AVAHO

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a cornerstone of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. But there is a question that’s been vexing oncologists for years: When can treatment be stopped?
 

A new review of clinical trial data suggests that it is safe to stop immunotherapy after 2 years if the patient is progression free. There was no difference in overall survival between such patients and those who carried on with immunotherapy for another 2 years, so for 4 years in total.

“For patients who are progression free on immunotherapy for NSCLC, it is reasonable to stop therapy at 2 years, rather than continuing indefinitely,”  said the investigators, led by medical oncologist Lova Sun, MD, a lung and head and neck cancer specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The lack of statistically significant overall survival advantage for” indefinite treatment “on adjusted analysis provides reassurance to patients and clinicians who wish to discontinue immunotherapy at 2 years,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology to coincide with a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Sun and colleagues commented that there have been a number of trials that have shown durable benefits persisting long after immunotherapy was stopped at 2 years, but clinicians seem to have been spooked into preferring indefinite treatment by a trial that showed worse survival with nivolumab when it was stopped at 1 year in responders versus ongoing treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist and lung cancer specialist at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., noted that given the “clear limitations in retrospective clinical data, we may want to wait for prospective randomized clinical trial data, but this will be a difficult study to complete, and results will take many years to become available.

“In the meantime, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. These data may provide reassurance to us and patients that discontinuing treatment at 2 years can confer the same overall survival as extended treatment with lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” he said.
 

Study details

For their review, Dr. Sun and colleagues included patients with advanced NSCLC called from 280 cancer clinics from across the United States.

The investigators compared overall survival in 113 advanced NSCLC patients treated with up-front immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for 700-760 days (that is, stopping within 2 years) with survival in 593 patients treated beyond 760 days (the indefinite therapy group).

Patients were diagnosed from 2016 to 2020 at a median age of 69 years and were about evenly split between the sexes. The team noted that although all the patients were progression free at 2 years, only about one in five discontinued ICIs, highlighting “a strong bias toward potential overtreatment [vs.] possible undertreatment,” as Dr. West put it in the editorial.

Approximately half of the patients in both groups were treated initially with immunotherapy alone and the rest in combination with chemotherapy.

The 2-year overall survival from the 760-day mark was 79% in the fixed-duration group versus 81% with indefinite treatment, with no difference on either univariate (hazard ratio, 1.26; P = .36) or multivariable (HR, 1.33; P = .29) analysis adjusting for smoking history, PD-L1 status, histology, and other covariates.

Eleven patients in the fixed-duration cohort (10%) subsequently had progression and were rechallenged with an ICI; all but one with the same ICI used frontline.

Median progression-free survival after rechallenge was 8.1 months, demonstrating that patients can still benefit from ICIs even after discontinuation, the investigators said.

The groups were well balanced except that patients in the fixed-duration group were more likely to be treated at an academic center and have a history of smoking, with a trend toward being more likely to have squamous cell carcinoma. “Even after adjusting for these covariates, there was no overall survival benefit for indefinite-duration therapy,” the team said.

There was no funding for the work. The investigators have numerous pharmaceutical industry ties, including Dr. Sun, who is a consultant for Regeneron, Genmab, Seagen, and Bayer, and disclosed funding from BluePrint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a cornerstone of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. But there is a question that’s been vexing oncologists for years: When can treatment be stopped?
 

A new review of clinical trial data suggests that it is safe to stop immunotherapy after 2 years if the patient is progression free. There was no difference in overall survival between such patients and those who carried on with immunotherapy for another 2 years, so for 4 years in total.

“For patients who are progression free on immunotherapy for NSCLC, it is reasonable to stop therapy at 2 years, rather than continuing indefinitely,”  said the investigators, led by medical oncologist Lova Sun, MD, a lung and head and neck cancer specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The lack of statistically significant overall survival advantage for” indefinite treatment “on adjusted analysis provides reassurance to patients and clinicians who wish to discontinue immunotherapy at 2 years,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology to coincide with a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Sun and colleagues commented that there have been a number of trials that have shown durable benefits persisting long after immunotherapy was stopped at 2 years, but clinicians seem to have been spooked into preferring indefinite treatment by a trial that showed worse survival with nivolumab when it was stopped at 1 year in responders versus ongoing treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist and lung cancer specialist at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., noted that given the “clear limitations in retrospective clinical data, we may want to wait for prospective randomized clinical trial data, but this will be a difficult study to complete, and results will take many years to become available.

“In the meantime, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. These data may provide reassurance to us and patients that discontinuing treatment at 2 years can confer the same overall survival as extended treatment with lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” he said.
 

Study details

For their review, Dr. Sun and colleagues included patients with advanced NSCLC called from 280 cancer clinics from across the United States.

The investigators compared overall survival in 113 advanced NSCLC patients treated with up-front immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for 700-760 days (that is, stopping within 2 years) with survival in 593 patients treated beyond 760 days (the indefinite therapy group).

Patients were diagnosed from 2016 to 2020 at a median age of 69 years and were about evenly split between the sexes. The team noted that although all the patients were progression free at 2 years, only about one in five discontinued ICIs, highlighting “a strong bias toward potential overtreatment [vs.] possible undertreatment,” as Dr. West put it in the editorial.

Approximately half of the patients in both groups were treated initially with immunotherapy alone and the rest in combination with chemotherapy.

The 2-year overall survival from the 760-day mark was 79% in the fixed-duration group versus 81% with indefinite treatment, with no difference on either univariate (hazard ratio, 1.26; P = .36) or multivariable (HR, 1.33; P = .29) analysis adjusting for smoking history, PD-L1 status, histology, and other covariates.

Eleven patients in the fixed-duration cohort (10%) subsequently had progression and were rechallenged with an ICI; all but one with the same ICI used frontline.

Median progression-free survival after rechallenge was 8.1 months, demonstrating that patients can still benefit from ICIs even after discontinuation, the investigators said.

The groups were well balanced except that patients in the fixed-duration group were more likely to be treated at an academic center and have a history of smoking, with a trend toward being more likely to have squamous cell carcinoma. “Even after adjusting for these covariates, there was no overall survival benefit for indefinite-duration therapy,” the team said.

There was no funding for the work. The investigators have numerous pharmaceutical industry ties, including Dr. Sun, who is a consultant for Regeneron, Genmab, Seagen, and Bayer, and disclosed funding from BluePrint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a cornerstone of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. But there is a question that’s been vexing oncologists for years: When can treatment be stopped?
 

A new review of clinical trial data suggests that it is safe to stop immunotherapy after 2 years if the patient is progression free. There was no difference in overall survival between such patients and those who carried on with immunotherapy for another 2 years, so for 4 years in total.

“For patients who are progression free on immunotherapy for NSCLC, it is reasonable to stop therapy at 2 years, rather than continuing indefinitely,”  said the investigators, led by medical oncologist Lova Sun, MD, a lung and head and neck cancer specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The lack of statistically significant overall survival advantage for” indefinite treatment “on adjusted analysis provides reassurance to patients and clinicians who wish to discontinue immunotherapy at 2 years,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology to coincide with a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Sun and colleagues commented that there have been a number of trials that have shown durable benefits persisting long after immunotherapy was stopped at 2 years, but clinicians seem to have been spooked into preferring indefinite treatment by a trial that showed worse survival with nivolumab when it was stopped at 1 year in responders versus ongoing treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist and lung cancer specialist at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., noted that given the “clear limitations in retrospective clinical data, we may want to wait for prospective randomized clinical trial data, but this will be a difficult study to complete, and results will take many years to become available.

“In the meantime, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. These data may provide reassurance to us and patients that discontinuing treatment at 2 years can confer the same overall survival as extended treatment with lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” he said.
 

Study details

For their review, Dr. Sun and colleagues included patients with advanced NSCLC called from 280 cancer clinics from across the United States.

The investigators compared overall survival in 113 advanced NSCLC patients treated with up-front immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for 700-760 days (that is, stopping within 2 years) with survival in 593 patients treated beyond 760 days (the indefinite therapy group).

Patients were diagnosed from 2016 to 2020 at a median age of 69 years and were about evenly split between the sexes. The team noted that although all the patients were progression free at 2 years, only about one in five discontinued ICIs, highlighting “a strong bias toward potential overtreatment [vs.] possible undertreatment,” as Dr. West put it in the editorial.

Approximately half of the patients in both groups were treated initially with immunotherapy alone and the rest in combination with chemotherapy.

The 2-year overall survival from the 760-day mark was 79% in the fixed-duration group versus 81% with indefinite treatment, with no difference on either univariate (hazard ratio, 1.26; P = .36) or multivariable (HR, 1.33; P = .29) analysis adjusting for smoking history, PD-L1 status, histology, and other covariates.

Eleven patients in the fixed-duration cohort (10%) subsequently had progression and were rechallenged with an ICI; all but one with the same ICI used frontline.

Median progression-free survival after rechallenge was 8.1 months, demonstrating that patients can still benefit from ICIs even after discontinuation, the investigators said.

The groups were well balanced except that patients in the fixed-duration group were more likely to be treated at an academic center and have a history of smoking, with a trend toward being more likely to have squamous cell carcinoma. “Even after adjusting for these covariates, there was no overall survival benefit for indefinite-duration therapy,” the team said.

There was no funding for the work. The investigators have numerous pharmaceutical industry ties, including Dr. Sun, who is a consultant for Regeneron, Genmab, Seagen, and Bayer, and disclosed funding from BluePrint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

Chicago – In the second-line setting of head and neck cancer, metronomic triple therapy outperformed clinician choice chemotherapy in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), according to results from a new phase III clinical trial.

The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.

The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.

The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.

Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m² weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
 

Study methods and results

The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.

More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.

The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).

Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).

“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.

Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.

During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.

He welcomed the new results.

“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.

Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
 

Chicago – In the second-line setting of head and neck cancer, metronomic triple therapy outperformed clinician choice chemotherapy in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), according to results from a new phase III clinical trial.

The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.

The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.

The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.

Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m² weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
 

Study methods and results

The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.

More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.

The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).

Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).

“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.

Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.

During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.

He welcomed the new results.

“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.

Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
 

Chicago – In the second-line setting of head and neck cancer, metronomic triple therapy outperformed clinician choice chemotherapy in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), according to results from a new phase III clinical trial.

The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.

The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.

The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.

Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m² weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
 

Study methods and results

The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.

More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.

The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).

Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).

“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.

Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.

During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.

He welcomed the new results.

“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.

Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
 

A board-certified New Jersey oncologist has pled guilty to using her medical license to purchase cancer medications under the false pretense that they would be used to treat her own patients, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.

Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.

Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.

Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.

The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.

However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.

The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.

At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.

In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.

“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.

The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”

For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.

Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.

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

A board-certified New Jersey oncologist has pled guilty to using her medical license to purchase cancer medications under the false pretense that they would be used to treat her own patients, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.

Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.

Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.

Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.

The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.

However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.

The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.

At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.

In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.

“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.

The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”

For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.

Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.

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

A board-certified New Jersey oncologist has pled guilty to using her medical license to purchase cancer medications under the false pretense that they would be used to treat her own patients, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.

Instead, the drug purchases were part of a fraudulent profit-making scheme.

Anise Kachadourian, MD, of Towaco, N.J. – located about 20 miles from Manhattan – now faces a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Her sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2024.

Overall, “Kachadourian was paid more than $170,000 for purchasing and allowing others to purchase in her name millions of dollars in prescription drugs during the scheme, which ran from October 2016 through January 2019,” the office said in the release.

The scheme involved Dr. Kachadourian and others making “numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dr. Kachadourian purchased the drugs to use to treat her patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed,” the office said.

However, none of the drugs were administered to any of Dr. Kachadourian’s patients.

The press release explained that while working in her medical practice’s offices in various parts of New Jersey, Dr. Kachadourian was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy as well as two wholesale prescription drug distributors.

At this individual’s request and at the request of others who worked for him, Dr. Kachadourian used her medical license and allowed others to use it to purchase expensive drugs. The drugs primarily included cold-chain biologic infusion medications, such as trastuzumab and rituximab, often use to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases.

In return, Dr. Kachadourian received a kickback of approximately $5,000 per month.

“By recruiting and using Kachadourian and her medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase,” the DA’s office said.

The drugs were ultimately sold to customers of the two wholesale distributor businesses “at a significant profit.”

For example, according to a court document, on April 26, 2018, trastuzumab 150 mg was purchased for $254,189.04 and then sold by the wholesale distributor businesses at $336,000, for a profit of $81,810.95.

Dr. Kachadourian is the third doctor to plead guilty to the scheme. The press release didn’t name the other two doctors or the pharmacy owner and their two businesses. A court document did name a coconspirator, Jon Paul Dadaian, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who had offices at several locations in New Jersey.

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

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

While cutting-edge treatments such as CAR T-cell therapies, clinical trials, and costly transplants for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are not accessible to all 200,000+ people living with the disease nationwide, newly published data indicate that widely available medications for this most common of adult leukemias have steadily improved overall survival rates over most of the past 3 decades.

“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.

Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.

“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.

New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.

Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.

Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment. 

“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.

“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.

Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.

Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.

While cutting-edge treatments such as CAR T-cell therapies, clinical trials, and costly transplants for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are not accessible to all 200,000+ people living with the disease nationwide, newly published data indicate that widely available medications for this most common of adult leukemias have steadily improved overall survival rates over most of the past 3 decades.

“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.

Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.

“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.

New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.

Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.

Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment. 

“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.

“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.

Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.

Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.

While cutting-edge treatments such as CAR T-cell therapies, clinical trials, and costly transplants for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are not accessible to all 200,000+ people living with the disease nationwide, newly published data indicate that widely available medications for this most common of adult leukemias have steadily improved overall survival rates over most of the past 3 decades.

“The clinical take-away from our study is that population-based statistics show a decline in mortality and an increase in survival that is concurrent with the introduction of new therapies for treating CLL,” said lead study author Nadia Howlader, PhD, of the Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md. This research was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md.

From 1992 to 2011, CLL mortality decreased 1.1% annually, then the pace of the decline hastened to 3.6% per year from 2011 to 2021 among adults aged ≥ 20 years. Furthermore, 5-year survival rates among patients with CLL increased 0.7% per year on average from 1992 to 2016. To account for yearly random fluctuations in the number of cases detected, incidence data was fit to a model to determine the trend.

Although the study was not designed to specify which treatments were disseminated among patients or to estimate the impact of a specific drug, there were only six new drugs approved for CLL from 1991 to 2010. In contrast, between 2011 and 2018, 11 new CLL drugs (in particular the approval of new tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)) ushered in a period of more rapid annual decreases in mortality.

“The approval of ibrutinib [2014] was a sea change in decreasing CLL mortality. Earlier therapies like chemoimmunotherapies were not as effective in patients with TP53 mutation and/or 17P deletions,” said Binsah George, MD, of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, who was not associated with the study.

New TKIs not only decrease mortality, but also have fewer side effects than earlier cytotoxic therapies, do not require inpatient treatment, and are available to all patients on Medicare and Medicaid.

Although patients with relapsed CLL may benefit from bone marrow transplants or CAR T-cell therapy, these treatments are not available at many community oncology practices. Furthermore, some patients are too sick to receive them or don’t have the economic and social resources to get them.

Even though TKIs increase overall survival in patients with CLL, they are not curative and require lifelong treatment. 

“The estimated cost for CLL treatment is around $600,000 in a lifetime per patient, possibly placing significant burden on patients and the health care system,” said Dr. George.

“Certain trials are looking at stopping TKI treatment after a fixed period of time. This will let us learn more about the disease and could possibly lead to a decrease in cost and side effects of therapy,” concluded Dr. George.

Due to the study’s retrospective nature and data being sourced from state cancer registries and federal statistics, authors posited that rates of CLL could be underestimated, due to miscoding and missing information, particularly from those who get treatment outside of hospital settings. Additionally, some of the improvement in mortality could be attributed to better supportive care and less toxicity in medications, rather than then efficacy of novel agents.

Dr. Howlader and Dr. Binsah reported no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with a certain type of brain tumor could soon be treated with an oral targeted drug instead of undergoing more toxic chemotherapy and radiation, say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.

The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.

Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.  

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).

Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.

Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.

“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.

“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
 

Brain-penetrating oral drug

Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.

Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.

Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
 

Study details

The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.

After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.

At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.

The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.

The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).

Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.

Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.

The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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