Immuno-oncology

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

There is no significant difference in response or survival rates between the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi-nivo) and immuno-oncology plus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition (IOVE) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Therefore, the treatment should probably be directed by patient preferences, among other things, Shaan Dudani, MD, and colleagues wrote in European Oncology.

“Given the current lack of evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between treatment strategies, patients, clinicians and policy makers are likely to take into account other considerations, such as toxicity, cost, logistics, prognostic categories, and patient preferences in deciding between the various front-line [immuno-oncology] combination regimens,” wrote Dr. Dudani, of the University of Calgary, and coauthors.

The team examined response rates among 263 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset. Patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination (n = 113) were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo (n = 75). Patients were about 62 years old. The most common sites of metastasis were liver (about 20%) and bone (about 33%), and about 20% had sarcomatoid features (about 20%). Most (about 75%) had multiple metastatic sites.

Thirty percent of those in the IOVE group and 40% in the ipi-nivo group had received second-line treatments. These included axitinib, levantinib plus severolimus, nivolumab alone, pazopanib, and sunitinib, as well as other treatments.

At a mean follow-up of 11.7 months, the response rates were 33% for IOVE and 40% for ipi-nivo. This difference was not statistically significant (between group difference, 7%; 95% confidence interval, –8% to 22%; P = .4). Complete response occurred in 2% in IOVE and 5% of the ipi-nivo group.

The time to treatment failure was 14.3 months for IOVE and 10.2 months for ipi-nivo – again not a significant difference (P = .2). Time to next treatment also was not significantly different (19.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = .4). Neither group met the study’s overall survival goal.

After adjustment for IMDC risk score, hazard ratios for death were 0.71 for IOVE and 1.74 for ipi-nivo. There were no significant between-group differences when comparing intermediate- and poor-risk patients or when the analysis was restricted only to favorable-risk patients. Among 55 who received second-line therapy, there was also no significant difference in time to treatment failure.

“It was interesting, though not surprising, to observe that the majority [88%] of second-line therapies in this cohort were VEGF-based following ipi-nivo vs. IOVE combinations,” the authors noted. “The higher response rates observed in patients receiving second-line VEGF combinations is noteworthy and thought provoking. Biologically, it is plausible that VEGF-based second-line therapy would be more likely to be effective in the VEGF-naive ipi-nivo cohort. It remains to be seen whether the numerical difference in time to treatment failure becomes significant with increased sample size and further follow-up, and whether this contributes to differences in overall survival, which ultimately impacts treatment selections in the first-line setting.”

Dr. Dudani had no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dudani S et al. Euro Onc. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.048.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”

Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
 

Blinatumomab

Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).

The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).

Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).

The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.

In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).

Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
 

Inotuzumab ozogamicin

Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.

The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.

The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).

Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.

Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”

Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
 

Blinatumomab

Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).

The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).

Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).

The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.

In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).

Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
 

Inotuzumab ozogamicin

Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.

The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.

The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).

Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.

Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”

Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
 

Blinatumomab

Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).

The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).

Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).

The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.

In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).

Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
 

Inotuzumab ozogamicin

Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.

The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.

The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).

Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.

Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BOSTON – CT103A, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, is “active and effective” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T-cell therapy produced a 100% response rate in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, and three of four patients who had failed a prior CAR T-cell therapy achieved a stringent complete response after CT103A.

Chunrui Li, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital and Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science, Wuhan, China, presented these results at the workshop.

Dr. Li noted that anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy has produced responses in myeloma patients, but approximately half of patients typically relapse in about a year. CAR T-cell infusions after relapse have not been effective in these patients.

In an effort to change that, Dr. Li and his colleagues developed CT103A, a lentiviral vector containing a CAR structure with a fully human single-chain fragment variant; CD8a hinger; and transmembrane, 4-1BB co-stimulatory, and CD3z activation domains.

Dr. Li and his colleagues evaluated CT103A in a phase 0 trial (ChiCTR1800018137) of 18 patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy and had disease refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.

The patients’ median age was 53.3 years (range, 38-66 years), and their median time since diagnosis was 32 months (range, 8-92 months). They had received a median of 4 (range, 3-6) prior therapies. All had received prior bortezomib and lenalidomide, seven had undergone a transplant, and four had been treated on a trial of murine anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy.

For the current trial, patients received lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by CT103A at 1x10⁶, 3x10⁶, or 6x10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

There was one dose-limiting toxicity at the highest dose level – grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a patient who died at day 19 after CT103A infusion.

In all, 17 patients developed CRS, four with grade 1, eight with grade 2, four with grade 3, and one with grade 4 CRS. None of the patients developed neurologic toxicity.

Serious adverse events related to lymphodepletion and/or CT103A included prolonged cytopenia (n = 3), pulmonary infection (n = 2), herpes zoster (n = 1), pleuritis (n = 1), and hypoxemia (n = 1).

There were 17 patients evaluable for efficacy, and all of them achieved a response at some point. In eight patients, responses have lasted more than 200 days.

At the data cutoff, there were 10 stringent complete responses, two complete responses, and three very good partial responses. One patient progressed after achieving a very good partial response, and one patient achieved a partial response but ultimately died (likely of respiratory failure attributable to a lung infection).

Of the four patients who had previously received murine CAR T-cell therapy, one progressed, and three achieved a stringent complete response.

This study was funded by Nanjing Iaso Biotherapeutics. Dr. Li did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li C et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-033.

BOSTON – CT103A, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, is “active and effective” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T-cell therapy produced a 100% response rate in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, and three of four patients who had failed a prior CAR T-cell therapy achieved a stringent complete response after CT103A.

Chunrui Li, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital and Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science, Wuhan, China, presented these results at the workshop.

Dr. Li noted that anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy has produced responses in myeloma patients, but approximately half of patients typically relapse in about a year. CAR T-cell infusions after relapse have not been effective in these patients.

In an effort to change that, Dr. Li and his colleagues developed CT103A, a lentiviral vector containing a CAR structure with a fully human single-chain fragment variant; CD8a hinger; and transmembrane, 4-1BB co-stimulatory, and CD3z activation domains.

Dr. Li and his colleagues evaluated CT103A in a phase 0 trial (ChiCTR1800018137) of 18 patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy and had disease refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.

The patients’ median age was 53.3 years (range, 38-66 years), and their median time since diagnosis was 32 months (range, 8-92 months). They had received a median of 4 (range, 3-6) prior therapies. All had received prior bortezomib and lenalidomide, seven had undergone a transplant, and four had been treated on a trial of murine anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy.

For the current trial, patients received lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by CT103A at 1x10⁶, 3x10⁶, or 6x10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

There was one dose-limiting toxicity at the highest dose level – grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a patient who died at day 19 after CT103A infusion.

In all, 17 patients developed CRS, four with grade 1, eight with grade 2, four with grade 3, and one with grade 4 CRS. None of the patients developed neurologic toxicity.

Serious adverse events related to lymphodepletion and/or CT103A included prolonged cytopenia (n = 3), pulmonary infection (n = 2), herpes zoster (n = 1), pleuritis (n = 1), and hypoxemia (n = 1).

There were 17 patients evaluable for efficacy, and all of them achieved a response at some point. In eight patients, responses have lasted more than 200 days.

At the data cutoff, there were 10 stringent complete responses, two complete responses, and three very good partial responses. One patient progressed after achieving a very good partial response, and one patient achieved a partial response but ultimately died (likely of respiratory failure attributable to a lung infection).

Of the four patients who had previously received murine CAR T-cell therapy, one progressed, and three achieved a stringent complete response.

This study was funded by Nanjing Iaso Biotherapeutics. Dr. Li did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li C et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-033.

BOSTON – CT103A, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, is “active and effective” in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T-cell therapy produced a 100% response rate in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, and three of four patients who had failed a prior CAR T-cell therapy achieved a stringent complete response after CT103A.

Chunrui Li, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital and Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science, Wuhan, China, presented these results at the workshop.

Dr. Li noted that anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy has produced responses in myeloma patients, but approximately half of patients typically relapse in about a year. CAR T-cell infusions after relapse have not been effective in these patients.

In an effort to change that, Dr. Li and his colleagues developed CT103A, a lentiviral vector containing a CAR structure with a fully human single-chain fragment variant; CD8a hinger; and transmembrane, 4-1BB co-stimulatory, and CD3z activation domains.

Dr. Li and his colleagues evaluated CT103A in a phase 0 trial (ChiCTR1800018137) of 18 patients who had received at least three prior lines of therapy and had disease refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent.

The patients’ median age was 53.3 years (range, 38-66 years), and their median time since diagnosis was 32 months (range, 8-92 months). They had received a median of 4 (range, 3-6) prior therapies. All had received prior bortezomib and lenalidomide, seven had undergone a transplant, and four had been treated on a trial of murine anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy.

For the current trial, patients received lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by CT103A at 1x10⁶, 3x10⁶, or 6x10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

There was one dose-limiting toxicity at the highest dose level – grade 4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a patient who died at day 19 after CT103A infusion.

In all, 17 patients developed CRS, four with grade 1, eight with grade 2, four with grade 3, and one with grade 4 CRS. None of the patients developed neurologic toxicity.

Serious adverse events related to lymphodepletion and/or CT103A included prolonged cytopenia (n = 3), pulmonary infection (n = 2), herpes zoster (n = 1), pleuritis (n = 1), and hypoxemia (n = 1).

There were 17 patients evaluable for efficacy, and all of them achieved a response at some point. In eight patients, responses have lasted more than 200 days.

At the data cutoff, there were 10 stringent complete responses, two complete responses, and three very good partial responses. One patient progressed after achieving a very good partial response, and one patient achieved a partial response but ultimately died (likely of respiratory failure attributable to a lung infection).

Of the four patients who had previously received murine CAR T-cell therapy, one progressed, and three achieved a stringent complete response.

This study was funded by Nanjing Iaso Biotherapeutics. Dr. Li did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li C et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-033.

As immunotherapy has become more widely available, cancer patients have been referred to subacute rehabilitation (SAR) facilities at an increasing rate, to become well enough to tolerate treatment, investigators report.

However, “many patients never receive additional therapy and are readmitted or deceased within a short time, marking this population as one with strong needs for concurrent palliative and usual oncology care,” wrote Jonathan C. Yeh, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

To determine if the advent of immunotherapy contributed to an increase in referrals to SAR facilities – and which patients survived long enough to benefit – the researchers reviewed the electronic charts of 358 patients who were referred to such facilities. The number of referrals increased gradually over the 8-year period of the study.

Of these 358 patients, 174 (49%) were seen again in the oncology clinic before readmission or death and 117 (33%) ever received additional cancer-directed treatment. The patients most likely to receive additional treatment were those with leukemia, lymphoma, or localized solid disease.

Of the 413 total discharges, 116 (28%) resulted in hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge. Seventy-four (21%) of the patients were deceased within 30 days; 212 (59%) were deceased within 180 days. Only 123 (30%) of the initial admissions involved a palliative care specialist; this involvement was associated with increases in documented goals of care, completion of advance directives, and election of do-not-resuscitate status.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including all of the data coming from a single tertiary cancer center. In addition, the data are observational, which made the researchers “unable to control for key patient characteristics such as performance status, patient goals, insurance coverage of trials, and the like.”

Dr. Smith reported being employed by UpToDate and receiving royalties as coeditor of the Oxford Textbook of Cancer Communication. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yeh JC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00044.

As immunotherapy has become more widely available, cancer patients have been referred to subacute rehabilitation (SAR) facilities at an increasing rate, to become well enough to tolerate treatment, investigators report.

However, “many patients never receive additional therapy and are readmitted or deceased within a short time, marking this population as one with strong needs for concurrent palliative and usual oncology care,” wrote Jonathan C. Yeh, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

To determine if the advent of immunotherapy contributed to an increase in referrals to SAR facilities – and which patients survived long enough to benefit – the researchers reviewed the electronic charts of 358 patients who were referred to such facilities. The number of referrals increased gradually over the 8-year period of the study.

Of these 358 patients, 174 (49%) were seen again in the oncology clinic before readmission or death and 117 (33%) ever received additional cancer-directed treatment. The patients most likely to receive additional treatment were those with leukemia, lymphoma, or localized solid disease.

Of the 413 total discharges, 116 (28%) resulted in hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge. Seventy-four (21%) of the patients were deceased within 30 days; 212 (59%) were deceased within 180 days. Only 123 (30%) of the initial admissions involved a palliative care specialist; this involvement was associated with increases in documented goals of care, completion of advance directives, and election of do-not-resuscitate status.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including all of the data coming from a single tertiary cancer center. In addition, the data are observational, which made the researchers “unable to control for key patient characteristics such as performance status, patient goals, insurance coverage of trials, and the like.”

Dr. Smith reported being employed by UpToDate and receiving royalties as coeditor of the Oxford Textbook of Cancer Communication. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yeh JC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00044.

As immunotherapy has become more widely available, cancer patients have been referred to subacute rehabilitation (SAR) facilities at an increasing rate, to become well enough to tolerate treatment, investigators report.

However, “many patients never receive additional therapy and are readmitted or deceased within a short time, marking this population as one with strong needs for concurrent palliative and usual oncology care,” wrote Jonathan C. Yeh, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

To determine if the advent of immunotherapy contributed to an increase in referrals to SAR facilities – and which patients survived long enough to benefit – the researchers reviewed the electronic charts of 358 patients who were referred to such facilities. The number of referrals increased gradually over the 8-year period of the study.

Of these 358 patients, 174 (49%) were seen again in the oncology clinic before readmission or death and 117 (33%) ever received additional cancer-directed treatment. The patients most likely to receive additional treatment were those with leukemia, lymphoma, or localized solid disease.

Of the 413 total discharges, 116 (28%) resulted in hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge. Seventy-four (21%) of the patients were deceased within 30 days; 212 (59%) were deceased within 180 days. Only 123 (30%) of the initial admissions involved a palliative care specialist; this involvement was associated with increases in documented goals of care, completion of advance directives, and election of do-not-resuscitate status.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including all of the data coming from a single tertiary cancer center. In addition, the data are observational, which made the researchers “unable to control for key patient characteristics such as performance status, patient goals, insurance coverage of trials, and the like.”

Dr. Smith reported being employed by UpToDate and receiving royalties as coeditor of the Oxford Textbook of Cancer Communication. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yeh JC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00044.

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

Nivolumab has “limited intracranial activity” in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and previously untreated brain metastases, according to researchers.

In a phase 2 trial, nivolumab produced an intracranial response rate of 12% in ccRCC patients with previously untreated brain metastases.

The median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among patients who had received prior focal therapy than among those with previously untreated brain metastases.

These results suggest “brain imaging and focal therapy should be considered before immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic ccRCC,” Ronan Flippot, MD, of Université Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Flippot and colleagues conducted this analysis of patients from the phase 2 GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN trial (NCT03013335). The researchers looked at 73 ccRCC patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who had received at least one prior line of antiangiogenic treatment.

Patients were divided into two cohorts. Cohort A included patients with previously untreated brain metastases (n = 39), and cohort B included patients who had received focal therapy for brain metastases (n = 34).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. The median ages were 61 years in cohort A (range, 39-77) and 58 years in cohort B (range, 33-78). Most patients had grade 3-4 tumors (64% in cohort A and 78% in cohort B), and most had one brain lesion (67% and 59%, respectively). The median sum of the diameters of target lesions was 11 mm in cohort A and 17 mm in cohort B.

All patients received intravenous nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until they progressed, developed unacceptable toxicity, died, withdrew consent, or the investigator stopped treatment.

The median follow-up was 23.6 months in cohort A and 20.2 months in cohort B. The median duration of treatment was 4.9 months and 4.5 months, respectively. Five patients in cohort A and four in cohort B were still receiving nivolumab at the data cutoff.

Response

The primary endpoint was the intracranial response rate in cohort A, which was 12%. All four responders achieved a complete response. At baseline, all of them had grade 1-2 disease and a single brain lesion smaller than 1 cm.

Thirteen patients (38%) in cohort A had stable intracranial disease as their best response, and 17 (50%) had progressive intracranial disease. The remaining five patients could not be evaluated because they progressed and died before the first evaluation.

The extracranial response rate in cohort A was 21%, and all seven responders had partial responses. Ten patients had stable extracranial disease (30%), and 16 had extracranial progression (49%). The remaining six patients were not evaluable for extracranial response.

All four patients who achieved a complete intracranial response had a partial extracranial response. Six patients (18%) had discordant intracranial and extracranial responses.
 

Survival

The median intracranial PFS in cohort A was 2.7 months in cohort A versus 4.8 months in cohort B. When the researchers adjusted for baseline characteristics, they found that prior focal therapy decreased the risk of intracranial progression (hazard ratio, 0.49).

The median extracranial PFS was 2.8 months in cohort A versus 2.6 months in cohort B. The median global PFS was 2.4 months in cohort A versus 2.5 months in cohort B.

The overall survival rates at 12 months were 66.7% in cohort A and 58.8% in cohort B.

Safety

The most common treatment-related adverse events (in cohort A and B, respectively) were asthenia (21% and 24%) and rash (10% and 9%).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four patients in cohort A and five in cohort B. In cohort A, these events were asthenia, elevated liver function tests, dyspnea, and atrioventricular block. In cohort B, the events were diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, psoriasis, hypophosphatemia, and elevated creatinine (in two patients).

The patient who developed atrioventricular block permanently discontinued nivolumab. There were no other treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation.

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The researchers disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flippot R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2008-16.

Nivolumab has “limited intracranial activity” in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and previously untreated brain metastases, according to researchers.

In a phase 2 trial, nivolumab produced an intracranial response rate of 12% in ccRCC patients with previously untreated brain metastases.

The median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among patients who had received prior focal therapy than among those with previously untreated brain metastases.

These results suggest “brain imaging and focal therapy should be considered before immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic ccRCC,” Ronan Flippot, MD, of Université Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Flippot and colleagues conducted this analysis of patients from the phase 2 GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN trial (NCT03013335). The researchers looked at 73 ccRCC patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who had received at least one prior line of antiangiogenic treatment.

Patients were divided into two cohorts. Cohort A included patients with previously untreated brain metastases (n = 39), and cohort B included patients who had received focal therapy for brain metastases (n = 34).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. The median ages were 61 years in cohort A (range, 39-77) and 58 years in cohort B (range, 33-78). Most patients had grade 3-4 tumors (64% in cohort A and 78% in cohort B), and most had one brain lesion (67% and 59%, respectively). The median sum of the diameters of target lesions was 11 mm in cohort A and 17 mm in cohort B.

All patients received intravenous nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until they progressed, developed unacceptable toxicity, died, withdrew consent, or the investigator stopped treatment.

The median follow-up was 23.6 months in cohort A and 20.2 months in cohort B. The median duration of treatment was 4.9 months and 4.5 months, respectively. Five patients in cohort A and four in cohort B were still receiving nivolumab at the data cutoff.

Response

The primary endpoint was the intracranial response rate in cohort A, which was 12%. All four responders achieved a complete response. At baseline, all of them had grade 1-2 disease and a single brain lesion smaller than 1 cm.

Thirteen patients (38%) in cohort A had stable intracranial disease as their best response, and 17 (50%) had progressive intracranial disease. The remaining five patients could not be evaluated because they progressed and died before the first evaluation.

The extracranial response rate in cohort A was 21%, and all seven responders had partial responses. Ten patients had stable extracranial disease (30%), and 16 had extracranial progression (49%). The remaining six patients were not evaluable for extracranial response.

All four patients who achieved a complete intracranial response had a partial extracranial response. Six patients (18%) had discordant intracranial and extracranial responses.
 

Survival

The median intracranial PFS in cohort A was 2.7 months in cohort A versus 4.8 months in cohort B. When the researchers adjusted for baseline characteristics, they found that prior focal therapy decreased the risk of intracranial progression (hazard ratio, 0.49).

The median extracranial PFS was 2.8 months in cohort A versus 2.6 months in cohort B. The median global PFS was 2.4 months in cohort A versus 2.5 months in cohort B.

The overall survival rates at 12 months were 66.7% in cohort A and 58.8% in cohort B.

Safety

The most common treatment-related adverse events (in cohort A and B, respectively) were asthenia (21% and 24%) and rash (10% and 9%).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four patients in cohort A and five in cohort B. In cohort A, these events were asthenia, elevated liver function tests, dyspnea, and atrioventricular block. In cohort B, the events were diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, psoriasis, hypophosphatemia, and elevated creatinine (in two patients).

The patient who developed atrioventricular block permanently discontinued nivolumab. There were no other treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation.

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The researchers disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flippot R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2008-16.

Nivolumab has “limited intracranial activity” in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and previously untreated brain metastases, according to researchers.

In a phase 2 trial, nivolumab produced an intracranial response rate of 12% in ccRCC patients with previously untreated brain metastases.

The median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among patients who had received prior focal therapy than among those with previously untreated brain metastases.

These results suggest “brain imaging and focal therapy should be considered before immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic ccRCC,” Ronan Flippot, MD, of Université Paris-Saclay in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Flippot and colleagues conducted this analysis of patients from the phase 2 GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN trial (NCT03013335). The researchers looked at 73 ccRCC patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who had received at least one prior line of antiangiogenic treatment.

Patients were divided into two cohorts. Cohort A included patients with previously untreated brain metastases (n = 39), and cohort B included patients who had received focal therapy for brain metastases (n = 34).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. The median ages were 61 years in cohort A (range, 39-77) and 58 years in cohort B (range, 33-78). Most patients had grade 3-4 tumors (64% in cohort A and 78% in cohort B), and most had one brain lesion (67% and 59%, respectively). The median sum of the diameters of target lesions was 11 mm in cohort A and 17 mm in cohort B.

All patients received intravenous nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until they progressed, developed unacceptable toxicity, died, withdrew consent, or the investigator stopped treatment.

The median follow-up was 23.6 months in cohort A and 20.2 months in cohort B. The median duration of treatment was 4.9 months and 4.5 months, respectively. Five patients in cohort A and four in cohort B were still receiving nivolumab at the data cutoff.

Response

The primary endpoint was the intracranial response rate in cohort A, which was 12%. All four responders achieved a complete response. At baseline, all of them had grade 1-2 disease and a single brain lesion smaller than 1 cm.

Thirteen patients (38%) in cohort A had stable intracranial disease as their best response, and 17 (50%) had progressive intracranial disease. The remaining five patients could not be evaluated because they progressed and died before the first evaluation.

The extracranial response rate in cohort A was 21%, and all seven responders had partial responses. Ten patients had stable extracranial disease (30%), and 16 had extracranial progression (49%). The remaining six patients were not evaluable for extracranial response.

All four patients who achieved a complete intracranial response had a partial extracranial response. Six patients (18%) had discordant intracranial and extracranial responses.
 

Survival

The median intracranial PFS in cohort A was 2.7 months in cohort A versus 4.8 months in cohort B. When the researchers adjusted for baseline characteristics, they found that prior focal therapy decreased the risk of intracranial progression (hazard ratio, 0.49).

The median extracranial PFS was 2.8 months in cohort A versus 2.6 months in cohort B. The median global PFS was 2.4 months in cohort A versus 2.5 months in cohort B.

The overall survival rates at 12 months were 66.7% in cohort A and 58.8% in cohort B.

Safety

The most common treatment-related adverse events (in cohort A and B, respectively) were asthenia (21% and 24%) and rash (10% and 9%).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four patients in cohort A and five in cohort B. In cohort A, these events were asthenia, elevated liver function tests, dyspnea, and atrioventricular block. In cohort B, the events were diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, psoriasis, hypophosphatemia, and elevated creatinine (in two patients).

The patient who developed atrioventricular block permanently discontinued nivolumab. There were no other treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation.

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The researchers disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flippot R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2008-16.

The use of nivolumab is associated with a long-term survival benefit, compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of four trials.

The survival outcomes comparing the two therapies demonstrates an extended survival advantage for nivolumab up to and past a duration of 4 years.

“We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival,” wrote Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, formally of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa and now at Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The findings were published in the Lancet Oncology.

The researchers combined data from four clinical studies (CheckMate 003, 017, 057, and 063) that assessed survival outcomes in patients receiving second-line or later nivolumab therapy. Across the four trials, a total of 664 patients were administered nivolumab.

The CheckMate 057 and 017 phase 3, randomized clinical trials compared docetaxel versus nivolumab in patients with previously treated nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively.

With respect to safety analyses, Dr. Antonia and colleagues included patients who were administered a minimum of one dose of nivolumab.

Across the four trials, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-17%), including 11% (7%-16%) for patients with under 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression, and 19% (15%-24%) for patients with a minimum of 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

In CheckMate 057 and 017, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-18%) versus 5% (3%-7%) in patients who received docetaxel.

With respect to safety, analysis of the long-term data did not reveal any novel safety signals.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the exclusion of patients who were maintained in stable disease or in response at the point of data lock.

As a result, the findings likely minimize the survival advantage seen post–disease progression for nivolumab, compared with docetaxel.

“Additional analyses assessing the effect of various factors on long-term survival with immunotherapy versus chemotherapy are planned,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellular Biomedicine Group, FLX Bio, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and several others.

SOURCE: Antonia SJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30407-3.

The use of nivolumab is associated with a long-term survival benefit, compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of four trials.

The survival outcomes comparing the two therapies demonstrates an extended survival advantage for nivolumab up to and past a duration of 4 years.

“We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival,” wrote Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, formally of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa and now at Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The findings were published in the Lancet Oncology.

The researchers combined data from four clinical studies (CheckMate 003, 017, 057, and 063) that assessed survival outcomes in patients receiving second-line or later nivolumab therapy. Across the four trials, a total of 664 patients were administered nivolumab.

The CheckMate 057 and 017 phase 3, randomized clinical trials compared docetaxel versus nivolumab in patients with previously treated nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively.

With respect to safety analyses, Dr. Antonia and colleagues included patients who were administered a minimum of one dose of nivolumab.

Across the four trials, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-17%), including 11% (7%-16%) for patients with under 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression, and 19% (15%-24%) for patients with a minimum of 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

In CheckMate 057 and 017, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-18%) versus 5% (3%-7%) in patients who received docetaxel.

With respect to safety, analysis of the long-term data did not reveal any novel safety signals.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the exclusion of patients who were maintained in stable disease or in response at the point of data lock.

As a result, the findings likely minimize the survival advantage seen post–disease progression for nivolumab, compared with docetaxel.

“Additional analyses assessing the effect of various factors on long-term survival with immunotherapy versus chemotherapy are planned,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellular Biomedicine Group, FLX Bio, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and several others.

SOURCE: Antonia SJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30407-3.

The use of nivolumab is associated with a long-term survival benefit, compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of four trials.

The survival outcomes comparing the two therapies demonstrates an extended survival advantage for nivolumab up to and past a duration of 4 years.

“We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival,” wrote Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, formally of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa and now at Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The findings were published in the Lancet Oncology.

The researchers combined data from four clinical studies (CheckMate 003, 017, 057, and 063) that assessed survival outcomes in patients receiving second-line or later nivolumab therapy. Across the four trials, a total of 664 patients were administered nivolumab.

The CheckMate 057 and 017 phase 3, randomized clinical trials compared docetaxel versus nivolumab in patients with previously treated nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively.

With respect to safety analyses, Dr. Antonia and colleagues included patients who were administered a minimum of one dose of nivolumab.

Across the four trials, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-17%), including 11% (7%-16%) for patients with under 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression, and 19% (15%-24%) for patients with a minimum of 1% programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

In CheckMate 057 and 017, the 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (11%-18%) versus 5% (3%-7%) in patients who received docetaxel.

With respect to safety, analysis of the long-term data did not reveal any novel safety signals.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the exclusion of patients who were maintained in stable disease or in response at the point of data lock.

As a result, the findings likely minimize the survival advantage seen post–disease progression for nivolumab, compared with docetaxel.

“Additional analyses assessing the effect of various factors on long-term survival with immunotherapy versus chemotherapy are planned,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellular Biomedicine Group, FLX Bio, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and several others.

SOURCE: Antonia SJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30407-3.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

A considerable proportion of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were hospitalized for immune-related toxicities, according to a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.

“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.

In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.

Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.

“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.

The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.

“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.

Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.

SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.

A considerable proportion of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were hospitalized for immune-related toxicities, according to a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.

“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.

In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.

Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.

“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.

The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.

“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.

Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.

SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.

A considerable proportion of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were hospitalized for immune-related toxicities, according to a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.

“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.

In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.

Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.

“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.

The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.

“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.

Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.

SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.