Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62±10.79 to 11.02±10.61) and severe headache (5.88±6.73 to 4.01±4.89) days (both P< .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent?BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218(Jun 13). Doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62±10.79 to 11.02±10.61) and severe headache (5.88±6.73 to 4.01±4.89) days (both P< .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent?BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218(Jun 13). Doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

Key clinical point: A higher dose of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) may decrease the number of headache and severe headache days in patients with chronic migraine who had an unsatisfactory response to the conventional 150-unit dose.

Major finding: After receiving 3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA, patients had a significant reduction in headache (13.62±10.79 to 11.02±10.61) and severe headache (5.88±6.73 to 4.01±4.89) days (both P< .001).

Study details: This retrospective paired comparison study included 175 patients with chronic migraine who received ≥3 rounds of 150 units onabotulinumtoxinA followed by ≥3 rounds of 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zandieh A, Cutrer FM. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Is the response dose dependent?BMC Neurol. 2022;22:218(Jun 13). Doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02742-x

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

The Direct KRAS^G12C Inhibitor Adagrasib in Advanced KRAS^G12C-Mutant NSCLC: Results From a Registrational Phase 2 Study

KRAS mutations are detected in about one quarter of all lung adenocarcinomas and are the most common oncogene driver in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KRAS^G12C amino acid substitutions are the most common KRAS mutations in NSCLC, comprising just about half of all KRAS mutations in this tumor type. Despite being the most common and first detected oncogene driver in lung cancer, until recently there were no targeted therapies in KRAS mutant NSCLC. The development of direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represents an important step forward in targeting KRAS mutations. These inhibitors bind inactive guanosine diphosphate (GDP)–bound RAS and trap it in its inactive state.

Dr Jänne and colleagues recently published a phase 2 registrational trial of the direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor adagrasib. In this study of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline treated with adagrasib, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2-13.8), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7-8.4). The median overall survival (OS) was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2-19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system (CNS) metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI 18.0-51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients: grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events). The most frequent toxicities were fatigue and gastrointestinal-related issues (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase elevation). Adagrasib was discontinued in 6.9% of patients.

These results further demonstrate that the KRAS^G12C mutation is an actionable target in NSCLC. Sotorasib, another direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor, is currently US Food and Drug Administration approved after initial systemic treatment. The clinical activity of sotorasib and adagrasib are comparable; for sotorasib the rates are an overall response rate (ORR) of 37.1% (95% CI 28.6-46.2), median PFS of 6.8 months (95% CI 5.1-8.2), and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 10.0 to nonestimable). Adagrasib also has published evidence of CNS activity that tracks with its systemic activity. Overall, these direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS^G12C-mutant NSCLC.

EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Aumolertinib vs Gefitinib Extends PFS

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have improved clinical outcomes in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.The current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with the most frequent EGFR activating mutations (EGFR E19del and L858R)is the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib. In the FLAURA trial, patients randomly assigned tofirst-lineosimertinib had a substantial PFS benefit (median PFS 18.9 vs 10.2 months) and OS benefit (median OS 38.6 vs 31.8 months)when receivingosimertinib compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.

In the AENEAS trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncologyby Dr Lu and colleagues, 420 patients from China with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R activating mutations and naive to systemic treatment were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the next-generation EGFR TKI aumolertinib or the first-generation EGFR TKI gefitinib with the primary endpoint of PFS by investigator assessment.Of note, patients with asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed into the trial. Upon disease progression, patients in the gefitinib group who acquired an EGFR T790M mutation were eligible to crossover to aumolertinib.

The study met its primary endpoint: Patients treated with aumolertinib compared with those treated with gefitinib had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P< .0001). This PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was also present in the subgroup of patients with CNS metastases (15.3 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P< .0001). The objective response rate was similar inthe aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (objective response rate 73.8% and 72.1%, respectively). The median duration of response was 18.1 months (95% CI 15.2 to not reached) with aumolertinib vs 8.3 months (95% CI 6.9-11.1) with gefitinib. Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or more were similar in the aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (36.4% vs 35.8%, respectively). There was less rash and diarrhea as well as transaminitis in the aumolertinib arm compared with the gefitinib arm. However, 35.5% of patients developed an elevation in creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), including 7% with grade 3 CPK elevation. However, no rhabdomyolysis was observed.

Overall, the AENEAS study showed comparable median PFS for first-line aumolertinib comparedwith what was observed with osimertinib in the FLAURA study. We still await the OSdata on aumolertinib compared with gefitinib. In the FLAURA study, investigators could choose between erlotinib or gefitinib in the control arm, whereas in AENEAS only gefitinib was allowed, which may have less CNS activity than erlotinib. Moreover, the FLAURA trial was conducted worldwide, whereas the AENEAS trial only enrolled patients in China. This study provides further support for the use of third-generation EGFR TKI over first-generation EGFR TKI as first-line treatment in advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R mutations.

Advanced ALK+ NSCLC With Brain Metastases: Lorlatinib Boosts PFS, Reduces CNS Progression

The CROWN trial was a pivotal randomized phase 3 trial that demonstrated an impressive improvement in PFS in patients treated with the third-generationALK inhibitor lorlatinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as initial treatment for advanced ALK-postive (ALK+) NSCLC (HR for disease progression or death0.28; 95% CI0.19-0.41; P≤ .001). A major driver of this PFS benefit in ALK+ NSCLC in the CROWN study is the superior CNS penetration of lorlatinib compared with crizotinib. Obtaining CNS control in ALK+ lung cancers is important because up to 40% of patients with ALK+ NSCLC have brain metastases at initial evaluation, and CNS progression is often observed in patients with ALK+ lung cancer whether it be intracranial metastases or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. A potential challenge in treating patients with lorlatinib is a unique side effect profile including neurocognitive side effects from lorlatinib. In a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr Solomon and colleagues conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of intracranial efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC from a phase 3 trial. PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% vs 22% and 78% vs 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression compared with crizotinib in patients with (7.4% vs 72%) and without (1% vs 18%) brain metastases at baseline. Complete CNS responses with lorlatinib were seen in 23/38(61%) patients with any brain metastases at baseline compared with 6/40 (15%) with crizotinib. In total, 35% of patients had CNS adverse events with lorlatinib: grade 1 (21%), grade 2 (10%), and grade 3 (3%)in severity. These included cognitive (21%), mood (16%), speech (5%), and psychotic effects (3%), some of which overlapped. Half of all CNS adverse events resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification. Dose reductions of lorlatinib did not appear to affect PFS on the basis of a landmark analysis. Overall, this study demonstrates the exceptional CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and that the neurocognitive side effects can often be managed. There are several next-generation ALK inhibitors now approved in the first-line setting —alectinib, lorlatinib, and brigatinib — notably all with enhanced CNS penetration and improved PFS compared with crizotinib. This posthoc study further supports the impressive CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and supports the use of lorlatinib as a first-line treatment option in these patients, particularly those with ALK+ NSCLC diagnosed with baseline CNS disease.

The Direct KRAS^G12C Inhibitor Adagrasib in Advanced KRAS^G12C-Mutant NSCLC: Results From a Registrational Phase 2 Study

KRAS mutations are detected in about one quarter of all lung adenocarcinomas and are the most common oncogene driver in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KRAS^G12C amino acid substitutions are the most common KRAS mutations in NSCLC, comprising just about half of all KRAS mutations in this tumor type. Despite being the most common and first detected oncogene driver in lung cancer, until recently there were no targeted therapies in KRAS mutant NSCLC. The development of direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represents an important step forward in targeting KRAS mutations. These inhibitors bind inactive guanosine diphosphate (GDP)–bound RAS and trap it in its inactive state.

Dr Jänne and colleagues recently published a phase 2 registrational trial of the direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor adagrasib. In this study of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline treated with adagrasib, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2-13.8), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7-8.4). The median overall survival (OS) was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2-19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system (CNS) metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI 18.0-51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients: grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events). The most frequent toxicities were fatigue and gastrointestinal-related issues (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase elevation). Adagrasib was discontinued in 6.9% of patients.

These results further demonstrate that the KRAS^G12C mutation is an actionable target in NSCLC. Sotorasib, another direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor, is currently US Food and Drug Administration approved after initial systemic treatment. The clinical activity of sotorasib and adagrasib are comparable; for sotorasib the rates are an overall response rate (ORR) of 37.1% (95% CI 28.6-46.2), median PFS of 6.8 months (95% CI 5.1-8.2), and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 10.0 to nonestimable). Adagrasib also has published evidence of CNS activity that tracks with its systemic activity. Overall, these direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS^G12C-mutant NSCLC.

EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Aumolertinib vs Gefitinib Extends PFS

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have improved clinical outcomes in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.The current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with the most frequent EGFR activating mutations (EGFR E19del and L858R)is the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib. In the FLAURA trial, patients randomly assigned tofirst-lineosimertinib had a substantial PFS benefit (median PFS 18.9 vs 10.2 months) and OS benefit (median OS 38.6 vs 31.8 months)when receivingosimertinib compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.

In the AENEAS trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncologyby Dr Lu and colleagues, 420 patients from China with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R activating mutations and naive to systemic treatment were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the next-generation EGFR TKI aumolertinib or the first-generation EGFR TKI gefitinib with the primary endpoint of PFS by investigator assessment.Of note, patients with asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed into the trial. Upon disease progression, patients in the gefitinib group who acquired an EGFR T790M mutation were eligible to crossover to aumolertinib.

The study met its primary endpoint: Patients treated with aumolertinib compared with those treated with gefitinib had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P< .0001). This PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was also present in the subgroup of patients with CNS metastases (15.3 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P< .0001). The objective response rate was similar inthe aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (objective response rate 73.8% and 72.1%, respectively). The median duration of response was 18.1 months (95% CI 15.2 to not reached) with aumolertinib vs 8.3 months (95% CI 6.9-11.1) with gefitinib. Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or more were similar in the aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (36.4% vs 35.8%, respectively). There was less rash and diarrhea as well as transaminitis in the aumolertinib arm compared with the gefitinib arm. However, 35.5% of patients developed an elevation in creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), including 7% with grade 3 CPK elevation. However, no rhabdomyolysis was observed.

Overall, the AENEAS study showed comparable median PFS for first-line aumolertinib comparedwith what was observed with osimertinib in the FLAURA study. We still await the OSdata on aumolertinib compared with gefitinib. In the FLAURA study, investigators could choose between erlotinib or gefitinib in the control arm, whereas in AENEAS only gefitinib was allowed, which may have less CNS activity than erlotinib. Moreover, the FLAURA trial was conducted worldwide, whereas the AENEAS trial only enrolled patients in China. This study provides further support for the use of third-generation EGFR TKI over first-generation EGFR TKI as first-line treatment in advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R mutations.

Advanced ALK+ NSCLC With Brain Metastases: Lorlatinib Boosts PFS, Reduces CNS Progression

The CROWN trial was a pivotal randomized phase 3 trial that demonstrated an impressive improvement in PFS in patients treated with the third-generationALK inhibitor lorlatinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as initial treatment for advanced ALK-postive (ALK+) NSCLC (HR for disease progression or death0.28; 95% CI0.19-0.41; P≤ .001). A major driver of this PFS benefit in ALK+ NSCLC in the CROWN study is the superior CNS penetration of lorlatinib compared with crizotinib. Obtaining CNS control in ALK+ lung cancers is important because up to 40% of patients with ALK+ NSCLC have brain metastases at initial evaluation, and CNS progression is often observed in patients with ALK+ lung cancer whether it be intracranial metastases or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. A potential challenge in treating patients with lorlatinib is a unique side effect profile including neurocognitive side effects from lorlatinib. In a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr Solomon and colleagues conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of intracranial efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC from a phase 3 trial. PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% vs 22% and 78% vs 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression compared with crizotinib in patients with (7.4% vs 72%) and without (1% vs 18%) brain metastases at baseline. Complete CNS responses with lorlatinib were seen in 23/38(61%) patients with any brain metastases at baseline compared with 6/40 (15%) with crizotinib. In total, 35% of patients had CNS adverse events with lorlatinib: grade 1 (21%), grade 2 (10%), and grade 3 (3%)in severity. These included cognitive (21%), mood (16%), speech (5%), and psychotic effects (3%), some of which overlapped. Half of all CNS adverse events resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification. Dose reductions of lorlatinib did not appear to affect PFS on the basis of a landmark analysis. Overall, this study demonstrates the exceptional CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and that the neurocognitive side effects can often be managed. There are several next-generation ALK inhibitors now approved in the first-line setting —alectinib, lorlatinib, and brigatinib — notably all with enhanced CNS penetration and improved PFS compared with crizotinib. This posthoc study further supports the impressive CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and supports the use of lorlatinib as a first-line treatment option in these patients, particularly those with ALK+ NSCLC diagnosed with baseline CNS disease.

The Direct KRAS^G12C Inhibitor Adagrasib in Advanced KRAS^G12C-Mutant NSCLC: Results From a Registrational Phase 2 Study

KRAS mutations are detected in about one quarter of all lung adenocarcinomas and are the most common oncogene driver in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KRAS^G12C amino acid substitutions are the most common KRAS mutations in NSCLC, comprising just about half of all KRAS mutations in this tumor type. Despite being the most common and first detected oncogene driver in lung cancer, until recently there were no targeted therapies in KRAS mutant NSCLC. The development of direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represents an important step forward in targeting KRAS mutations. These inhibitors bind inactive guanosine diphosphate (GDP)–bound RAS and trap it in its inactive state.

Dr Jänne and colleagues recently published a phase 2 registrational trial of the direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor adagrasib. In this study of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline treated with adagrasib, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2-13.8), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7-8.4). The median overall survival (OS) was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2-19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system (CNS) metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI 18.0-51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients: grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events). The most frequent toxicities were fatigue and gastrointestinal-related issues (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase elevation). Adagrasib was discontinued in 6.9% of patients.

These results further demonstrate that the KRAS^G12C mutation is an actionable target in NSCLC. Sotorasib, another direct KRAS^G12C inhibitor, is currently US Food and Drug Administration approved after initial systemic treatment. The clinical activity of sotorasib and adagrasib are comparable; for sotorasib the rates are an overall response rate (ORR) of 37.1% (95% CI 28.6-46.2), median PFS of 6.8 months (95% CI 5.1-8.2), and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 10.0 to nonestimable). Adagrasib also has published evidence of CNS activity that tracks with its systemic activity. Overall, these direct KRAS^G12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS^G12C-mutant NSCLC.

EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Aumolertinib vs Gefitinib Extends PFS

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have improved clinical outcomes in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.The current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with the most frequent EGFR activating mutations (EGFR E19del and L858R)is the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib. In the FLAURA trial, patients randomly assigned tofirst-lineosimertinib had a substantial PFS benefit (median PFS 18.9 vs 10.2 months) and OS benefit (median OS 38.6 vs 31.8 months)when receivingosimertinib compared with gefitinib or erlotinib.

In the AENEAS trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncologyby Dr Lu and colleagues, 420 patients from China with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R activating mutations and naive to systemic treatment were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the next-generation EGFR TKI aumolertinib or the first-generation EGFR TKI gefitinib with the primary endpoint of PFS by investigator assessment.Of note, patients with asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed into the trial. Upon disease progression, patients in the gefitinib group who acquired an EGFR T790M mutation were eligible to crossover to aumolertinib.

The study met its primary endpoint: Patients treated with aumolertinib compared with those treated with gefitinib had a significantly longer median PFS (19.3 vs 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; P< .0001). This PFS advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib was also present in the subgroup of patients with CNS metastases (15.3 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.38; P< .0001). The objective response rate was similar inthe aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (objective response rate 73.8% and 72.1%, respectively). The median duration of response was 18.1 months (95% CI 15.2 to not reached) with aumolertinib vs 8.3 months (95% CI 6.9-11.1) with gefitinib. Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or more were similar in the aumolertinib and gefitinib groups (36.4% vs 35.8%, respectively). There was less rash and diarrhea as well as transaminitis in the aumolertinib arm compared with the gefitinib arm. However, 35.5% of patients developed an elevation in creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), including 7% with grade 3 CPK elevation. However, no rhabdomyolysis was observed.

Overall, the AENEAS study showed comparable median PFS for first-line aumolertinib comparedwith what was observed with osimertinib in the FLAURA study. We still await the OSdata on aumolertinib compared with gefitinib. In the FLAURA study, investigators could choose between erlotinib or gefitinib in the control arm, whereas in AENEAS only gefitinib was allowed, which may have less CNS activity than erlotinib. Moreover, the FLAURA trial was conducted worldwide, whereas the AENEAS trial only enrolled patients in China. This study provides further support for the use of third-generation EGFR TKI over first-generation EGFR TKI as first-line treatment in advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR E19del or L858R mutations.

Advanced ALK+ NSCLC With Brain Metastases: Lorlatinib Boosts PFS, Reduces CNS Progression

The CROWN trial was a pivotal randomized phase 3 trial that demonstrated an impressive improvement in PFS in patients treated with the third-generationALK inhibitor lorlatinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as initial treatment for advanced ALK-postive (ALK+) NSCLC (HR for disease progression or death0.28; 95% CI0.19-0.41; P≤ .001). A major driver of this PFS benefit in ALK+ NSCLC in the CROWN study is the superior CNS penetration of lorlatinib compared with crizotinib. Obtaining CNS control in ALK+ lung cancers is important because up to 40% of patients with ALK+ NSCLC have brain metastases at initial evaluation, and CNS progression is often observed in patients with ALK+ lung cancer whether it be intracranial metastases or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. A potential challenge in treating patients with lorlatinib is a unique side effect profile including neurocognitive side effects from lorlatinib. In a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr Solomon and colleagues conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of intracranial efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC from a phase 3 trial. PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% vs 22% and 78% vs 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression compared with crizotinib in patients with (7.4% vs 72%) and without (1% vs 18%) brain metastases at baseline. Complete CNS responses with lorlatinib were seen in 23/38(61%) patients with any brain metastases at baseline compared with 6/40 (15%) with crizotinib. In total, 35% of patients had CNS adverse events with lorlatinib: grade 1 (21%), grade 2 (10%), and grade 3 (3%)in severity. These included cognitive (21%), mood (16%), speech (5%), and psychotic effects (3%), some of which overlapped. Half of all CNS adverse events resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification. Dose reductions of lorlatinib did not appear to affect PFS on the basis of a landmark analysis. Overall, this study demonstrates the exceptional CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and that the neurocognitive side effects can often be managed. There are several next-generation ALK inhibitors now approved in the first-line setting —alectinib, lorlatinib, and brigatinib — notably all with enhanced CNS penetration and improved PFS compared with crizotinib. This posthoc study further supports the impressive CNS activity of lorlatinib in ALK+ NSCLC and supports the use of lorlatinib as a first-line treatment option in these patients, particularly those with ALK+ NSCLC diagnosed with baseline CNS disease.

In keeping with other studies suggesting that lower-than-standard doses of rituximab (for example, two 500 mg doses every 6 months) are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Bertsias and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of low-dose rituximab (1 g every 6 months) in a cohort of patients with RA. Of 361 patients in the initial registry, 81 achieved sustained low disease activity or remission on standard rituximab regimens and were transitioned to the low-dose regimen; their outcomes were compared with the 280 patients in the registry who received a standard-dose regimen. Only 7.5% experienced flares of RA (compared with 5.9% in the standard-dose group), and patients in the low-dose group had fewer serious adverse events, infections, and hospitalizations. Tapering biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) may thus be a reasonable strategy for some patients with RA, with an eye to their prior results with the medication.

The prospect of achieving sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) in people with RA has seemed increasingly feasible in recent studies, although it seems to be affected by anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibody (ACPA) positivity. That is, people who are ACPA-negative are more likely to reach this target. Verstappen and colleagues examined MRI patterns of joint inflammation in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort, as well as another cohort of patients with RA, but only included patients with an RA duration > 1 year to reduce the likelihood of misclassification. Interestingly, ACPA-positive patients who achieved SDFR tended to have lower baseline evidence of joint inflammation (including erosions, synovitis, and osteitis), which was persistent throughout follow-up, whereas ACPA-negative patients who achieved SDFR had similar joint inflammation at baseline to those who did not, but had a better initial response to DMARD therapy. Further study of the potential impact of treatment based on ACPA status would be helpful.

Recent results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing safety analysis suggest that tofacitinib is associated with an increased risk for cancer in patients with RA patients who are aged >50 years, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Khosrow-Khavar and colleagues used insurance claims data to further investigate the risk for cancer with tofacitinib vs anti-TNF agents. They created two cohorts of patients who were new users of anti-TNF agents or tofacitinib: One was a "real-world" cohort including all patients with RA, whereas the other applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria from the ORAL Surveillance trial, including age >50 years, one cardiovascular risk factor, and use of methotrexate. Results from the real-world cohort, including over 10,000 patients who had used tofacitinib, did not show any increase in cancer risk, whereas the trial-simulating conditions did yield higher numbers of cancers in the group exposed to tofacitinib. Though reassuring, these results are limited by the short follow-up duration, and longer-term follow-up studies are necessary for further evaluation.

In another interesting note with respect to medication morbidity and risk, Xu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis looking at the association of methotrexate use and mortality in patients with RA. Only 15 studies were included in the final analysis, though they did encompass a large total number of patients. Overall, methotrexate use in these studies was associated with lower rates of overall mortality as well as mortality due to cardiovascular and interstitial lung disease. However, conclusions as to the direct impact of methotrexate were limited by the heterogeneity of study designs, doses of methotrexate, and additional therapy as well as comparators.

In keeping with other studies suggesting that lower-than-standard doses of rituximab (for example, two 500 mg doses every 6 months) are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Bertsias and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of low-dose rituximab (1 g every 6 months) in a cohort of patients with RA. Of 361 patients in the initial registry, 81 achieved sustained low disease activity or remission on standard rituximab regimens and were transitioned to the low-dose regimen; their outcomes were compared with the 280 patients in the registry who received a standard-dose regimen. Only 7.5% experienced flares of RA (compared with 5.9% in the standard-dose group), and patients in the low-dose group had fewer serious adverse events, infections, and hospitalizations. Tapering biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) may thus be a reasonable strategy for some patients with RA, with an eye to their prior results with the medication.

The prospect of achieving sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) in people with RA has seemed increasingly feasible in recent studies, although it seems to be affected by anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibody (ACPA) positivity. That is, people who are ACPA-negative are more likely to reach this target. Verstappen and colleagues examined MRI patterns of joint inflammation in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort, as well as another cohort of patients with RA, but only included patients with an RA duration > 1 year to reduce the likelihood of misclassification. Interestingly, ACPA-positive patients who achieved SDFR tended to have lower baseline evidence of joint inflammation (including erosions, synovitis, and osteitis), which was persistent throughout follow-up, whereas ACPA-negative patients who achieved SDFR had similar joint inflammation at baseline to those who did not, but had a better initial response to DMARD therapy. Further study of the potential impact of treatment based on ACPA status would be helpful.

Recent results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing safety analysis suggest that tofacitinib is associated with an increased risk for cancer in patients with RA patients who are aged >50 years, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Khosrow-Khavar and colleagues used insurance claims data to further investigate the risk for cancer with tofacitinib vs anti-TNF agents. They created two cohorts of patients who were new users of anti-TNF agents or tofacitinib: One was a "real-world" cohort including all patients with RA, whereas the other applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria from the ORAL Surveillance trial, including age >50 years, one cardiovascular risk factor, and use of methotrexate. Results from the real-world cohort, including over 10,000 patients who had used tofacitinib, did not show any increase in cancer risk, whereas the trial-simulating conditions did yield higher numbers of cancers in the group exposed to tofacitinib. Though reassuring, these results are limited by the short follow-up duration, and longer-term follow-up studies are necessary for further evaluation.

In another interesting note with respect to medication morbidity and risk, Xu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis looking at the association of methotrexate use and mortality in patients with RA. Only 15 studies were included in the final analysis, though they did encompass a large total number of patients. Overall, methotrexate use in these studies was associated with lower rates of overall mortality as well as mortality due to cardiovascular and interstitial lung disease. However, conclusions as to the direct impact of methotrexate were limited by the heterogeneity of study designs, doses of methotrexate, and additional therapy as well as comparators.

In keeping with other studies suggesting that lower-than-standard doses of rituximab (for example, two 500 mg doses every 6 months) are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Bertsias and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of low-dose rituximab (1 g every 6 months) in a cohort of patients with RA. Of 361 patients in the initial registry, 81 achieved sustained low disease activity or remission on standard rituximab regimens and were transitioned to the low-dose regimen; their outcomes were compared with the 280 patients in the registry who received a standard-dose regimen. Only 7.5% experienced flares of RA (compared with 5.9% in the standard-dose group), and patients in the low-dose group had fewer serious adverse events, infections, and hospitalizations. Tapering biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) may thus be a reasonable strategy for some patients with RA, with an eye to their prior results with the medication.

The prospect of achieving sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) in people with RA has seemed increasingly feasible in recent studies, although it seems to be affected by anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibody (ACPA) positivity. That is, people who are ACPA-negative are more likely to reach this target. Verstappen and colleagues examined MRI patterns of joint inflammation in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort, as well as another cohort of patients with RA, but only included patients with an RA duration > 1 year to reduce the likelihood of misclassification. Interestingly, ACPA-positive patients who achieved SDFR tended to have lower baseline evidence of joint inflammation (including erosions, synovitis, and osteitis), which was persistent throughout follow-up, whereas ACPA-negative patients who achieved SDFR had similar joint inflammation at baseline to those who did not, but had a better initial response to DMARD therapy. Further study of the potential impact of treatment based on ACPA status would be helpful.

Recent results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing safety analysis suggest that tofacitinib is associated with an increased risk for cancer in patients with RA patients who are aged >50 years, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Khosrow-Khavar and colleagues used insurance claims data to further investigate the risk for cancer with tofacitinib vs anti-TNF agents. They created two cohorts of patients who were new users of anti-TNF agents or tofacitinib: One was a "real-world" cohort including all patients with RA, whereas the other applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria from the ORAL Surveillance trial, including age >50 years, one cardiovascular risk factor, and use of methotrexate. Results from the real-world cohort, including over 10,000 patients who had used tofacitinib, did not show any increase in cancer risk, whereas the trial-simulating conditions did yield higher numbers of cancers in the group exposed to tofacitinib. Though reassuring, these results are limited by the short follow-up duration, and longer-term follow-up studies are necessary for further evaluation.

In another interesting note with respect to medication morbidity and risk, Xu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis looking at the association of methotrexate use and mortality in patients with RA. Only 15 studies were included in the final analysis, though they did encompass a large total number of patients. Overall, methotrexate use in these studies was associated with lower rates of overall mortality as well as mortality due to cardiovascular and interstitial lung disease. However, conclusions as to the direct impact of methotrexate were limited by the heterogeneity of study designs, doses of methotrexate, and additional therapy as well as comparators.

Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) have a poor prognosis. Despite recent improvements in treatments, overall survival (OS) for most of these patients remains < 18 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy are now approved for treatment of advanced GEA in the first-line setting (pembrolizumab for esophageal cancers and nivolumab for GEA). These approvals are based on the results of the randomized phase 3 studies KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate 649.^1,2 However, there remains a need to better define patients who are more likely to benefit from these agents.

KEYNOTE-062 was a phase 3 study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junctionadenocarcinoma.³ Patients were randomly assignedto receive chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, or pembrolizumab alone. This study did not lead to pembrolizumab approval for gastric cancer or GEA, although, consistently with other studies, it suggested that patients whose tumors had higher programmed death-ligand 1 expression were more likely to benefit from immunotherapy treatments.

Lee and colleagues published results of a prespecified exploratory analysis from this study that evaluated the association between tumor mutational burden (TMB) and patient outcomes. Those who had tumors with higher TMB had better outcomes from immunotherapy treatments, but not chemotherapy alone. In patients with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy significantly improved the objective response rate (ORR; 55.6% vs 41.2%), progression-free survival (PFS; 11.1 vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.52) and OS (31.6 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.34). Similarly, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone improved ORR (73.3% vs 41.2%), PFS (31.1 vs 7.0 months; HR 0.62), and OS (31.1 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.54). However, after patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, who represented 44% of patients (22 of 50), with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb were removed from the analysis, the positive association between TMB and immunotherapy effect on OS and PFS was no longer significant. The small number of patients with high TMB limits the interpretation of these exploratory data. However, the results suggest that TMB is unlikely to emerge as a significant clinically relevant biomarker in patients with microsatellite-stable upper gastrointestinal cancers.

Ultimately, novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes. The phase 3 BRIGHTER study reported by Shah and colleagues evaluated the activity of napabucasin, a generator of reactive oxygen species, in advanced GEA. This was a phase 3 study that enrolled 714 patients whose tumors progressed on one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive eitherpaclitaxel plus napabucasin or paclitaxel plus placebo. The primary endpoint was OS. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the preplanned interim analysis, there was no difference in OS between the two treatment arms (6.97 months with napabucasin vs 7.29 months with placebo; P =.5699).As such, the study was terminated before enrollment completion because it was deemed futile to continue. There were no new safety signals. It is important to note that since the study was launched, ramucirumab and paclitaxel became the new standard treatment in the second-line setting per the phase 3 RAINBOW study.⁴ As such, this combination regimen should be offered to patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in the second-line setting and who have no contraindications to these agents.

To further expand on the use of ramucirumab in GEA, the phase 2 HGCSG1603 study evaluated ramucimumab in combination with irinotecan in the second-line setting. This single-arm phase 2 study conducted in Japan enrolled 35 patients with GEA who progressed on a first-line regimen. The primary endpoint was PFS rate at 6 months. This study demonstrated a 26.5% PFS rate at 6 months. Median PFS was 4.2 months, and OS was 9.6 months. Although the study did not meet its pre-specified primary endpoint of a 39% PFS rate at 6 months, the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS were similar to historical references from the RAINBOW study. These results suggest that irinotecan and ramucirumab is an active combination in GEA and could be offered to patients who are not candidates for paclitaxel, for example those with significant neuropathy. The benefits of an irinotecan chemotherapy backbone in second-line therapy has been previously demonstrated in the phase 2 RAMIRIS study, which found clinically meaningful activity of a leucovorin calcium (calcium folinate), 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and ramucirumab combination, as well as a decreased benefit from paclitaxel in patients with prior taxane exposure.⁵ In summary, ramucirumab in combination with irinotecan-containing chemotherapy (either as a single agent or as part of FOLFIRI) is areasonable second-line treatment option for patients with advanced GEA, and this is already included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Additional References

              1.           Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2

              2.           Sun JM, Shen L, Shah MA, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2021;398:759-771. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01234-4

              3.           Shitara K, Van Cutsem E, Bang YJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for patients with first-line, advanced gastric cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1571-1580. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3370

              4.           Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl):4076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076

5.           Klempner SJ, Maron SB, Chase L, et al. Initial report of second-line FOLFIRi in combination with ramucirumab in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis. Oncologist. 2019:24:475-482. Doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0602

Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) have a poor prognosis. Despite recent improvements in treatments, overall survival (OS) for most of these patients remains < 18 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy are now approved for treatment of advanced GEA in the first-line setting (pembrolizumab for esophageal cancers and nivolumab for GEA). These approvals are based on the results of the randomized phase 3 studies KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate 649.^1,2 However, there remains a need to better define patients who are more likely to benefit from these agents.

KEYNOTE-062 was a phase 3 study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junctionadenocarcinoma.³ Patients were randomly assignedto receive chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, or pembrolizumab alone. This study did not lead to pembrolizumab approval for gastric cancer or GEA, although, consistently with other studies, it suggested that patients whose tumors had higher programmed death-ligand 1 expression were more likely to benefit from immunotherapy treatments.

Lee and colleagues published results of a prespecified exploratory analysis from this study that evaluated the association between tumor mutational burden (TMB) and patient outcomes. Those who had tumors with higher TMB had better outcomes from immunotherapy treatments, but not chemotherapy alone. In patients with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy significantly improved the objective response rate (ORR; 55.6% vs 41.2%), progression-free survival (PFS; 11.1 vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.52) and OS (31.6 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.34). Similarly, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone improved ORR (73.3% vs 41.2%), PFS (31.1 vs 7.0 months; HR 0.62), and OS (31.1 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.54). However, after patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, who represented 44% of patients (22 of 50), with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb were removed from the analysis, the positive association between TMB and immunotherapy effect on OS and PFS was no longer significant. The small number of patients with high TMB limits the interpretation of these exploratory data. However, the results suggest that TMB is unlikely to emerge as a significant clinically relevant biomarker in patients with microsatellite-stable upper gastrointestinal cancers.

Ultimately, novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes. The phase 3 BRIGHTER study reported by Shah and colleagues evaluated the activity of napabucasin, a generator of reactive oxygen species, in advanced GEA. This was a phase 3 study that enrolled 714 patients whose tumors progressed on one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive eitherpaclitaxel plus napabucasin or paclitaxel plus placebo. The primary endpoint was OS. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the preplanned interim analysis, there was no difference in OS between the two treatment arms (6.97 months with napabucasin vs 7.29 months with placebo; P =.5699).As such, the study was terminated before enrollment completion because it was deemed futile to continue. There were no new safety signals. It is important to note that since the study was launched, ramucirumab and paclitaxel became the new standard treatment in the second-line setting per the phase 3 RAINBOW study.⁴ As such, this combination regimen should be offered to patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in the second-line setting and who have no contraindications to these agents.

To further expand on the use of ramucirumab in GEA, the phase 2 HGCSG1603 study evaluated ramucimumab in combination with irinotecan in the second-line setting. This single-arm phase 2 study conducted in Japan enrolled 35 patients with GEA who progressed on a first-line regimen. The primary endpoint was PFS rate at 6 months. This study demonstrated a 26.5% PFS rate at 6 months. Median PFS was 4.2 months, and OS was 9.6 months. Although the study did not meet its pre-specified primary endpoint of a 39% PFS rate at 6 months, the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS were similar to historical references from the RAINBOW study. These results suggest that irinotecan and ramucirumab is an active combination in GEA and could be offered to patients who are not candidates for paclitaxel, for example those with significant neuropathy. The benefits of an irinotecan chemotherapy backbone in second-line therapy has been previously demonstrated in the phase 2 RAMIRIS study, which found clinically meaningful activity of a leucovorin calcium (calcium folinate), 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and ramucirumab combination, as well as a decreased benefit from paclitaxel in patients with prior taxane exposure.⁵ In summary, ramucirumab in combination with irinotecan-containing chemotherapy (either as a single agent or as part of FOLFIRI) is areasonable second-line treatment option for patients with advanced GEA, and this is already included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Additional References

              1.           Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2

              2.           Sun JM, Shen L, Shah MA, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2021;398:759-771. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01234-4

              3.           Shitara K, Van Cutsem E, Bang YJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for patients with first-line, advanced gastric cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1571-1580. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3370

              4.           Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl):4076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076

5.           Klempner SJ, Maron SB, Chase L, et al. Initial report of second-line FOLFIRi in combination with ramucirumab in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis. Oncologist. 2019:24:475-482. Doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0602

Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) have a poor prognosis. Despite recent improvements in treatments, overall survival (OS) for most of these patients remains < 18 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy are now approved for treatment of advanced GEA in the first-line setting (pembrolizumab for esophageal cancers and nivolumab for GEA). These approvals are based on the results of the randomized phase 3 studies KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate 649.^1,2 However, there remains a need to better define patients who are more likely to benefit from these agents.

KEYNOTE-062 was a phase 3 study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junctionadenocarcinoma.³ Patients were randomly assignedto receive chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, or pembrolizumab alone. This study did not lead to pembrolizumab approval for gastric cancer or GEA, although, consistently with other studies, it suggested that patients whose tumors had higher programmed death-ligand 1 expression were more likely to benefit from immunotherapy treatments.

Lee and colleagues published results of a prespecified exploratory analysis from this study that evaluated the association between tumor mutational burden (TMB) and patient outcomes. Those who had tumors with higher TMB had better outcomes from immunotherapy treatments, but not chemotherapy alone. In patients with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy significantly improved the objective response rate (ORR; 55.6% vs 41.2%), progression-free survival (PFS; 11.1 vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.52) and OS (31.6 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.34). Similarly, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone improved ORR (73.3% vs 41.2%), PFS (31.1 vs 7.0 months; HR 0.62), and OS (31.1 vs 13.4 months; HR 0.54). However, after patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, who represented 44% of patients (22 of 50), with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb were removed from the analysis, the positive association between TMB and immunotherapy effect on OS and PFS was no longer significant. The small number of patients with high TMB limits the interpretation of these exploratory data. However, the results suggest that TMB is unlikely to emerge as a significant clinically relevant biomarker in patients with microsatellite-stable upper gastrointestinal cancers.

Ultimately, novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes. The phase 3 BRIGHTER study reported by Shah and colleagues evaluated the activity of napabucasin, a generator of reactive oxygen species, in advanced GEA. This was a phase 3 study that enrolled 714 patients whose tumors progressed on one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive eitherpaclitaxel plus napabucasin or paclitaxel plus placebo. The primary endpoint was OS. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the preplanned interim analysis, there was no difference in OS between the two treatment arms (6.97 months with napabucasin vs 7.29 months with placebo; P =.5699).As such, the study was terminated before enrollment completion because it was deemed futile to continue. There were no new safety signals. It is important to note that since the study was launched, ramucirumab and paclitaxel became the new standard treatment in the second-line setting per the phase 3 RAINBOW study.⁴ As such, this combination regimen should be offered to patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in the second-line setting and who have no contraindications to these agents.

To further expand on the use of ramucirumab in GEA, the phase 2 HGCSG1603 study evaluated ramucimumab in combination with irinotecan in the second-line setting. This single-arm phase 2 study conducted in Japan enrolled 35 patients with GEA who progressed on a first-line regimen. The primary endpoint was PFS rate at 6 months. This study demonstrated a 26.5% PFS rate at 6 months. Median PFS was 4.2 months, and OS was 9.6 months. Although the study did not meet its pre-specified primary endpoint of a 39% PFS rate at 6 months, the secondary endpoints of OS and PFS were similar to historical references from the RAINBOW study. These results suggest that irinotecan and ramucirumab is an active combination in GEA and could be offered to patients who are not candidates for paclitaxel, for example those with significant neuropathy. The benefits of an irinotecan chemotherapy backbone in second-line therapy has been previously demonstrated in the phase 2 RAMIRIS study, which found clinically meaningful activity of a leucovorin calcium (calcium folinate), 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and ramucirumab combination, as well as a decreased benefit from paclitaxel in patients with prior taxane exposure.⁵ In summary, ramucirumab in combination with irinotecan-containing chemotherapy (either as a single agent or as part of FOLFIRI) is areasonable second-line treatment option for patients with advanced GEA, and this is already included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Additional References

              1.           Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2

              2.           Sun JM, Shen L, Shah MA, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2021;398:759-771. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01234-4

              3.           Shitara K, Van Cutsem E, Bang YJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for patients with first-line, advanced gastric cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1571-1580. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3370

              4.           Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl):4076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076

5.           Klempner SJ, Maron SB, Chase L, et al. Initial report of second-line FOLFIRi in combination with ramucirumab in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis. Oncologist. 2019:24:475-482. Doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0602

Inhibition of the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway by JAK inhibitors is efficacious in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). On the basis of the results of the pivotal SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, was recently approved for the treatment of PsA. However, data on longer-term disease control is still of interest. In a post hoc analysis of SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, Mease and colleagues assessed the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission, as defined by validated measures such as the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Scores, and minimal disease activity at 24 and 56 weeks. They showed that at week 24,a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs placebo achieved low disease activityon the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis (range, 35%-48% vs 4%-16%; P< .05) and remission (range, 7%-11% vs 0%-3%; P< .05), with the responses sustained until week 56. Thus, upadacitinib provides sustained disease control in PsA and is an effective oral therapy.

Advanced targeted therapies have proven safety and efficacy over conventional therapies, often dramatically improving signs and symptoms. However, it is also desirable that such expensive therapies also show benefit in other outcomes, such as work productivity and quality of life. To evaluate work productivity and daily activity impairment and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, n=95;PsA,n=69, and axial spondyloarthritis, n=95) treated with golimumab, Dejaco and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter study in Austria. A total of 110 of these patients were followed for 24 months. At 24 months after golimumab initiation, there was significant improvement in total work productivity, presenteeism, activity impairment, and quality-of-life scores. Thus, golimumab, in addition to reducing disease activity, improved work productivity, activity, and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis, including PsA.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major comorbidity in patients with PsA. This observation was once again confirmed in an observational, cross-sectional, case-control study including 207 patients with PsA and 414 matched controls from France. Degboe and colleagues demonstrated that patients with PsA had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular risk factors, such as high body mass index, triglyceride level, and hypertension, compared with controls. The proportion of patients with PsA who were estimated to have very high cardiovascular risk factors (≥10%) increased when SCORE (European Society of Cardiology Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) and QRISK2 (British Heart Foundation) equations considered the additional risk attributable to PsA. However, risk predictions scores such as SCORE and QRISK2 perform poorly in patients with PsA. To identify novel inflammatory and metabolic parameters associated with cardiovascular disease, Schwartz and colleagues looked at¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose(FDG) PET-CT uptakeina cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study including 39 patients with biologic-treatment-naive PsA and 56 age-sex matched controls without PsA. They found that coronary artery disease (CAD) was significantly associated with visceral adiposity and FDG uptake in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and subcutaneous adipose tissue. Thus, inflammatory and metabolic parameters, including visceral adiposity, potentially contribute to subclinical CAD in patients with PsA and may in the future be used to refine CVD risk and be targets for CAD preventive treatments.

Inhibition of the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway by JAK inhibitors is efficacious in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). On the basis of the results of the pivotal SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, was recently approved for the treatment of PsA. However, data on longer-term disease control is still of interest. In a post hoc analysis of SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, Mease and colleagues assessed the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission, as defined by validated measures such as the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Scores, and minimal disease activity at 24 and 56 weeks. They showed that at week 24,a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs placebo achieved low disease activityon the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis (range, 35%-48% vs 4%-16%; P< .05) and remission (range, 7%-11% vs 0%-3%; P< .05), with the responses sustained until week 56. Thus, upadacitinib provides sustained disease control in PsA and is an effective oral therapy.

Advanced targeted therapies have proven safety and efficacy over conventional therapies, often dramatically improving signs and symptoms. However, it is also desirable that such expensive therapies also show benefit in other outcomes, such as work productivity and quality of life. To evaluate work productivity and daily activity impairment and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, n=95;PsA,n=69, and axial spondyloarthritis, n=95) treated with golimumab, Dejaco and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter study in Austria. A total of 110 of these patients were followed for 24 months. At 24 months after golimumab initiation, there was significant improvement in total work productivity, presenteeism, activity impairment, and quality-of-life scores. Thus, golimumab, in addition to reducing disease activity, improved work productivity, activity, and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis, including PsA.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major comorbidity in patients with PsA. This observation was once again confirmed in an observational, cross-sectional, case-control study including 207 patients with PsA and 414 matched controls from France. Degboe and colleagues demonstrated that patients with PsA had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular risk factors, such as high body mass index, triglyceride level, and hypertension, compared with controls. The proportion of patients with PsA who were estimated to have very high cardiovascular risk factors (≥10%) increased when SCORE (European Society of Cardiology Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) and QRISK2 (British Heart Foundation) equations considered the additional risk attributable to PsA. However, risk predictions scores such as SCORE and QRISK2 perform poorly in patients with PsA. To identify novel inflammatory and metabolic parameters associated with cardiovascular disease, Schwartz and colleagues looked at¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose(FDG) PET-CT uptakeina cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study including 39 patients with biologic-treatment-naive PsA and 56 age-sex matched controls without PsA. They found that coronary artery disease (CAD) was significantly associated with visceral adiposity and FDG uptake in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and subcutaneous adipose tissue. Thus, inflammatory and metabolic parameters, including visceral adiposity, potentially contribute to subclinical CAD in patients with PsA and may in the future be used to refine CVD risk and be targets for CAD preventive treatments.

Inhibition of the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway by JAK inhibitors is efficacious in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). On the basis of the results of the pivotal SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, was recently approved for the treatment of PsA. However, data on longer-term disease control is still of interest. In a post hoc analysis of SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, Mease and colleagues assessed the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission, as defined by validated measures such as the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Scores, and minimal disease activity at 24 and 56 weeks. They showed that at week 24,a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs placebo achieved low disease activityon the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis (range, 35%-48% vs 4%-16%; P< .05) and remission (range, 7%-11% vs 0%-3%; P< .05), with the responses sustained until week 56. Thus, upadacitinib provides sustained disease control in PsA and is an effective oral therapy.

Advanced targeted therapies have proven safety and efficacy over conventional therapies, often dramatically improving signs and symptoms. However, it is also desirable that such expensive therapies also show benefit in other outcomes, such as work productivity and quality of life. To evaluate work productivity and daily activity impairment and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, n=95;PsA,n=69, and axial spondyloarthritis, n=95) treated with golimumab, Dejaco and colleagues conducted a prospective, multicenter study in Austria. A total of 110 of these patients were followed for 24 months. At 24 months after golimumab initiation, there was significant improvement in total work productivity, presenteeism, activity impairment, and quality-of-life scores. Thus, golimumab, in addition to reducing disease activity, improved work productivity, activity, and health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory arthritis, including PsA.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major comorbidity in patients with PsA. This observation was once again confirmed in an observational, cross-sectional, case-control study including 207 patients with PsA and 414 matched controls from France. Degboe and colleagues demonstrated that patients with PsA had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular risk factors, such as high body mass index, triglyceride level, and hypertension, compared with controls. The proportion of patients with PsA who were estimated to have very high cardiovascular risk factors (≥10%) increased when SCORE (European Society of Cardiology Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) and QRISK2 (British Heart Foundation) equations considered the additional risk attributable to PsA. However, risk predictions scores such as SCORE and QRISK2 perform poorly in patients with PsA. To identify novel inflammatory and metabolic parameters associated with cardiovascular disease, Schwartz and colleagues looked at¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose(FDG) PET-CT uptakeina cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study including 39 patients with biologic-treatment-naive PsA and 56 age-sex matched controls without PsA. They found that coronary artery disease (CAD) was significantly associated with visceral adiposity and FDG uptake in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and subcutaneous adipose tissue. Thus, inflammatory and metabolic parameters, including visceral adiposity, potentially contribute to subclinical CAD in patients with PsA and may in the future be used to refine CVD risk and be targets for CAD preventive treatments.

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Key clinical point: A higher proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving 15 mg upadacitinib achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after the first 6 months of treatment, with the difference being visible even after 1 year of treatment, compared to those who received a placebo.

Major finding: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo achieved Disease Activity in PsA LDA (range 35%-48% vs. 4%-16%; P < .05) and remission (range 7%-11% vs. 0%-3%; P < .05), with the responses sustained until 56 weeks.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials including 1386 adults with PsA and prior inadequate response/intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg), adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie, and other authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P et al. Disease control with upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (May 23). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00449-6

Key clinical point: A higher proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving 15 mg upadacitinib achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after the first 6 months of treatment, with the difference being visible even after 1 year of treatment, compared to those who received a placebo.

Major finding: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo achieved Disease Activity in PsA LDA (range 35%-48% vs. 4%-16%; P < .05) and remission (range 7%-11% vs. 0%-3%; P < .05), with the responses sustained until 56 weeks.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials including 1386 adults with PsA and prior inadequate response/intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg), adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie, and other authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P et al. Disease control with upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (May 23). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00449-6

Key clinical point: A higher proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving 15 mg upadacitinib achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after the first 6 months of treatment, with the difference being visible even after 1 year of treatment, compared to those who received a placebo.

Major finding: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo achieved Disease Activity in PsA LDA (range 35%-48% vs. 4%-16%; P < .05) and remission (range 7%-11% vs. 0%-3%; P < .05), with the responses sustained until 56 weeks.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials including 1386 adults with PsA and prior inadequate response/intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg), adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie, and other authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P et al. Disease control with upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (May 23). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00449-6