Immuno-oncology

HONOLULU – Combining avelumab with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) may provide a survival benefit in certain patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer, a phase 3 trial suggests.

In the overall study population, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were not significantly different for patients who received avelumab plus PLD and those who received avelumab or PLD alone.

However, some subgroups did experience survival benefits with the combination, including patients who were positive for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) and those who had received two or three prior lines of therapy.

Eric Pujade-Lauraine, MD, PhD, of ARCAGY-GINECO in Paris, presented these results from the JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

The trial enrolled 566 patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. They were not preselected for PD-L1 expression.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 188), avelumab plus PLD at 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (n = 188), or PLD (n = 190).

Baseline characteristics were similar across the treatment arms. The median age was 61 in the avelumab arm and 60 in the other two arms (range, 26-86 years). In each arm, about 37% of patients had bulky disease, and all but two patients (both in the avelumab arm) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Nearly half of patients had received one line of prior therapy, and the rest had received two or three prior lines of therapy. About 75% of patients had platinum-resistant disease, and 25% were platinum refractory.

The median duration of study treatment was 10.1 weeks in the avelumab arm and 16.0 weeks in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) arm. In the combination arm, the median treatment duration was 16.9 weeks for avelumab and 16.3 weeks for PLD. In each arm, the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression.

Safety

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said no new safety signals were observed with avelumab alone or in combination.

Serious treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 7.5% of patients in the avelumab arm, 17.6% of patients in the combination arm, and 10.7% of patients in the PLD arm. Discontinuation because of a treatment-related AE occurred in 6.4%, 4.4%, and 7.3% of patients, respectively.

There was one treatment-related AE leading to death in the avelumab arm and one in the PLD arm.

AEs that were more common in the combination arm than in the avelumab and PLD arms (respectively) were fatigue/asthenia (42.3%, 26.7%, and 28.8%), rash (34.1%, 8.0%, and 16.9%), stomatitis (28.0%, 2.1%, and 20.3%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (33.0%, 0.5%, and 22.6%).

Response

The objective response rate was 3.7% in the avelumab arm, 13.3% in the combination arm, and 4.2% in the PLD arm. There were two complete responses; both occurred in the combination arm.

The response rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (odds ratio, 3.458, P = .0018) than in the PLD arm, but there was no significant difference in response rate between the avelumab arm and the PLD arm (OR, 0.890, P = .8280).

The median duration of response was 9.2 months in the avelumab arm, 8.5 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

Survival

There was a trend toward improved PFS with avelumab plus PLD, but the significance threshold was not met.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm, 3.7 months in the combination arm, and 3.5 months in the PLD arm. With the PLD arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 1.68 for the avelumab arm (P greater than .999) and 0.78 for the combination arm (P = .0301).

The median OS was 11.8 months in the avelumab arm, 15.7 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm. The HR was 1.14 for the avelumab arm (P = .8253) and 0.89 for the combination arm (P = .2082).

“[A]velumab plus PLD showed clinical activity, but, in this unselected population, the trial did not meet the primary objective [of improving PFS or OS compared to PLD alone],” Dr. Pujade-Lauraine noted. “However, prespecified analyses indicate a potential role of PD-L1 expression as a predictor of clinical benefit.”

When Dr. Pujade-Lauraine and his colleagues looked at patients who were positive for PD-L1 (57%), the researchers found a significant improvement in PFS, but not OS, with avelumab plus PLD.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm (HR,1.45, P = .0303), 3.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.65, P = .0143), and 3.0 months in the PLD arm.

The median OS was 13.7 months in the avelumab arm (HR, 0.83, P = .3580), 17.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.72, P = .0842), and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

The researchers also found that PFS and OS were better with avelumab plus PLD versus PLD alone among patients who had received two or three prior treatment regimens at baseline. The HR was 0.62 for PFS and 0.64 for OS.

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said further subgroup analyses are ongoing.

This trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Pujade-Lauraine reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujade-Lauraine E et al. SGO 2019, Abstract LBA1.

HONOLULU – Combining avelumab with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) may provide a survival benefit in certain patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer, a phase 3 trial suggests.

In the overall study population, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were not significantly different for patients who received avelumab plus PLD and those who received avelumab or PLD alone.

However, some subgroups did experience survival benefits with the combination, including patients who were positive for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) and those who had received two or three prior lines of therapy.

Eric Pujade-Lauraine, MD, PhD, of ARCAGY-GINECO in Paris, presented these results from the JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

The trial enrolled 566 patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. They were not preselected for PD-L1 expression.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 188), avelumab plus PLD at 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (n = 188), or PLD (n = 190).

Baseline characteristics were similar across the treatment arms. The median age was 61 in the avelumab arm and 60 in the other two arms (range, 26-86 years). In each arm, about 37% of patients had bulky disease, and all but two patients (both in the avelumab arm) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Nearly half of patients had received one line of prior therapy, and the rest had received two or three prior lines of therapy. About 75% of patients had platinum-resistant disease, and 25% were platinum refractory.

The median duration of study treatment was 10.1 weeks in the avelumab arm and 16.0 weeks in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) arm. In the combination arm, the median treatment duration was 16.9 weeks for avelumab and 16.3 weeks for PLD. In each arm, the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression.

Safety

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said no new safety signals were observed with avelumab alone or in combination.

Serious treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 7.5% of patients in the avelumab arm, 17.6% of patients in the combination arm, and 10.7% of patients in the PLD arm. Discontinuation because of a treatment-related AE occurred in 6.4%, 4.4%, and 7.3% of patients, respectively.

There was one treatment-related AE leading to death in the avelumab arm and one in the PLD arm.

AEs that were more common in the combination arm than in the avelumab and PLD arms (respectively) were fatigue/asthenia (42.3%, 26.7%, and 28.8%), rash (34.1%, 8.0%, and 16.9%), stomatitis (28.0%, 2.1%, and 20.3%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (33.0%, 0.5%, and 22.6%).

Response

The objective response rate was 3.7% in the avelumab arm, 13.3% in the combination arm, and 4.2% in the PLD arm. There were two complete responses; both occurred in the combination arm.

The response rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (odds ratio, 3.458, P = .0018) than in the PLD arm, but there was no significant difference in response rate between the avelumab arm and the PLD arm (OR, 0.890, P = .8280).

The median duration of response was 9.2 months in the avelumab arm, 8.5 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

Survival

There was a trend toward improved PFS with avelumab plus PLD, but the significance threshold was not met.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm, 3.7 months in the combination arm, and 3.5 months in the PLD arm. With the PLD arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 1.68 for the avelumab arm (P greater than .999) and 0.78 for the combination arm (P = .0301).

The median OS was 11.8 months in the avelumab arm, 15.7 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm. The HR was 1.14 for the avelumab arm (P = .8253) and 0.89 for the combination arm (P = .2082).

“[A]velumab plus PLD showed clinical activity, but, in this unselected population, the trial did not meet the primary objective [of improving PFS or OS compared to PLD alone],” Dr. Pujade-Lauraine noted. “However, prespecified analyses indicate a potential role of PD-L1 expression as a predictor of clinical benefit.”

When Dr. Pujade-Lauraine and his colleagues looked at patients who were positive for PD-L1 (57%), the researchers found a significant improvement in PFS, but not OS, with avelumab plus PLD.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm (HR,1.45, P = .0303), 3.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.65, P = .0143), and 3.0 months in the PLD arm.

The median OS was 13.7 months in the avelumab arm (HR, 0.83, P = .3580), 17.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.72, P = .0842), and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

The researchers also found that PFS and OS were better with avelumab plus PLD versus PLD alone among patients who had received two or three prior treatment regimens at baseline. The HR was 0.62 for PFS and 0.64 for OS.

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said further subgroup analyses are ongoing.

This trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Pujade-Lauraine reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujade-Lauraine E et al. SGO 2019, Abstract LBA1.

HONOLULU – Combining avelumab with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) may provide a survival benefit in certain patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer, a phase 3 trial suggests.

In the overall study population, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were not significantly different for patients who received avelumab plus PLD and those who received avelumab or PLD alone.

However, some subgroups did experience survival benefits with the combination, including patients who were positive for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) and those who had received two or three prior lines of therapy.

Eric Pujade-Lauraine, MD, PhD, of ARCAGY-GINECO in Paris, presented these results from the JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

The trial enrolled 566 patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. They were not preselected for PD-L1 expression.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 188), avelumab plus PLD at 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (n = 188), or PLD (n = 190).

Baseline characteristics were similar across the treatment arms. The median age was 61 in the avelumab arm and 60 in the other two arms (range, 26-86 years). In each arm, about 37% of patients had bulky disease, and all but two patients (both in the avelumab arm) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Nearly half of patients had received one line of prior therapy, and the rest had received two or three prior lines of therapy. About 75% of patients had platinum-resistant disease, and 25% were platinum refractory.

The median duration of study treatment was 10.1 weeks in the avelumab arm and 16.0 weeks in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) arm. In the combination arm, the median treatment duration was 16.9 weeks for avelumab and 16.3 weeks for PLD. In each arm, the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression.

Safety

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said no new safety signals were observed with avelumab alone or in combination.

Serious treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 7.5% of patients in the avelumab arm, 17.6% of patients in the combination arm, and 10.7% of patients in the PLD arm. Discontinuation because of a treatment-related AE occurred in 6.4%, 4.4%, and 7.3% of patients, respectively.

There was one treatment-related AE leading to death in the avelumab arm and one in the PLD arm.

AEs that were more common in the combination arm than in the avelumab and PLD arms (respectively) were fatigue/asthenia (42.3%, 26.7%, and 28.8%), rash (34.1%, 8.0%, and 16.9%), stomatitis (28.0%, 2.1%, and 20.3%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (33.0%, 0.5%, and 22.6%).

Response

The objective response rate was 3.7% in the avelumab arm, 13.3% in the combination arm, and 4.2% in the PLD arm. There were two complete responses; both occurred in the combination arm.

The response rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (odds ratio, 3.458, P = .0018) than in the PLD arm, but there was no significant difference in response rate between the avelumab arm and the PLD arm (OR, 0.890, P = .8280).

The median duration of response was 9.2 months in the avelumab arm, 8.5 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

Survival

There was a trend toward improved PFS with avelumab plus PLD, but the significance threshold was not met.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm, 3.7 months in the combination arm, and 3.5 months in the PLD arm. With the PLD arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 1.68 for the avelumab arm (P greater than .999) and 0.78 for the combination arm (P = .0301).

The median OS was 11.8 months in the avelumab arm, 15.7 months in the combination arm, and 13.1 months in the PLD arm. The HR was 1.14 for the avelumab arm (P = .8253) and 0.89 for the combination arm (P = .2082).

“[A]velumab plus PLD showed clinical activity, but, in this unselected population, the trial did not meet the primary objective [of improving PFS or OS compared to PLD alone],” Dr. Pujade-Lauraine noted. “However, prespecified analyses indicate a potential role of PD-L1 expression as a predictor of clinical benefit.”

When Dr. Pujade-Lauraine and his colleagues looked at patients who were positive for PD-L1 (57%), the researchers found a significant improvement in PFS, but not OS, with avelumab plus PLD.

The median PFS was 1.9 months in the avelumab arm (HR,1.45, P = .0303), 3.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.65, P = .0143), and 3.0 months in the PLD arm.

The median OS was 13.7 months in the avelumab arm (HR, 0.83, P = .3580), 17.7 months in the combination arm (HR, 0.72, P = .0842), and 13.1 months in the PLD arm.

The researchers also found that PFS and OS were better with avelumab plus PLD versus PLD alone among patients who had received two or three prior treatment regimens at baseline. The HR was 0.62 for PFS and 0.64 for OS.

Dr. Pujade-Lauraine said further subgroup analyses are ongoing.

This trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Pujade-Lauraine reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujade-Lauraine E et al. SGO 2019, Abstract LBA1.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.

“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.

The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.

In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.

The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.

The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.

The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.

Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.

Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.

Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.

The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.

The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.

The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.

SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.

“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.

The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.

In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.

The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.

The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.

The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.

Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.

Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.

Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.

The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.

The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.

The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.

SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.

Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.

“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.

The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.

In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.

The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.

The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.

The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.

Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.

Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.

Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.

The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.

The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.

The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.

SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of a targeted therapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor showed promising activity against advanced urothelial cancer in early data from a phase 1b/2 study.

In a cohort of 20 patients with urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in a larger clinical trial testing the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lenvatinib (Lenvima) and the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) against urinary tract and other solid malignancies, 5 had an objective response to the combination, including one complete and four partial responses, for an objective response rate of 25%, reported Nicholas J. Vogelzang, MD, from Comprehensive Cancers Centers of Nevada in Las Vegas.

“This response rate warrants further investigation. The lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination will be studied in a phase 3 trial in urothelial carcinoma,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) - Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Dr. Vogelzang noted that urothelial carcinomas account for more than 90% of all bladder cancers. Pembrolizumab monotherapy is approved for treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are ineligible for cisplatin and whose tumors have a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 10 or greater or who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and, in the second line, for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and in combination with everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one year of antiangiogenic therapy.

Dr. Vogelzang reported results of the urothelial cancer cohort from a multicohort study testing the combination.

Twenty patients with histologically confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer were enrolled. The patients all had no more than two prior systemic regimens, good performance status, and a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. The patients received oral lenvatinib 20 mg daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 21 days. The median patient age was 72 years. The cohort included 14 men and six women.

The objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, was 25%, comprising one complete and four partial responses. Nine patients had stable disease, two had disease progression, and four were not evaluable for efficacy. The results were identical according to immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST version 1.1. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 12 experienced tumor-size reductions from baseline.

“Although there were five objective responses, there were an additional seven patients or more who had minor regressions of disease – clearly an active regimen,” Dr. Vogelzang said. Four of the patients, including one with a PD-L1–positive tumor and three with PD-L1–negative tumors were still alive, with the longest survival past 80 weeks since the start of therapy. The majority of patients, however, had no objective response or disease progression within about 20 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months, and the 12-month PFS rate was 26%.

In all, 18 of the 20 patients (90%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, 10 had grade 3 or 4 events, and 6 had serious adverse events including one death from gastrointestinal hemorrhage that Dr. Vogelzang said appeared to be related to lenvatinib. A total of four patients (20%) had a treatment-related event leading to withdrawal or discontinuation, seven had a dose reduction, and 12 had an interruption in therapy, primarily of lenvatinib. The most common toxicities were proteinuria, diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, hypothyroidism, decreased appetite with nausea, pancreatitis with increased lipase, skin rash, vomiting, and dry mouth.

In addition to the planned phase 3 trial of the combination in urothelial carcinoma, lenvatinib/pembrolizumab is also being studied for the treatment of RCC.

The study was supported by Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Vogelzang disclosed financial relationships with Caris Life Sciences, Pfizer, Up to Date, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, and other companies. Five coauthors are employees of Merck or Esai.

SOURCE: Vogelzang NJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 11.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of a targeted therapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor showed promising activity against advanced urothelial cancer in early data from a phase 1b/2 study.

In a cohort of 20 patients with urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in a larger clinical trial testing the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lenvatinib (Lenvima) and the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) against urinary tract and other solid malignancies, 5 had an objective response to the combination, including one complete and four partial responses, for an objective response rate of 25%, reported Nicholas J. Vogelzang, MD, from Comprehensive Cancers Centers of Nevada in Las Vegas.

“This response rate warrants further investigation. The lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination will be studied in a phase 3 trial in urothelial carcinoma,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) - Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Dr. Vogelzang noted that urothelial carcinomas account for more than 90% of all bladder cancers. Pembrolizumab monotherapy is approved for treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are ineligible for cisplatin and whose tumors have a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 10 or greater or who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and, in the second line, for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and in combination with everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one year of antiangiogenic therapy.

Dr. Vogelzang reported results of the urothelial cancer cohort from a multicohort study testing the combination.

Twenty patients with histologically confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer were enrolled. The patients all had no more than two prior systemic regimens, good performance status, and a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. The patients received oral lenvatinib 20 mg daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 21 days. The median patient age was 72 years. The cohort included 14 men and six women.

The objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, was 25%, comprising one complete and four partial responses. Nine patients had stable disease, two had disease progression, and four were not evaluable for efficacy. The results were identical according to immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST version 1.1. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 12 experienced tumor-size reductions from baseline.

“Although there were five objective responses, there were an additional seven patients or more who had minor regressions of disease – clearly an active regimen,” Dr. Vogelzang said. Four of the patients, including one with a PD-L1–positive tumor and three with PD-L1–negative tumors were still alive, with the longest survival past 80 weeks since the start of therapy. The majority of patients, however, had no objective response or disease progression within about 20 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months, and the 12-month PFS rate was 26%.

In all, 18 of the 20 patients (90%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, 10 had grade 3 or 4 events, and 6 had serious adverse events including one death from gastrointestinal hemorrhage that Dr. Vogelzang said appeared to be related to lenvatinib. A total of four patients (20%) had a treatment-related event leading to withdrawal or discontinuation, seven had a dose reduction, and 12 had an interruption in therapy, primarily of lenvatinib. The most common toxicities were proteinuria, diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, hypothyroidism, decreased appetite with nausea, pancreatitis with increased lipase, skin rash, vomiting, and dry mouth.

In addition to the planned phase 3 trial of the combination in urothelial carcinoma, lenvatinib/pembrolizumab is also being studied for the treatment of RCC.

The study was supported by Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Vogelzang disclosed financial relationships with Caris Life Sciences, Pfizer, Up to Date, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, and other companies. Five coauthors are employees of Merck or Esai.

SOURCE: Vogelzang NJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 11.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of a targeted therapy and an immune checkpoint inhibitor showed promising activity against advanced urothelial cancer in early data from a phase 1b/2 study.

In a cohort of 20 patients with urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in a larger clinical trial testing the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) lenvatinib (Lenvima) and the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) against urinary tract and other solid malignancies, 5 had an objective response to the combination, including one complete and four partial responses, for an objective response rate of 25%, reported Nicholas J. Vogelzang, MD, from Comprehensive Cancers Centers of Nevada in Las Vegas.

“This response rate warrants further investigation. The lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination will be studied in a phase 3 trial in urothelial carcinoma,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) - Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

Dr. Vogelzang noted that urothelial carcinomas account for more than 90% of all bladder cancers. Pembrolizumab monotherapy is approved for treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are ineligible for cisplatin and whose tumors have a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 10 or greater or who are ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and, in the second line, for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and in combination with everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one year of antiangiogenic therapy.

Dr. Vogelzang reported results of the urothelial cancer cohort from a multicohort study testing the combination.

Twenty patients with histologically confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer were enrolled. The patients all had no more than two prior systemic regimens, good performance status, and a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. The patients received oral lenvatinib 20 mg daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 21 days. The median patient age was 72 years. The cohort included 14 men and six women.

The objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, was 25%, comprising one complete and four partial responses. Nine patients had stable disease, two had disease progression, and four were not evaluable for efficacy. The results were identical according to immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST version 1.1. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 12 experienced tumor-size reductions from baseline.

“Although there were five objective responses, there were an additional seven patients or more who had minor regressions of disease – clearly an active regimen,” Dr. Vogelzang said. Four of the patients, including one with a PD-L1–positive tumor and three with PD-L1–negative tumors were still alive, with the longest survival past 80 weeks since the start of therapy. The majority of patients, however, had no objective response or disease progression within about 20 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months, and the 12-month PFS rate was 26%.

In all, 18 of the 20 patients (90%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, 10 had grade 3 or 4 events, and 6 had serious adverse events including one death from gastrointestinal hemorrhage that Dr. Vogelzang said appeared to be related to lenvatinib. A total of four patients (20%) had a treatment-related event leading to withdrawal or discontinuation, seven had a dose reduction, and 12 had an interruption in therapy, primarily of lenvatinib. The most common toxicities were proteinuria, diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, hypothyroidism, decreased appetite with nausea, pancreatitis with increased lipase, skin rash, vomiting, and dry mouth.

In addition to the planned phase 3 trial of the combination in urothelial carcinoma, lenvatinib/pembrolizumab is also being studied for the treatment of RCC.

The study was supported by Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Vogelzang disclosed financial relationships with Caris Life Sciences, Pfizer, Up to Date, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, and other companies. Five coauthors are employees of Merck or Esai.

SOURCE: Vogelzang NJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 11.

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously had disease control with the checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), second-line nivolumab at a higher dose every 4 weeks appeared to be comparable in efficacy and safety with standard-dose nivolumab every 2 weeks.

The key word in that last sentence is “appeared,” because the Checkmate 384 trial that was designed to show noninferiority of the every-4-weeks regimen lacked the statistical muscle to get the job done, reported Edward B. Garon, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In many respects, extending the dosing frequency of nivolumab fulfills some of the promise of immunotherapy: The idea that we would be able to decrease the medicalization of the lives of our patients. For some people this would lead to them being able to resume a more normal work schedule, and for other people it would allow them to do things for fun, like travel on trips that would take longer than a couple of weeks,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

However, because of difficulties in recruitment, the investigators had to stop enrollment early and settle for a sample size of 363 patients, instead of the 600 planned that would be necessary to meet a 10% noninferiority margin and one-sided 95% confidence interval. Thus, the trial analysis can only be reported as descriptive rather than definitive, Dr. Garon acknowledged.

Nivolumab is approved at a fixed dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for the treatment of multiple tumor types in several different nations, and in the United States and Canada it is approved at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks for the treatment of NSCLC.

The CheckMate 384 study enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had received 3 mg/kg or 240 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. The patients had to have had relatively good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-2) and two consecutive assessments of either complete response, partial response, or stable disease.

The patients were stratified by tumor histology (squamous or nonsquamous) and response to prior nivolumab therapy at randomization, and were then randomized to receive nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

Dr. Garon presented an interim analysis including data on 329 of the 363 patients; the final analysis will occur after all patients have had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Here, he reported on 6-month progression-free survival, a coprimary endpoint with 12-month PFS.

After a median follow-up of 9.5 months in the Q4-week group and 10.2 months in the Q2-week group, the 6-month PFS rates were identical between the two dosing strategies, at 72%. The median PFS was 12.1 months and 12.2 months, respectively.

“Although the study is no longer formally powered to show noninferiority, there’s certainly nothing in these curves that makes me concerned that this 480 mg every-4-week dose would be inferior,” Dr. Garon said.

There was a slightly higher rate of treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the lower, more frequent dose group: 48% in the Q4-week versus 61% in the Q2-week arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 8% and 12%. Rates of serious adverse events and events leading to treatment discontinuation were similar between the group; there were no treatment-related deaths.

The investigators hypothesize that the higher rate of overall events in the lower-dose group may be attributable to more frequent visits and more opportunities to report adverse events, Dr. Garon said.

“Overall, the clinical data are in agreement with the pharmacokinetic modeling and give further evidence for this 480 mg every 4 week nivolumab dosing option,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garon reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others and consulting fees from Dracen Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Garon EB et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 100.

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously had disease control with the checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), second-line nivolumab at a higher dose every 4 weeks appeared to be comparable in efficacy and safety with standard-dose nivolumab every 2 weeks.

The key word in that last sentence is “appeared,” because the Checkmate 384 trial that was designed to show noninferiority of the every-4-weeks regimen lacked the statistical muscle to get the job done, reported Edward B. Garon, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In many respects, extending the dosing frequency of nivolumab fulfills some of the promise of immunotherapy: The idea that we would be able to decrease the medicalization of the lives of our patients. For some people this would lead to them being able to resume a more normal work schedule, and for other people it would allow them to do things for fun, like travel on trips that would take longer than a couple of weeks,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

However, because of difficulties in recruitment, the investigators had to stop enrollment early and settle for a sample size of 363 patients, instead of the 600 planned that would be necessary to meet a 10% noninferiority margin and one-sided 95% confidence interval. Thus, the trial analysis can only be reported as descriptive rather than definitive, Dr. Garon acknowledged.

Nivolumab is approved at a fixed dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for the treatment of multiple tumor types in several different nations, and in the United States and Canada it is approved at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks for the treatment of NSCLC.

The CheckMate 384 study enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had received 3 mg/kg or 240 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. The patients had to have had relatively good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-2) and two consecutive assessments of either complete response, partial response, or stable disease.

The patients were stratified by tumor histology (squamous or nonsquamous) and response to prior nivolumab therapy at randomization, and were then randomized to receive nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

Dr. Garon presented an interim analysis including data on 329 of the 363 patients; the final analysis will occur after all patients have had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Here, he reported on 6-month progression-free survival, a coprimary endpoint with 12-month PFS.

After a median follow-up of 9.5 months in the Q4-week group and 10.2 months in the Q2-week group, the 6-month PFS rates were identical between the two dosing strategies, at 72%. The median PFS was 12.1 months and 12.2 months, respectively.

“Although the study is no longer formally powered to show noninferiority, there’s certainly nothing in these curves that makes me concerned that this 480 mg every-4-week dose would be inferior,” Dr. Garon said.

There was a slightly higher rate of treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the lower, more frequent dose group: 48% in the Q4-week versus 61% in the Q2-week arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 8% and 12%. Rates of serious adverse events and events leading to treatment discontinuation were similar between the group; there were no treatment-related deaths.

The investigators hypothesize that the higher rate of overall events in the lower-dose group may be attributable to more frequent visits and more opportunities to report adverse events, Dr. Garon said.

“Overall, the clinical data are in agreement with the pharmacokinetic modeling and give further evidence for this 480 mg every 4 week nivolumab dosing option,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garon reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others and consulting fees from Dracen Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Garon EB et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 100.

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously had disease control with the checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), second-line nivolumab at a higher dose every 4 weeks appeared to be comparable in efficacy and safety with standard-dose nivolumab every 2 weeks.

The key word in that last sentence is “appeared,” because the Checkmate 384 trial that was designed to show noninferiority of the every-4-weeks regimen lacked the statistical muscle to get the job done, reported Edward B. Garon, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In many respects, extending the dosing frequency of nivolumab fulfills some of the promise of immunotherapy: The idea that we would be able to decrease the medicalization of the lives of our patients. For some people this would lead to them being able to resume a more normal work schedule, and for other people it would allow them to do things for fun, like travel on trips that would take longer than a couple of weeks,” he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

However, because of difficulties in recruitment, the investigators had to stop enrollment early and settle for a sample size of 363 patients, instead of the 600 planned that would be necessary to meet a 10% noninferiority margin and one-sided 95% confidence interval. Thus, the trial analysis can only be reported as descriptive rather than definitive, Dr. Garon acknowledged.

Nivolumab is approved at a fixed dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for the treatment of multiple tumor types in several different nations, and in the United States and Canada it is approved at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks for the treatment of NSCLC.

The CheckMate 384 study enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had received 3 mg/kg or 240 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. The patients had to have had relatively good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-2) and two consecutive assessments of either complete response, partial response, or stable disease.

The patients were stratified by tumor histology (squamous or nonsquamous) and response to prior nivolumab therapy at randomization, and were then randomized to receive nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.

Dr. Garon presented an interim analysis including data on 329 of the 363 patients; the final analysis will occur after all patients have had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Here, he reported on 6-month progression-free survival, a coprimary endpoint with 12-month PFS.

After a median follow-up of 9.5 months in the Q4-week group and 10.2 months in the Q2-week group, the 6-month PFS rates were identical between the two dosing strategies, at 72%. The median PFS was 12.1 months and 12.2 months, respectively.

“Although the study is no longer formally powered to show noninferiority, there’s certainly nothing in these curves that makes me concerned that this 480 mg every-4-week dose would be inferior,” Dr. Garon said.

There was a slightly higher rate of treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the lower, more frequent dose group: 48% in the Q4-week versus 61% in the Q2-week arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 8% and 12%. Rates of serious adverse events and events leading to treatment discontinuation were similar between the group; there were no treatment-related deaths.

The investigators hypothesize that the higher rate of overall events in the lower-dose group may be attributable to more frequent visits and more opportunities to report adverse events, Dr. Garon said.

“Overall, the clinical data are in agreement with the pharmacokinetic modeling and give further evidence for this 480 mg every 4 week nivolumab dosing option,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Garon reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others and consulting fees from Dracen Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Garon EB et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 100.

Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.

Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.

“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.

For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.

“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.

Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.

“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”

Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.

“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.

SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.

Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.

Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.

“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.

For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.

“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.

Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.

“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”

Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.

“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.

SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.

Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.

Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.

“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.

For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.

“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.

Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.

“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”

Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.

“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.

SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.

The high cost of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy largely limits its use to the sickest patients and prohibits experimentation in “less-diseased” populations, outcomes data suggest.

For that reason, and because bone marrow units are profit centers and CAR T-cell therapy reimbursement remains problematic, CAR T in the United States is “effectively being used as a bridge to transplant” – at a cost of more than $1 million per dose, economist Duane Schulthess told attendees at a recent, first-of-its-kind joint European CAR T-cell meeting in Paris, which was cosponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

“This is the way clinical practice is evolving right now; the price is not allowing enough experimentation for CAR T to flow up and be used in the less-diseased population,” said Mr. Schulthess, managing director of Vital Transformation, a consulting company based in Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium.

In Europe, there is a slightly different problem in that health technology assessment bodies (HTAs) “have to figure out what they want to do” given the 2018 approvals of the first CAR T therapies there, he said, explaining that the data he presented was from a study commissioned by the Dutch government to help determine “what [CAR T] looks like from an effectiveness standpoint while they’re trying to figure out how much it’s worth and what they should pay.”

“Increasingly these are the big issues,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In August, the European Commission approved tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency. Kymriah was approved for pediatric and young adult patients up to age 25 years with refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relapse after transplant or in second or later relapse, as well as for adults patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after failing at least two lines of systemic therapy, and Yescarta was approved for the latter and for the treatment of primary refractory mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy.

The approvals have researchers and clinicians there clamoring for information about the therapy, which is revolutionizing the field of hematologic malignancies, according to Christian Chabannon, MD, PhD, chair of the EBMT Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party and vice-chair of the EBMT Scientific Council.

“An increasing number of European institutions are starting to administer this new category of medicinal products and increasingly contribute to ongoing clinical protocols and preclinical studies,” Dr. Chabannon said in an interview, explaining the urgency in planning the 1st European CAR T Cell Meeting just 6 months after the CAR T approvals in Europe.

EHA and EBMT brought together patient advocates, young investigators, and experts from across the globe to present the latest relevant information and data on topics ranging from current trials and experience, CAR T implementation and management, the preclinical and clinical pipelines, various CAR T applications, industry perspectives, and relevant economic issues, he said.

The latter is where Mr. Schulthess came in.

His research involved patient-level treatment pathway data from a database of more than 3 million patients treated with either allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) or CAR T therapy across 5 years of experience. The data showed up to 85% response rates for each in the first-line setting. He and his colleagues then looked at therapy choices for those who failed to respond to second-line therapies and at how decisions were made regarding transplant and CAR T therapy – and specifically whether CAR T can be a substitute for transplant.

Ultimately, they looked at 29 allo-HCT recipients and 14 CAR T therapy recipients for a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments and performed an in-depth cost-efficacy analysis using a novel “visual pathology” methodology to account for limitations in the data.

The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was nearly 68% in the transplant recipients and 46% with CAR T.

“Now why is that? [Because] ... these populations are not the same; the CAR T population has a much higher disease burden,” Mr. Schulthess said. “So what we’re seeing [among] actual clinical doctors doing this for real – they are defaulting to bone marrow transplants, except in those cases where they do not have enough time or the patient does not respond. Then and only then are they giving CAR T.”

And that comes back to the fact that bone marrow units make money, he said.

CAR T is costly, and reimbursement can be problematic; these are disincentives for doctors to use CAR T therapy, at least in the United States, and while this is currently “being worked out,” the choice more often is “giving bone marrow transplant first and seeing what happens,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In Europe, that creates “a tough choice” for the HTAs, he said, noting that, in the absence of evidence of CAR T being curative in the subpopulation of patients with high disease burden who fail transplant and given the high cost, there is a push to determine at what point it begins to make sense economically.

“We think that you gain efficiency at ... roughly $277,000 [per dose] because [at that cost] you can do more CAR Ts than you can do bone marrow transplants. [CAR T] is less invasive, it’s lighter touch, it’s more efficient,” he said. “So if we were to see an efficiency cost of between $222,000 and $277,000, we think that works.”

Another recent study came to similar conclusions based on quality assessments, he said (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0642).

“We think that’s where this is going to end up, so we think that, if someone starts producing this for a couple hundred thousand bucks, then – certainly in Europe – it will make sense for this to start drifting up and being used as a substitute [to transplant],” he added.

Mr. Schulthess was one of scores of experts and investigators who presented at the EHA/EBMT joint meeting, which included numerous U.S. pioneers in the field and young European investigators, among others, Dr. Chabannon said.

Attesting to the enthusiasm in Europe regarding CAR T, Dr. Chabannon said that there were “more requests for registration than the venue could safely accommodate, a long waiting list, and a high number of individuals on the waiting list who registered for the live streaming” of the event.

“The field of CAR T cells is growing at a fast pace since the first clinical successes reported in the early 2010s, and one can wonder whether the expectations are not in excess of what reality will deliver,” he said. “Nevertheless, CAR T cells represent an essential innovation, not an incremental progress in biomedical sciences. They combine new mechanisms of action, clinical activity in advanced malignancies (and possibly beyond the field of cancer), transfer of manufacturing of human cell-based therapeutics to the industry, and potentially the first commercial success for a gene therapy.”

Surveys conducted by various professional associations, including EBMT, have clearly identified the potential for clinical successes that CAR T cells represent and the tremendous challenges raised by these innovations, he said, noting that “these include fulfilling specific educational needs.”

Therefore, EBMT and EHA have already announced that a second edition of the meeting is planned for Jan. 30 – Feb. 1, 2020, he noted.

Mr. Schulthess reported that his research was funded by the Dutch government.

[email protected]

The high cost of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy largely limits its use to the sickest patients and prohibits experimentation in “less-diseased” populations, outcomes data suggest.

For that reason, and because bone marrow units are profit centers and CAR T-cell therapy reimbursement remains problematic, CAR T in the United States is “effectively being used as a bridge to transplant” – at a cost of more than $1 million per dose, economist Duane Schulthess told attendees at a recent, first-of-its-kind joint European CAR T-cell meeting in Paris, which was cosponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

“This is the way clinical practice is evolving right now; the price is not allowing enough experimentation for CAR T to flow up and be used in the less-diseased population,” said Mr. Schulthess, managing director of Vital Transformation, a consulting company based in Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium.

In Europe, there is a slightly different problem in that health technology assessment bodies (HTAs) “have to figure out what they want to do” given the 2018 approvals of the first CAR T therapies there, he said, explaining that the data he presented was from a study commissioned by the Dutch government to help determine “what [CAR T] looks like from an effectiveness standpoint while they’re trying to figure out how much it’s worth and what they should pay.”

“Increasingly these are the big issues,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In August, the European Commission approved tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency. Kymriah was approved for pediatric and young adult patients up to age 25 years with refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relapse after transplant or in second or later relapse, as well as for adults patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after failing at least two lines of systemic therapy, and Yescarta was approved for the latter and for the treatment of primary refractory mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy.

The approvals have researchers and clinicians there clamoring for information about the therapy, which is revolutionizing the field of hematologic malignancies, according to Christian Chabannon, MD, PhD, chair of the EBMT Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party and vice-chair of the EBMT Scientific Council.

“An increasing number of European institutions are starting to administer this new category of medicinal products and increasingly contribute to ongoing clinical protocols and preclinical studies,” Dr. Chabannon said in an interview, explaining the urgency in planning the 1st European CAR T Cell Meeting just 6 months after the CAR T approvals in Europe.

EHA and EBMT brought together patient advocates, young investigators, and experts from across the globe to present the latest relevant information and data on topics ranging from current trials and experience, CAR T implementation and management, the preclinical and clinical pipelines, various CAR T applications, industry perspectives, and relevant economic issues, he said.

The latter is where Mr. Schulthess came in.

His research involved patient-level treatment pathway data from a database of more than 3 million patients treated with either allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) or CAR T therapy across 5 years of experience. The data showed up to 85% response rates for each in the first-line setting. He and his colleagues then looked at therapy choices for those who failed to respond to second-line therapies and at how decisions were made regarding transplant and CAR T therapy – and specifically whether CAR T can be a substitute for transplant.

Ultimately, they looked at 29 allo-HCT recipients and 14 CAR T therapy recipients for a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments and performed an in-depth cost-efficacy analysis using a novel “visual pathology” methodology to account for limitations in the data.

The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was nearly 68% in the transplant recipients and 46% with CAR T.

“Now why is that? [Because] ... these populations are not the same; the CAR T population has a much higher disease burden,” Mr. Schulthess said. “So what we’re seeing [among] actual clinical doctors doing this for real – they are defaulting to bone marrow transplants, except in those cases where they do not have enough time or the patient does not respond. Then and only then are they giving CAR T.”

And that comes back to the fact that bone marrow units make money, he said.

CAR T is costly, and reimbursement can be problematic; these are disincentives for doctors to use CAR T therapy, at least in the United States, and while this is currently “being worked out,” the choice more often is “giving bone marrow transplant first and seeing what happens,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In Europe, that creates “a tough choice” for the HTAs, he said, noting that, in the absence of evidence of CAR T being curative in the subpopulation of patients with high disease burden who fail transplant and given the high cost, there is a push to determine at what point it begins to make sense economically.

“We think that you gain efficiency at ... roughly $277,000 [per dose] because [at that cost] you can do more CAR Ts than you can do bone marrow transplants. [CAR T] is less invasive, it’s lighter touch, it’s more efficient,” he said. “So if we were to see an efficiency cost of between $222,000 and $277,000, we think that works.”

Another recent study came to similar conclusions based on quality assessments, he said (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0642).

“We think that’s where this is going to end up, so we think that, if someone starts producing this for a couple hundred thousand bucks, then – certainly in Europe – it will make sense for this to start drifting up and being used as a substitute [to transplant],” he added.

Mr. Schulthess was one of scores of experts and investigators who presented at the EHA/EBMT joint meeting, which included numerous U.S. pioneers in the field and young European investigators, among others, Dr. Chabannon said.

Attesting to the enthusiasm in Europe regarding CAR T, Dr. Chabannon said that there were “more requests for registration than the venue could safely accommodate, a long waiting list, and a high number of individuals on the waiting list who registered for the live streaming” of the event.

“The field of CAR T cells is growing at a fast pace since the first clinical successes reported in the early 2010s, and one can wonder whether the expectations are not in excess of what reality will deliver,” he said. “Nevertheless, CAR T cells represent an essential innovation, not an incremental progress in biomedical sciences. They combine new mechanisms of action, clinical activity in advanced malignancies (and possibly beyond the field of cancer), transfer of manufacturing of human cell-based therapeutics to the industry, and potentially the first commercial success for a gene therapy.”

Surveys conducted by various professional associations, including EBMT, have clearly identified the potential for clinical successes that CAR T cells represent and the tremendous challenges raised by these innovations, he said, noting that “these include fulfilling specific educational needs.”

Therefore, EBMT and EHA have already announced that a second edition of the meeting is planned for Jan. 30 – Feb. 1, 2020, he noted.

Mr. Schulthess reported that his research was funded by the Dutch government.

[email protected]

The high cost of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy largely limits its use to the sickest patients and prohibits experimentation in “less-diseased” populations, outcomes data suggest.

For that reason, and because bone marrow units are profit centers and CAR T-cell therapy reimbursement remains problematic, CAR T in the United States is “effectively being used as a bridge to transplant” – at a cost of more than $1 million per dose, economist Duane Schulthess told attendees at a recent, first-of-its-kind joint European CAR T-cell meeting in Paris, which was cosponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

“This is the way clinical practice is evolving right now; the price is not allowing enough experimentation for CAR T to flow up and be used in the less-diseased population,” said Mr. Schulthess, managing director of Vital Transformation, a consulting company based in Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium.

In Europe, there is a slightly different problem in that health technology assessment bodies (HTAs) “have to figure out what they want to do” given the 2018 approvals of the first CAR T therapies there, he said, explaining that the data he presented was from a study commissioned by the Dutch government to help determine “what [CAR T] looks like from an effectiveness standpoint while they’re trying to figure out how much it’s worth and what they should pay.”

“Increasingly these are the big issues,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In August, the European Commission approved tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency. Kymriah was approved for pediatric and young adult patients up to age 25 years with refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relapse after transplant or in second or later relapse, as well as for adults patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after failing at least two lines of systemic therapy, and Yescarta was approved for the latter and for the treatment of primary refractory mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy.

The approvals have researchers and clinicians there clamoring for information about the therapy, which is revolutionizing the field of hematologic malignancies, according to Christian Chabannon, MD, PhD, chair of the EBMT Cellular Therapy & Immunobiology Working Party and vice-chair of the EBMT Scientific Council.

“An increasing number of European institutions are starting to administer this new category of medicinal products and increasingly contribute to ongoing clinical protocols and preclinical studies,” Dr. Chabannon said in an interview, explaining the urgency in planning the 1st European CAR T Cell Meeting just 6 months after the CAR T approvals in Europe.

EHA and EBMT brought together patient advocates, young investigators, and experts from across the globe to present the latest relevant information and data on topics ranging from current trials and experience, CAR T implementation and management, the preclinical and clinical pipelines, various CAR T applications, industry perspectives, and relevant economic issues, he said.

The latter is where Mr. Schulthess came in.

His research involved patient-level treatment pathway data from a database of more than 3 million patients treated with either allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) or CAR T therapy across 5 years of experience. The data showed up to 85% response rates for each in the first-line setting. He and his colleagues then looked at therapy choices for those who failed to respond to second-line therapies and at how decisions were made regarding transplant and CAR T therapy – and specifically whether CAR T can be a substitute for transplant.

Ultimately, they looked at 29 allo-HCT recipients and 14 CAR T therapy recipients for a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments and performed an in-depth cost-efficacy analysis using a novel “visual pathology” methodology to account for limitations in the data.

The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was nearly 68% in the transplant recipients and 46% with CAR T.

“Now why is that? [Because] ... these populations are not the same; the CAR T population has a much higher disease burden,” Mr. Schulthess said. “So what we’re seeing [among] actual clinical doctors doing this for real – they are defaulting to bone marrow transplants, except in those cases where they do not have enough time or the patient does not respond. Then and only then are they giving CAR T.”

And that comes back to the fact that bone marrow units make money, he said.

CAR T is costly, and reimbursement can be problematic; these are disincentives for doctors to use CAR T therapy, at least in the United States, and while this is currently “being worked out,” the choice more often is “giving bone marrow transplant first and seeing what happens,” Mr. Schulthess said.

In Europe, that creates “a tough choice” for the HTAs, he said, noting that, in the absence of evidence of CAR T being curative in the subpopulation of patients with high disease burden who fail transplant and given the high cost, there is a push to determine at what point it begins to make sense economically.

“We think that you gain efficiency at ... roughly $277,000 [per dose] because [at that cost] you can do more CAR Ts than you can do bone marrow transplants. [CAR T] is less invasive, it’s lighter touch, it’s more efficient,” he said. “So if we were to see an efficiency cost of between $222,000 and $277,000, we think that works.”

Another recent study came to similar conclusions based on quality assessments, he said (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0642).

“We think that’s where this is going to end up, so we think that, if someone starts producing this for a couple hundred thousand bucks, then – certainly in Europe – it will make sense for this to start drifting up and being used as a substitute [to transplant],” he added.

Mr. Schulthess was one of scores of experts and investigators who presented at the EHA/EBMT joint meeting, which included numerous U.S. pioneers in the field and young European investigators, among others, Dr. Chabannon said.

Attesting to the enthusiasm in Europe regarding CAR T, Dr. Chabannon said that there were “more requests for registration than the venue could safely accommodate, a long waiting list, and a high number of individuals on the waiting list who registered for the live streaming” of the event.

“The field of CAR T cells is growing at a fast pace since the first clinical successes reported in the early 2010s, and one can wonder whether the expectations are not in excess of what reality will deliver,” he said. “Nevertheless, CAR T cells represent an essential innovation, not an incremental progress in biomedical sciences. They combine new mechanisms of action, clinical activity in advanced malignancies (and possibly beyond the field of cancer), transfer of manufacturing of human cell-based therapeutics to the industry, and potentially the first commercial success for a gene therapy.”

Surveys conducted by various professional associations, including EBMT, have clearly identified the potential for clinical successes that CAR T cells represent and the tremendous challenges raised by these innovations, he said, noting that “these include fulfilling specific educational needs.”

Therefore, EBMT and EHA have already announced that a second edition of the meeting is planned for Jan. 30 – Feb. 1, 2020, he noted.

Mr. Schulthess reported that his research was funded by the Dutch government.

[email protected]

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be cost effective when compared with sunitinib for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), according to a cost-effectiveness analysis.

“A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of treatment of mRCC,” XiaoMin Wan, PhD, of the Capital Medical University in Beijing and his colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers used data from an economic model that extrapolated findings from a phase 3 randomized study of 1,096 patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

“We assumed that the first-line treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects,” the team wrote.

Several measures were estimated using the model, including quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and life-years. The team set a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY. In addition, Dr. Wan and his colleagues completed a sensitivity analysis to investigate how the results changed across different ranges of drug cost.

After analysis, the researchers found that first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to cost $108,363 per QALY gained. The incremental QALYs added using the combination was 0.96 years versus sunitinib, at the same cost per QALY.

With respect to the sensitivity analysis, the likelihood of the combination being cost effective, compared with sunitinib, was calculated to be 42.5% and 80.2% at the minimum and maximum of the willingness-to-pay threshold, respectively.

“The results of subgroup analyses showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost effective for patients with 1% or greater programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that the analysis used data from only a single randomized trial. Consequently, Dr. Wan and his colleagues reported that any bias contained within that trial will also be present in this analysis.

The study was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan province. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wan X et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7086.

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be cost effective when compared with sunitinib for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), according to a cost-effectiveness analysis.

“A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of treatment of mRCC,” XiaoMin Wan, PhD, of the Capital Medical University in Beijing and his colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers used data from an economic model that extrapolated findings from a phase 3 randomized study of 1,096 patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

“We assumed that the first-line treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects,” the team wrote.

Several measures were estimated using the model, including quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and life-years. The team set a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY. In addition, Dr. Wan and his colleagues completed a sensitivity analysis to investigate how the results changed across different ranges of drug cost.

After analysis, the researchers found that first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to cost $108,363 per QALY gained. The incremental QALYs added using the combination was 0.96 years versus sunitinib, at the same cost per QALY.

With respect to the sensitivity analysis, the likelihood of the combination being cost effective, compared with sunitinib, was calculated to be 42.5% and 80.2% at the minimum and maximum of the willingness-to-pay threshold, respectively.

“The results of subgroup analyses showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost effective for patients with 1% or greater programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that the analysis used data from only a single randomized trial. Consequently, Dr. Wan and his colleagues reported that any bias contained within that trial will also be present in this analysis.

The study was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan province. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wan X et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7086.

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be cost effective when compared with sunitinib for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), according to a cost-effectiveness analysis.

“A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of treatment of mRCC,” XiaoMin Wan, PhD, of the Capital Medical University in Beijing and his colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The researchers used data from an economic model that extrapolated findings from a phase 3 randomized study of 1,096 patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

“We assumed that the first-line treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects,” the team wrote.

Several measures were estimated using the model, including quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and life-years. The team set a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY. In addition, Dr. Wan and his colleagues completed a sensitivity analysis to investigate how the results changed across different ranges of drug cost.

After analysis, the researchers found that first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to cost $108,363 per QALY gained. The incremental QALYs added using the combination was 0.96 years versus sunitinib, at the same cost per QALY.

With respect to the sensitivity analysis, the likelihood of the combination being cost effective, compared with sunitinib, was calculated to be 42.5% and 80.2% at the minimum and maximum of the willingness-to-pay threshold, respectively.

“The results of subgroup analyses showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost effective for patients with 1% or greater programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that the analysis used data from only a single randomized trial. Consequently, Dr. Wan and his colleagues reported that any bias contained within that trial will also be present in this analysis.

The study was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan province. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wan X et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7086.

HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Mary Jo M. Dales/MDedge News

SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.

HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Mary Jo M. Dales/MDedge News

SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.

HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Mary Jo M. Dales/MDedge News

SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.

HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.

There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.

Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 10⁶ cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.

HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.

There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.

Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 10⁶ cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.

HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.

There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.

Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 10⁶ cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.