DLBCL

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL), the addition of tafasitamab to a standard 2-drug combination of lenalidomide and rituximab (len+R) significantly improves progression-free survival, with no increases in safety events.

“This study is the first to validate combining two monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the treatment of lymphoma,” said first author Laurie H. Sehn, MD, MPH, a clinical professor with the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard-of-care option for patients with R/R follicular lymphoma,” she noted.

The results are from the international, phase 3 inMIND multicenter trial involving 548 patients with R/R FL, with a median age of 64. Of the patients, 45% had been treated with two or more prior lines of therapy.

At a median follow up of 14.1 months, those randomized to treatment with tafasitamab and len+R (n = 273) had a significantly lower risk for progression, relapse, or death than those receiving the double therapy with placebo (n = 275), with a median progression-free survival of 22.4 months vs 13.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < .0001).

Improved progression-free survival was observed across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with disease progression within 24 months, those who were refractory to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and who received multiple prior lines of therapy.

“Although this study was not powered for individual subgroups, it is clear that there’s a significant benefit of tafasitamab in all subgroups regardless of status of [disease progression within 24 months] and regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” Sehn noted.

FL, the most common, indolent form of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), is commonly treated with frontline therapy of chemoimmunotherapy; however, response durations begin to dwindle after successive lines of treatment.

Lenalidomide and rituximab are approved and commonly used in the treatment of FL after more than one prior line of treatment.

With tafasitamab, which is administered intravenously, already having been approved for use in combination with lenalidomide in the treatment of R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, based on results of the previous L-MIND study, Sehn and colleagues investigated its benefits in FL or marginal zone NHL.

Of the patients included in the trial, 55% were men and 79% had intermediate or high-risk FLIPI scores, referring to the FL International Prognostic Index, a scoring system used for predicting prognoses of patients with FL.

Treatment in the study consisted of 12 mg/kg intravenous tafasitamab or placebo on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles 1-3 and days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12, with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12 cycles of 28 days each. 

In terms of the data cutoff, patients in the tafasitamab arm received a median of 12 cycles of treatment vs 11 cycles for placebo, and 19% and 15% were still on treatment, respectively, at the cut-off. 

Of the patients, 81% and 84%, respectively, had discontinued treatment primarily because of treatment completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%). 

In addition to the progression-free survival primary endpoint, the tafasitamab arm also had a higher rate of complete response (CR) on PET (49.4% vs 39.8%; P = .029) and higher overall response rate (83.5% vs 72.4%; P = .0014) than the placebo arm. 

The duration of response was also higher with tafasitamab (median, 21.2 months vs 13.6 months; HR, 0.47; P < .0001).

Overall survival data, though immature, also favored tafasitamab (HR, 0.59). 

The two arms had similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar toxicity profiles and no new significant safety signals related to tafasitamab. The rates of discontinuations and dose reductions were similar, with a median dose intensity of 86% with tafasitamab vs 87%.

The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar between the tafasitamab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (40% vs 38%, respectively), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). 

“Importantly, the addition of tafasitamab did not impede the delivery of lenalidomide and rituximab, with similar observed dose discontinuations or interruptions in both cohorts,” Sehn said.

“The inMIND phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival with the addition of tafasitamab to lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma, representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death,” Sehn said.

Commenting on the study, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, an associate professor of medicine, Division of Hematology in the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, said the findings are notable in that “this is the first time two monoclonal antibodies have been tested in follicular lymphoma.”

“The study demonstrates that simultaneously targeting CD19 and CD20 improves outcomes,” he said in an interview.

Alderuccio noted the key caveats include that “PET/CT complete response correlates well with survival in follicular lymphoma. In this study, the PET/CT CR rate was 49.4%, underscoring the need for longer follow-ups to better assess those responses’ durability.”

“Another caveat of this regimen is the treatment schedule, which requires weekly tafasitamab infusions during cycles 1-3 and every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. This is associated with rituximab and lenalidomide administration,” he said.

Ultimately, “the results underscore the potential of tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab to become a new treatment option in the second-line or later follicular lymphoma.”

“However, I would like to see more follow-up data before considering it a new standard of care,” he cautioned.

The study was funded by Incyte. Sehn reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, and Merck. Alderuccio disclosed relationships with Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continue to show superior progression-free survival at 5 years with first-line pola-R-CHP, compared with the R-CHOP regimen, according to updated results of the phase 3 POLARIX study.

These findings “confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL,” said lead investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, who presented the extended results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Pola-R-CHP is a modified version of the R-CHOP regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in which vincristine is replaced with polatuzumab vedotin. The modified regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2023 on the basis of 2-year results from the same study.

In POLARIX, researchers randomized 879 previously untreated adult patients with CD20-positive DLBCL (median age, 66 years) to six to eight 21-day cycles of treatment with either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included complete remission and overall survival.

The initial 2-year results — progression-free survival of 76.7% for pola-R-CHP vs 70.2% for R-CHOP — “were the first in 20 years” showing benefits for patients with DLBCL, said Salles, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

In the current analysis, there were 879 patients in the global intention-to-treat population — 440 who received pola-R-CHP and 439 who received R-CHOP — and 873 in the safety analysis.

At the 5-year follow-up, Salles and colleagues observed a sustained and significant progression-free survival benefit in patients treated with pola-R-CHP, compared with those who received R-CHOP (64.9% vs 59.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77).

Patients receiving the modified regimen also demonstrated significantly higher rates of complete remission at 5 years (71.8% vs 66.5%; HR, 0.75). These data tell us that for patients who reach complete remission at the end of treatment, the vast majority are still in remission at 5 years, said Salles.

For patients who did progress, those treated with pola-R-CHP had fewer subsequent therapies than those treated with R-CHOP. This included radiotherapy (9.5% vs 14.1%), systemic therapy (20.0% vs 28.2%), platinum-based therapy (9.8% vs 15.5%), stem cell transplant (5.0% vs 8.4%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (2.3% vs 4.1%), and bispecifics (1.4% vs 2.1%).

The 5-year overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was numerically better but not significantly so among patients treated with pola-R-CHP (82.3% vs 79.5%; HR, 0.85).

In a competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related deaths at 5 years was 9.1% with pola-R-CHP vs 12.2% with R-CHOP. The probability of non-lymphoma–related deaths, including death due to study treatment, was similar between the two groups at 5 years — 8.56% with pola-R-CHP vs 8.93% with R-CHOP.

An exploratory analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in subgroups of the patient population, including those with high-risk disease, showed a trend in favor of pola-R-CHP in almost all cases, but Salles warned that the analysis was underpowered.

“I think that interpreting this data to decide the care of the patient should be done very cautiously,” he said.

The researchers did not observe any new safety signals, with pola-R-CHP continuing to show a favorable benefit-risk profile. Looking at adverse events of all grades, Salles noted slightly less peripheral neuropathy with pola-R-CHP (50.3% vs 52.4%), slightly more infection (47.9% vs 44.0%), as well as a favorable trend for pola-R-CHP regarding cardiac arrhythmia (3.6% vs 5.2%) and carcinogenicity (1.0% vs 2.4%), and “very slight and tiny differences” in neutropenia (48.5% vs 45.8%), anemia (33.3% vs 30.1%), and thrombocytopenia (18.0% vs 17.3%).

While the researchers concluded that the study findings confirm pola-R-CHP as the standard of care for patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, Ajay Major, MD, had some reservations.

The results confirm “a small but significant benefit” in progression-free survival and no significant difference in overall survival, but there is some question as to whether pola-R-CHP is appropriate for all-comers with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL, noted Major, a lymphoma specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, who was not involved in this analysis.

“The subgroup analysis in POLARIX for efficacy of pola-R-CHP based on cell of origin is not adequately powered, and further dedicated on this question studies are needed,” Major said in an interview.

One study presented at the meeting by Major’s group concluded that cell of origin is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, while another analysis of POLARIX showed progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of pola-R-CHP over R-CHOP in patients with the activated B-cell subtype of DLBCL but not those with the germinal center B-cell subtype, Major noted.

“I think many oncologists will extrapolate from these other data sources and preferentially use pola-R-CHP in patients with activated B-cell or non-germinal center DLBCL,” he predicted.

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech. Salles reported disclosures with the following companies: BeiGene (consultancy), AbbVie (consultancy, research funding), Genentech/Roche (consultancy, research funding), Incyte (consultancy), and BMS/Celgene (consultancy), among others. Major reported conflicts of interest with Roche/Genentech (consultancy), GSK (research funding), and Incyte (research funding).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Single-agent epcoritamab demonstrated deep and durable responses in chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)–naïve patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) in a subgroup analysis of the pivotal phase 2 Epcore NHL-1 trial.

These findings show that epcoritamab — a bispecific antibody therapy available off the shelf and shown in the overall R/R LBCL population in Epcore NHL-1 to be effective following CAR T–cell therapy — can also be administered safely and effectively before CAR T in patients with R/R LBCL.

This is of particular note for patients who may be ineligible for CAR T or whose access to CAR T is limited, first author Yasmin H. Karimi, MD, said in an interview during a poster presentation at the annual American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. 

With over 3 years of follow-up, epcoritamab monotherapy was associated with an overall response rate and complete response rate of 61% and 45%, respectively, in 96 CAR T-naive patients, and side effects were manageable, said Karimi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

In Epcore NHL-1, epcoritamab — a CD3xCD20 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody — led to deep and durable responses with manageable toxicity in the patients with R/R LBCL including both CAR T–treated and CAR T–naive patients. The agent was subsequently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL and follicular lymphoma after at least two prior lines of therapy. Among those who had received CAR T–cell therapy, the ORR/CR rates were 54% and 34%, according to results reported at ASH 2022.

Patients included in the trial were adults with R/R CD20 LBCL, including diffuse LBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma with at least two prior lines of systemic antilymphoma therapy. They were treated with two step-up doses of epcoritamab followed by 48-mg full doses in 28-day cycles, including weekly treatment for cycles 1-3, biweekly treatment for cycles 4-9, and treatment every 4 weeks for cycle 10 and any subsequent cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the current subgroup analysis of 96 CAR T–naive patients, median duration of response was 18.4 months, median duration of complete response was 28.6 months, and an estimated 46% of patients remained in complete response at 36 months, Karimi said.

Median progression-free survival duration was 4.3 months overall and 33.3 months among complete responders. Median overall survival was 15.4 months and was not reached in complete responders.

At 3 years, an estimated 40% of patients overall and 83% of complete responders had not initiated any other antilymphoma therapy, and of the 35 who received subsequent antilymphoma therapy, 10 (29%) received CAR T. Six of the 10 were alive at data cutoff, and 33 of 74 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) were MRD-negative.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 60% of patients, diarrhea in 24%, pyrexia in 23%, fatigue in 22%, neutropenia in 22%, and injection-site reaction in 21%. 

Fatal reactions occurred in 18 patients. Of these, nine were related to COVID-19 infection. CRS events were mostly of grade 1 or 2; 4% were of grade 3. CRS occurred most often following cycle 1 and resolved in all but two patients. ICANS occurred in seven patients, clinical tumor lysis syndrome occurred in two patients, and immunoglobulin G levels decreased by a median of about 20% after the story of treatment and remained stable over time, Karimi noted.

“These findings show that epcoritamab can be administered safely and effectively in CAR T–naive or CAR T–exposed patients with R/R LBCL,” she said.

Karimi reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Lily/Loxo, Merck, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Xencor, and Roche/Genentech. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with clinical trials, a real-world retrospective analysis has linked the bispecific antibodies epcoritamab (Epkinly) and glofitamab (Columvi) to somewhat poorer outcomes in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

In a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, researchers reported that of 172 patients treated with the drugs who had evaluable responses over a median follow-up of 5 months, median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-3.9) and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.1–not reached). 

It’s important to consider the real-world nature of the study’s patient population, said first author Taylor R. Brooks, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, in an interview. “Compared to pivotal trials, our cohort was enriched for patients with high-risk features, with almost three quarters having some comorbidity that would’ve excluded them from one of the [earlier] studies.”

He added that “though individuals eligible to receive these medicines may be more sick with high-risk disease, a sizable fraction will respond, and some will maintain remissions.’”

According to Brooks, about one third of patients with diffuse LBCL relapse after standard front-line R-CHOP therapy. “The prognosis is poor for patients who are not candidates for aggressive salvage chemotherapy and for those who relapse after two or more lines,” Brooks said. “T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies have emerged as a promising option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, given their favorable rates and duration of responses as well as their manageable rates of toxicities.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for epcoritamab and glofitamab in 2023. 

“With increasing uptake into clinical practice following the FDA approvals, there is increasing interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of these drugs in real-world, nontrial settings,” Brooks said. “The goal of our study was to investigate outcomes and identify clinical factors associated with outcomes.”

The multicenter, retrospective, observational REALBiTE study tracked 209 patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse LBCL at 19 US centers (epcoritamab, n = 139; glofitamab, n = 70; median age at start of treatment, 67 years [58-76]; 62.2% male; 74.2% diffuse LBCL). The median number of lines of therapy was three (range, 1-12).

“Patients who received epcoritamab tended to be slightly older, were more likely to have a history of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma prior to their diagnosis of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and were more likely to have an elevated International Prognostic Index score at the start of bispecific therapy, suggesting that these patients may have been slightly older with higher-risk disease compared to those who received glofitamab,” Brooks said.

In total, 172 patients were response-evaluable. The overall response rate was 50.6% (complete response, 23.8%; partial response, 26.7%; stable disease, 5.8%; progressive disease, 43.6%). 

The overall and complete response rates were “somewhat lower that what has been published in the pivotal trials of these medicines,” Brooks said. The low progression-free and overall survival rates “highlight the difficulty in managing this group of patients.” 

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade occurred in 39.2% of patients: 51% in the epcoritamab group and 28.6% in the glofitamab group. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 4.3% of patients, who were all taking epcoritamab.

“For epcoritamab, CRS was almost entirely of low grade, and most CRS events occurred around administration of the first full dose of the drug on day 15,” Brooks said. “Similarly, the CRS events for glofitamab were mostly of low grade, though events were observed to occur throughout the step-up dosing. Tocilizumab was administered in about one fifth of the patients.”

In addition, Brooks said, “we found that, among the 19 individuals with paired biopsy samples before and after bispecific therapy, nearly all — 89% — were found to have lost CD20 expression. We expected some patients to experience loss of this important target, but the rate at which we found this to be the case was surprisingly high.”

Brooks added that “clinicians should be acquainted with CRS, ICANS [immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome], and mitigation strategies if they are prescribing these medicines. Appropriate and timely management using tocilizumab, steroids, and other adjunctive measures can effectively manage these complications and hopefully allow for the continued delivery of therapy.”

In an interview, Matthew Lunning, DO, associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, who didn’t take part in the new study, said the findings aren’t bad news. Instead, they’re “practical news,” because they offer insight into how the drugs work. 

“The big lesson from this and other trials is the importance of assessing for CD20 expression prior to taking a bispecific off the shelf, “ he said. “These are learnings that often come after approval.” 

He added that it’s clear that, “in more heavily pretreated patients, more disease led to less optimal results and higher risk for toxicities.”

Lunning also noted that both epcoritamab and glofitamab “entered into a crowded and chaotic relapsed/refractory LBCL space based high complete response rates with the opportunity for durability in those complete responses.” 

Academic institutions were especially interested, as they can manage CRS and ICANS, but “significantly less enthusiasm has been seen in community practices that expect CRS/ICANS to be in the rear-view mirror if they are going to deliver any bispecific,” he said. “It is not that they don’t have the clinical acumen to manage CRS/ICANS. I believe it is the perception of the lack of supportive infrastructure necessary to manage these toxicities.”

There was no study funding. Brooks has reported no disclosures. Other authors have reported various disclosures including relationships with Novartis, AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab, Biogen, Amgen, and others. Lunning has disclosed ties with AbbVie, Genmab, Kite, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and ADC Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.