy was initiated in those patients based on prior preclinical data, showing that CAR T cells can become functionally exhausted in large tumors and that anti-PD-1 therapy can reactivate the exhausted cells and eradicate the tumors, he explained.
The findings are notable because malignant pleural disease from primary malignant pleural mesothelioma or secondary metastatic disease affects more than 150,000 patients a year in the United States alone, and effective therapies are lacking.
“[Our finding] strongly supports pursuing a CAR T-cell therapy combined with anti-PD-1 strategies is in solid tumors,” Dr. Adusumilli said, adding that such a trial is being planned for 2019, and another, with CAR T-cell intrinsic PD-1 dominant negative receptor (a decoy receptor) is planned for 2020.
Press briefing moderator Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings represent “potentially the most compelling CAR T data that we’ve ever seen in solid tumors at this point,” and noted that a “vast number of patients” could potentially benefit from the approach.
Dr. Adusumilli agreed, suggesting that, with a system of regional factories and distribution centers and development of “some clever strategies,” it is possible the technology and treatment approach could be scaled up to the level necessary to help increasing numbers of patients.
Dr. Adusumilli reported receiving federal grant support from the National Cancer Institute and Department of Defense; peer-reviewed grant support from the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, Experimental Therapeutics Center, Baker Street Foundation, Batishwa Fellowship, Dallepezze Foundation, Derfner Foundation, Emerson Collective Foundation, and MSK Technology Development Fund; and research grant support from OSE Immunotherapeutics, ACEA Biosciences, and Atara Biotherapeutics. He also has a licensing/royalty agreement for Mesothelin CAR and PD-1 DNR (licensed to Atara Biotherapeutics).
SOURCE: Adusumilli PS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT036.
ATLANTA – Intrapleurally administered, mesothelin-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibition showed CAR T-cell antitumor activity without toxicity in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with malignant pleural disease.
The findings are encouraging, particularly given the aggressive nature of such tumors and the poor prognosis associated with mesothelin – a cell-surface antigen expressed on them, Prasad S. Adusumilli, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
In 21 patients, including 19 with malignant pleural mesothelioma and 1 each with metastatic lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, a single dose of a second-generation, CD28-costimulated mesothelin CAR T-cell therapy (iCasM28z) was administered intrapleurally either with or without cyclophosphamide preconditioning.
Antitumor activity, as evidenced by the presence of CAR T cells in the blood for several months, was noted in 13 patients, and the presence of the cells was associated with a reduction in a mesothelin-related peptide in the blood, as well as with evidence of tumor regression on imaging studies, said Dr. Adusumilli, deputy chief of the thoracic service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and lead study author.
Intense clinical, laboratory, and radiological monitoring along with electrocardiography showed no evidence of toxicity.
“Most importantly, the neurotoxicity, serious cytokine release syndrome, and on-target off-target tumor toxicity that has been seen in other CAR T-cell trials, we did not notice in our trial,” he said.
Additionally, one patient successfully underwent curative-intent surgical resection 6 weeks after CAR T-cell infusion, followed by radiation therapy to the chest, said Dr. Adusumilli, who also is director of the mesothelioma program and head of solid tumor cell therapy at the at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cellular Therapeutic Center.
That patient is doing well at 20 months without further treatment, he noted.
Of a subset of 14 patients who received off-protocol anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade once lack of toxicity was established for the CAR T-cell therapy, 2 achieved a complete metabolic response at 38 and 60 weeks following checkpoint blockade, 5 had a partial response, and 4 had stable disease.
The anti-PD-1 therapy was initiated in those patients based on prior preclinical data, showing that CAR T cells can become functionally exhausted in large tumors and that anti-PD-1 therapy can reactivate the exhausted cells and eradicate the tumors, he explained.
The findings are notable because malignant pleural disease from primary malignant pleural mesothelioma or secondary metastatic disease affects more than 150,000 patients a year in the United States alone, and effective therapies are lacking.
“[Our finding] strongly supports pursuing a CAR T-cell therapy combined with anti-PD-1 strategies is in solid tumors,” Dr. Adusumilli said, adding that such a trial is being planned for 2019, and another, with CAR T-cell intrinsic PD-1 dominant negative receptor (a decoy receptor) is planned for 2020.
Press briefing moderator Nilofer S. Azad, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings represent “potentially the most compelling CAR T data that we’ve ever seen in solid tumors at this point,” and noted that a “vast number of patients” could potentially benefit from the approach.
Dr. Adusumilli agreed, suggesting that, with a system of regional factories and distribution centers and development of “some clever strategies,” it is possible the technology and treatment approach could be scaled up to the level necessary to help increasing numbers of patients.
Dr. Adusumilli reported receiving federal grant support from the National Cancer Institute and Department of Defense; peer-reviewed grant support from the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, Experimental Therapeutics Center, Baker Street Foundation, Batishwa Fellowship, Dallepezze Foundation, Derfner Foundation, Emerson Collective Foundation, and MSK Technology Development Fund; and research grant support from OSE Immunotherapeutics, ACEA Biosciences, and Atara Biotherapeutics. He also has a licensing/royalty agreement for Mesothelin CAR and PD-1 DNR (licensed to Atara Biotherapeutics).
SOURCE: Adusumilli PS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT036.
REPORTING FROM AACR 2019