2017 ASCO Annual Meeting

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

CHICAGO – The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib likely offers a new treatment option for patients with BRCA-related HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, according to results of the randomized phase III OlympiAD trial reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Inhibitors of PARP, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, exploit defective DNA repair due to BRCA mutations, lead author Mark E. Robson, MD, clinic director of the clinical genetics service and medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted in a press briefing.

“PARP inhibitors have already been approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in patients with mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2, and recently in other circumstances. And there have been a couple of small studies that have suggested that breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers could also be responsive to PARP inhibitors,” he said.

Findings going forward

Although the trial was positive, the absolute difference in progression-free survival was just 2.8 months, and the curves converged over time, raising questions about potentially more efficacious PARP inhibitors or strategies for getting greater benefit out of olaparib.

“There are three PARP inhibitors in the developmental stage in breast cancer, and there are noncomparative trials and no really good ways to make a decision about which one is better,” Dr. Robson commented.

Several strategies are being explored for enhancing the benefit of these drugs, he continued. “One is combining it with a conventional chemotherapy agent, which is hard to do because of overlapping bone marrow toxicity, so it’s tough to get full doses of chemotherapy and full doses of PARP inhibitor in. Another is to combine it with other targeted agents that interact with components of the DNA damage repair pathway … and there are certainly combination therapy trials that are underway. And then third is … a combination of olaparib with an immuno-oncology agent.”

Additionally, some studies are evaluating expansion of PARP inhibitors to populations such as patients with triple-negative breast cancer who do not have an identifiable BRCA mutation, on the assumption that they have similar, somatic DNA defects that might be susceptible to this class of agents, according to Dr. Robson.

“The studies have been small and at least the initial ones have not been particularly encouraging,” he said. “But as mentioned, combination approaches now are being evaluated as a way to potentially ‘soup up’ the effect in a broader group of patients.”

Expert perspective

The OlympiAD trial represents a “major step forward in breast cancer” in terms of both translational medicine and precision medicine, according to ASCO President Daniel F. Hayes, MD, FACP, FASCO.

Study details

OlympiAD, which was funded by AstraZeneca, enrolled patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a centrally confirmed germline (inherited) BRCA mutation who had received anthracyclines and taxanes, and up to two lines of chemotherapy for metastases.

They were randomized 2:1 to open-label treatment with either olaparib (300 mg., twice daily) or single-agent chemotherapy of the treating physician’s choice among three options (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). A tablet formulation and dose of olaparib were used that differ from the currently approved capsule formulation and dose to reduce pill burden, Dr. Robson noted.

The patients were about equally split between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and between hormone receptor–positive disease and triple-negative disease, he reported. The majority (71%) had received chemotherapy for metastases, and a sizable minority (28%) had received prior platinum in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting.

With a median follow-up of about 14.5 months, median progression-free survival assessed by central radiologic review was 7.0 months with olaparib and 4.2 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .0009).

The median time to investigator-reported second progression or death was also longer with olaparib (13.2 vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.57; P = .0033).

Median overall survival was about 19-20 months in each group and not significantly different in an interim analysis.

The olaparib group had lower rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (36.6% vs. 50.5%) and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (4.9% vs. 7.7%).

The main adverse event of any grade with olaparib was nausea, which was usually mild; only about a quarter of affected patients required antiemetics, according to Dr. Robson. Patients also commonly experienced anemia, requiring transfusion in some cases, and fatigue.

Dr. Robson disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with McKesson and AstraZeneca; receives honoraria, travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca; rand receives research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Myriad Genetics, Biomarin, Medivation, and Tesaro.
 

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

CHICAGO—Three of 6 pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) whose CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells did not persist even after reinfusion demonstrated persistence when the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was added to the regimen.

CAR T cells can persist for months or even years and have the potential to mediate long-term disease control.

But some patients recover their normal B cells, which is a marker of loss of functional CAR T cells. These patients are at a higher risk of disease relapse.

Investigators, therefore, undertook a pilot study to determine whether PD-1 checkpoint pathway inhibition can improve CAR T persistence in these patients.

Shannon L. Maude, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, shared some of the patient cases in this pilot study at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (Abstract 103*).

The investigators hypothesized that possible anti-murine immunogenicity could be causing poor CAR T-cell persistence, since the first CAR T developed used scFv domains of murine origin.

If T-cell exhaustion caused poor CAR T-cell persistence, immune checkpoints might play a role. In this case, combination with PD-1 checkpoint blockade could improve persistence, they hypothesized.

The investigators proposed to administer a repeat CAR T-cell infusion for relapsed or refractory ALL patients with poor persistence and add pembrolizumab after retreatment if the patients still had poor persistence. Patients were offered the option of another reinfusion prior to treatment with pembrolizumab if their CAR T-cell persistence continued to be poor.

Investigators added pembrolizumab no earlier than 14 days after infusion and only after patients recovered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The infusions in the pilot study were humanized CART19 (huCART19, CTL119), unless otherwise specified.

Patient 1 – Pembrolizumab for partial response

This patient had no response to the prior murine CD19 CAR infusion, but responded well to infusion with huCART19 with good CAR T-cell proliferation.

By day 28, the patient had achieved a complete response (CR) in bone marrow but had a minimal residual disease (MRD) level of 1.2%.

At 7 weeks, the patient had a CD19+ relapse with low levels of huCART19.

Investigators added pembrolizumb on day 52 after infusion, and the patient had a modest increase in huCART19.

The patient had a temporary clearance of peripheral blasts followed by disease progression.

Patient 2 – Pembrolizumab for no response

This patient had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months after prior murine CD19 CAR infusion.

The patient was treated with huCART19, had good proliferation, but a rapid drop of CART19, and no response of the disease with a CD19+ relapse.

The patient had a reinfusion of huCART19 at 6 weeks and investigators added pembrolizumab on day 14 after reinfusion.

The patient experienced good huCART19 proliferation and prolonged persistence, but by day 28 had persistent disease, this time with decreased expression of CD19+ cells.

Patient 3 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

 This patient had a CR with a prior murine CD19 CAR, but had poor persistence and early B cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient had a CD19+ relapse, was treated with huCART19, and had good proliferation again.

The patient achieved an MRD-negative CR, but because of short persistence and early B-cell recovery at 2 months, relapsed at 15 months.

The patient was reinfused at 17 months and pembrolizumab was added on day 14. The patient entered CR with prolonged persistence, but ultimately B-cell recovery occurred.

The patient was reinfused a third time, and pembrolizumab was added to the regimen every 3 weeks. The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 4 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

This patient had achieved a CR with murine CAR19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 9 months. The patient then received huCART19, had good proliferation and achieved a CR, but had short persistence and B-cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient relapsed at 12 months and was reinfused with huCART19 at 14 months.

Pembrolizumab was added on day 14 after reinfusion, but the patient had no huCART19 proliferation, no response, and CD19+ MRD.

Patient 5 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

The patient responded to a prior murine CART19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months.

The patient was infused with huCART19 and had good proliferation but short persistence. The patient was reinfused at 6 months, but again had short persistence.

The patient was reinfused again at 8 months because of B-cell recovery, and pembrolizumab was added on day 14 and administered every 3 weeks thereafter.

The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 6 – Pembrolizumab for lymphomatous disease

This patient, who had widespread lymphadenopathy and M3 bone marrow, had not received prior CAR T cells and was treated for the first time with a murine CART19 for r/r ALL.

The patient had good expansion of CART19, but by day 28, PET scan showed widespread lymph node disease despite CR in the bone marrow.

The patient was given pembrolizumab on day 32 after infusion and every 2-3 weeks thereafter. After the addition of pembrolizumab, the patient had increased CART19 cells in blood and a significant decrease in PET-avid disease.

Summary

Three of six patients achieved objective clinical responses with pembrolizumab: 2 had prolonged B-cell aplasia, and another had a decrease in PET-avid lymphomatous disease.

The addition of pembrolizumab was also well tolerated by the patients, with minimal side effects of fever in 2 patients, cytopenias in 2 patients, and no instances of severe CRS.

The investigators believe the addition of checkpoint pathway inhibitors has the potential to prolong CAR T-cell persistence and warrants further investigation.

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

CHICAGO—Three of 6 pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) whose CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells did not persist even after reinfusion demonstrated persistence when the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was added to the regimen.

CAR T cells can persist for months or even years and have the potential to mediate long-term disease control.

But some patients recover their normal B cells, which is a marker of loss of functional CAR T cells. These patients are at a higher risk of disease relapse.

Investigators, therefore, undertook a pilot study to determine whether PD-1 checkpoint pathway inhibition can improve CAR T persistence in these patients.

Shannon L. Maude, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, shared some of the patient cases in this pilot study at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (Abstract 103*).

The investigators hypothesized that possible anti-murine immunogenicity could be causing poor CAR T-cell persistence, since the first CAR T developed used scFv domains of murine origin.

If T-cell exhaustion caused poor CAR T-cell persistence, immune checkpoints might play a role. In this case, combination with PD-1 checkpoint blockade could improve persistence, they hypothesized.

The investigators proposed to administer a repeat CAR T-cell infusion for relapsed or refractory ALL patients with poor persistence and add pembrolizumab after retreatment if the patients still had poor persistence. Patients were offered the option of another reinfusion prior to treatment with pembrolizumab if their CAR T-cell persistence continued to be poor.

Investigators added pembrolizumab no earlier than 14 days after infusion and only after patients recovered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The infusions in the pilot study were humanized CART19 (huCART19, CTL119), unless otherwise specified.

Patient 1 – Pembrolizumab for partial response

This patient had no response to the prior murine CD19 CAR infusion, but responded well to infusion with huCART19 with good CAR T-cell proliferation.

By day 28, the patient had achieved a complete response (CR) in bone marrow but had a minimal residual disease (MRD) level of 1.2%.

At 7 weeks, the patient had a CD19+ relapse with low levels of huCART19.

Investigators added pembrolizumb on day 52 after infusion, and the patient had a modest increase in huCART19.

The patient had a temporary clearance of peripheral blasts followed by disease progression.

Patient 2 – Pembrolizumab for no response

This patient had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months after prior murine CD19 CAR infusion.

The patient was treated with huCART19, had good proliferation, but a rapid drop of CART19, and no response of the disease with a CD19+ relapse.

The patient had a reinfusion of huCART19 at 6 weeks and investigators added pembrolizumab on day 14 after reinfusion.

The patient experienced good huCART19 proliferation and prolonged persistence, but by day 28 had persistent disease, this time with decreased expression of CD19+ cells.

Patient 3 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

 This patient had a CR with a prior murine CD19 CAR, but had poor persistence and early B cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient had a CD19+ relapse, was treated with huCART19, and had good proliferation again.

The patient achieved an MRD-negative CR, but because of short persistence and early B-cell recovery at 2 months, relapsed at 15 months.

The patient was reinfused at 17 months and pembrolizumab was added on day 14. The patient entered CR with prolonged persistence, but ultimately B-cell recovery occurred.

The patient was reinfused a third time, and pembrolizumab was added to the regimen every 3 weeks. The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 4 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

This patient had achieved a CR with murine CAR19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 9 months. The patient then received huCART19, had good proliferation and achieved a CR, but had short persistence and B-cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient relapsed at 12 months and was reinfused with huCART19 at 14 months.

Pembrolizumab was added on day 14 after reinfusion, but the patient had no huCART19 proliferation, no response, and CD19+ MRD.

Patient 5 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

The patient responded to a prior murine CART19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months.

The patient was infused with huCART19 and had good proliferation but short persistence. The patient was reinfused at 6 months, but again had short persistence.

The patient was reinfused again at 8 months because of B-cell recovery, and pembrolizumab was added on day 14 and administered every 3 weeks thereafter.

The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 6 – Pembrolizumab for lymphomatous disease

This patient, who had widespread lymphadenopathy and M3 bone marrow, had not received prior CAR T cells and was treated for the first time with a murine CART19 for r/r ALL.

The patient had good expansion of CART19, but by day 28, PET scan showed widespread lymph node disease despite CR in the bone marrow.

The patient was given pembrolizumab on day 32 after infusion and every 2-3 weeks thereafter. After the addition of pembrolizumab, the patient had increased CART19 cells in blood and a significant decrease in PET-avid disease.

Summary

Three of six patients achieved objective clinical responses with pembrolizumab: 2 had prolonged B-cell aplasia, and another had a decrease in PET-avid lymphomatous disease.

The addition of pembrolizumab was also well tolerated by the patients, with minimal side effects of fever in 2 patients, cytopenias in 2 patients, and no instances of severe CRS.

The investigators believe the addition of checkpoint pathway inhibitors has the potential to prolong CAR T-cell persistence and warrants further investigation.

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

CHICAGO—Three of 6 pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) whose CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells did not persist even after reinfusion demonstrated persistence when the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was added to the regimen.

CAR T cells can persist for months or even years and have the potential to mediate long-term disease control.

But some patients recover their normal B cells, which is a marker of loss of functional CAR T cells. These patients are at a higher risk of disease relapse.

Investigators, therefore, undertook a pilot study to determine whether PD-1 checkpoint pathway inhibition can improve CAR T persistence in these patients.

Shannon L. Maude, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, shared some of the patient cases in this pilot study at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (Abstract 103*).

The investigators hypothesized that possible anti-murine immunogenicity could be causing poor CAR T-cell persistence, since the first CAR T developed used scFv domains of murine origin.

If T-cell exhaustion caused poor CAR T-cell persistence, immune checkpoints might play a role. In this case, combination with PD-1 checkpoint blockade could improve persistence, they hypothesized.

The investigators proposed to administer a repeat CAR T-cell infusion for relapsed or refractory ALL patients with poor persistence and add pembrolizumab after retreatment if the patients still had poor persistence. Patients were offered the option of another reinfusion prior to treatment with pembrolizumab if their CAR T-cell persistence continued to be poor.

Investigators added pembrolizumab no earlier than 14 days after infusion and only after patients recovered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The infusions in the pilot study were humanized CART19 (huCART19, CTL119), unless otherwise specified.

Patient 1 – Pembrolizumab for partial response

This patient had no response to the prior murine CD19 CAR infusion, but responded well to infusion with huCART19 with good CAR T-cell proliferation.

By day 28, the patient had achieved a complete response (CR) in bone marrow but had a minimal residual disease (MRD) level of 1.2%.

At 7 weeks, the patient had a CD19+ relapse with low levels of huCART19.

Investigators added pembrolizumb on day 52 after infusion, and the patient had a modest increase in huCART19.

The patient had a temporary clearance of peripheral blasts followed by disease progression.

Patient 2 – Pembrolizumab for no response

This patient had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months after prior murine CD19 CAR infusion.

The patient was treated with huCART19, had good proliferation, but a rapid drop of CART19, and no response of the disease with a CD19+ relapse.

The patient had a reinfusion of huCART19 at 6 weeks and investigators added pembrolizumab on day 14 after reinfusion.

The patient experienced good huCART19 proliferation and prolonged persistence, but by day 28 had persistent disease, this time with decreased expression of CD19+ cells.

Patient 3 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

 This patient had a CR with a prior murine CD19 CAR, but had poor persistence and early B cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient had a CD19+ relapse, was treated with huCART19, and had good proliferation again.

The patient achieved an MRD-negative CR, but because of short persistence and early B-cell recovery at 2 months, relapsed at 15 months.

The patient was reinfused at 17 months and pembrolizumab was added on day 14. The patient entered CR with prolonged persistence, but ultimately B-cell recovery occurred.

The patient was reinfused a third time, and pembrolizumab was added to the regimen every 3 weeks. The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 4 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

This patient had achieved a CR with murine CAR19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 9 months. The patient then received huCART19, had good proliferation and achieved a CR, but had short persistence and B-cell recovery at 2 months.

The patient relapsed at 12 months and was reinfused with huCART19 at 14 months.

Pembrolizumab was added on day 14 after reinfusion, but the patient had no huCART19 proliferation, no response, and CD19+ MRD.

Patient 5 – Pembrolizumab for poor persistence

The patient responded to a prior murine CART19, but had a CD19+ relapse at 12 months.

The patient was infused with huCART19 and had good proliferation but short persistence. The patient was reinfused at 6 months, but again had short persistence.

The patient was reinfused again at 8 months because of B-cell recovery, and pembrolizumab was added on day 14 and administered every 3 weeks thereafter.

The patient is experiencing prolonged persistence and continued B-cell aplasia.

Patient 6 – Pembrolizumab for lymphomatous disease

This patient, who had widespread lymphadenopathy and M3 bone marrow, had not received prior CAR T cells and was treated for the first time with a murine CART19 for r/r ALL.

The patient had good expansion of CART19, but by day 28, PET scan showed widespread lymph node disease despite CR in the bone marrow.

The patient was given pembrolizumab on day 32 after infusion and every 2-3 weeks thereafter. After the addition of pembrolizumab, the patient had increased CART19 cells in blood and a significant decrease in PET-avid disease.

Summary

Three of six patients achieved objective clinical responses with pembrolizumab: 2 had prolonged B-cell aplasia, and another had a decrease in PET-avid lymphomatous disease.

The addition of pembrolizumab was also well tolerated by the patients, with minimal side effects of fever in 2 patients, cytopenias in 2 patients, and no instances of severe CRS.

The investigators believe the addition of checkpoint pathway inhibitors has the potential to prolong CAR T-cell persistence and warrants further investigation.

CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.

The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.

The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.

When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.

When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.

In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.

He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.

“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.

Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.

The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.

The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.

When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.

When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.

In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.

He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.

“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.

Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.

The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.

The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.

When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.

When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.

In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.

He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.

“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.

Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Adding the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody pertuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in the randomized, placebo-controlled Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Herceptin in Initial Therapy (APHINITY) study of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.

Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.

In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.

“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”

[email protected]

CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.

Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical news

CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.

Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical news

CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.

Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical news

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

Ibrutinib, the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has transformed the treatment landscape for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Yet for patients with high-risk molecular features, such as 11q deletion, 17p deletion, or TP53 mutation, relapse remains problematic.

Investigators evaluated whether the addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib would improve the outcome of patients with genetically high-risk CLL in the GENUINE (UTX-IB-301) phase 3 study.

Jeff P. Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center in Springfield, Oregon, reported the results at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7504).*

Ublituximab is a glycoengineered, anti-CD20 type 1 monoclonal antibody that maintains complement-dependent cytotoxicity and enhances antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. In a phase 2 study in combination with ibrutinib, it achieved an ORR of approximately 88%.

Protocol design

Originally, the study had co-primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). To adequately power for both endpoints, the target enrollment was 330 patients.

Dr Sharman explained that after 22 months of open enrollment, the trial sponsor determined that the original enrollment goal could not be met in a timely manner and elected to redesign the protocol.

In the modified protocol, ORR became the primary response rate and PFS a secondary endpoint. This allowed for a reduced target enrollment of 120. However, the study was no longer powered to detect a change in PFS.

Investigators stratified the patients by lines of prior therapy and then randomized them to receive ibrutinib or ublituximab plus ibrutinib.

The ibrutinib dose was 420 mg daily in both arms. Ublituximab dose was 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6 and every third cycle thereafter.

The primary endpoint was ORR as assessed by Independent Central Review (IRC) using the iwCLL 2008 criteria.

Secondary endpoints included PFS, the complete response (CR) rate and depth of response (minimal residual disease [MRD] negativity), and safety.

The investigators assessed patients for response on weeks 8, 16, 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter.

The primary endpoint was evaluated when all enrolled patients had at least 2 efficacy evaluations.

The median follow-up was 11.4 months.

 Patient characteristics

 Patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL had their disease centrally confirmed for the presence of deletion 17p, deletion 11q, and/or TP53 mutation.

They had measurable disease, ECOG performance status of 2 or less, no history of transformation of CLL, and no prior BTK inhibitor therapy.

 The investigators randomized 126 patients, and 117 received any dose of therapy.

“The dropout was because in part ibrutinib was via commercial supply and not every patient could get access,” Dr Sharman noted.

Fifty-nine patients were treated in the combination arm and 58 in the monotherapy arm.

All patients had at least one of the specified mutations, which were relatively balanced between the 2 arms.

Patients were a mean age of 67 (range, 43 – 87), had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1 – 8), and more than 70% were male.

Patient characteristics were similar in each arm except for bulky disease, with 45% in the combination arm having bulky disease of 5 cm or more at baseline, compared with 26% in the monotherapy arm.

Twenty percent of the patients were considered refractory to rituximab.

Safety

Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients in the combination arm and 5% had grade 3/4 reactions. None occurred in the ibrutinib arm, since the latter is an orally bioavailable drug.

Other adverse events of all grades occurring in 10% of patients or more for the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively, were: diarrhea (42% and 40%), fatigue (27% and 33%), insomnia (24% and 10%), nausea (22% and 21%), headache (20% and 28%), arthralgia (19% and 17%), cough (19% and 24%), abdominal pain (15% and 9%), stomatitis (15% and 9%), upper respiratory infection (15% and 12%), dizziness (15% and 22%), contusion (15% and 29%), anemia (14% and 17%), and peripheral edema (10% and 21%).

Neutropenia was higher in the experimental arm, 22% any grade, compared with 12% in the ibrutinib arm, although grade 3 or higher neutropenia was similar in the 2 arms. Other laboratory abnormalities were similar between the arms.

Efficacy

 The best ORR in the combination arm was 78%, with 7% achieving CR compared with 45% in the monotherapy arm with no CRs (P<0.001).

Nineteen percent of the combination arm achieved MRD negativity in peripheral blood compared with 2% of the monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

The reduction in lymph node size was similar between the arms.

In contrast, lymphocytosis was very different between the arms.

“As has been reported multiple times with targeted B-cell receptor signaling inhibitors,” Dr Sharman said, “patients treated with ibrutinib experienced rapid increase in their lymphocytes, returning approximately to baseline by 3 months and decreasing thereafter.”

“By contrast,” he continued, “those patients treated with the additional antibody had much more rapid resolution of their lymphocytosis. This was true whether patients were considered rituximab refractory or not.”

The investigators performed an additional analysis of ORR, this time including patients who achieved partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L). These patients were not included in the primary endpoint because the iwCLL 2008 criteria had not yet been updated to include PR-L.

The best overall response including active PR-L patients was 83% in the experimental arm and 59% in the ibrutinib monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

PFS showed a trend toward improvement in the patients treated with the combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.559, which was not of statistical significance at the time of analysis.

The investigators concluded that the study met its primary endpoint, with a greater response rate and a greater depth of response than ibrutinib alone.

And the addition of ublituximab did not alter the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy.

TG Therapeutics, Inc, funded the study. 

*Data in the abstract differ from the meeting presentation.

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

Ibrutinib, the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has transformed the treatment landscape for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Yet for patients with high-risk molecular features, such as 11q deletion, 17p deletion, or TP53 mutation, relapse remains problematic.

Investigators evaluated whether the addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib would improve the outcome of patients with genetically high-risk CLL in the GENUINE (UTX-IB-301) phase 3 study.

Jeff P. Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center in Springfield, Oregon, reported the results at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7504).*

Ublituximab is a glycoengineered, anti-CD20 type 1 monoclonal antibody that maintains complement-dependent cytotoxicity and enhances antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. In a phase 2 study in combination with ibrutinib, it achieved an ORR of approximately 88%.

Protocol design

Originally, the study had co-primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). To adequately power for both endpoints, the target enrollment was 330 patients.

Dr Sharman explained that after 22 months of open enrollment, the trial sponsor determined that the original enrollment goal could not be met in a timely manner and elected to redesign the protocol.

In the modified protocol, ORR became the primary response rate and PFS a secondary endpoint. This allowed for a reduced target enrollment of 120. However, the study was no longer powered to detect a change in PFS.

Investigators stratified the patients by lines of prior therapy and then randomized them to receive ibrutinib or ublituximab plus ibrutinib.

The ibrutinib dose was 420 mg daily in both arms. Ublituximab dose was 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6 and every third cycle thereafter.

The primary endpoint was ORR as assessed by Independent Central Review (IRC) using the iwCLL 2008 criteria.

Secondary endpoints included PFS, the complete response (CR) rate and depth of response (minimal residual disease [MRD] negativity), and safety.

The investigators assessed patients for response on weeks 8, 16, 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter.

The primary endpoint was evaluated when all enrolled patients had at least 2 efficacy evaluations.

The median follow-up was 11.4 months.

 Patient characteristics

 Patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL had their disease centrally confirmed for the presence of deletion 17p, deletion 11q, and/or TP53 mutation.

They had measurable disease, ECOG performance status of 2 or less, no history of transformation of CLL, and no prior BTK inhibitor therapy.

 The investigators randomized 126 patients, and 117 received any dose of therapy.

“The dropout was because in part ibrutinib was via commercial supply and not every patient could get access,” Dr Sharman noted.

Fifty-nine patients were treated in the combination arm and 58 in the monotherapy arm.

All patients had at least one of the specified mutations, which were relatively balanced between the 2 arms.

Patients were a mean age of 67 (range, 43 – 87), had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1 – 8), and more than 70% were male.

Patient characteristics were similar in each arm except for bulky disease, with 45% in the combination arm having bulky disease of 5 cm or more at baseline, compared with 26% in the monotherapy arm.

Twenty percent of the patients were considered refractory to rituximab.

Safety

Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients in the combination arm and 5% had grade 3/4 reactions. None occurred in the ibrutinib arm, since the latter is an orally bioavailable drug.

Other adverse events of all grades occurring in 10% of patients or more for the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively, were: diarrhea (42% and 40%), fatigue (27% and 33%), insomnia (24% and 10%), nausea (22% and 21%), headache (20% and 28%), arthralgia (19% and 17%), cough (19% and 24%), abdominal pain (15% and 9%), stomatitis (15% and 9%), upper respiratory infection (15% and 12%), dizziness (15% and 22%), contusion (15% and 29%), anemia (14% and 17%), and peripheral edema (10% and 21%).

Neutropenia was higher in the experimental arm, 22% any grade, compared with 12% in the ibrutinib arm, although grade 3 or higher neutropenia was similar in the 2 arms. Other laboratory abnormalities were similar between the arms.

Efficacy

 The best ORR in the combination arm was 78%, with 7% achieving CR compared with 45% in the monotherapy arm with no CRs (P<0.001).

Nineteen percent of the combination arm achieved MRD negativity in peripheral blood compared with 2% of the monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

The reduction in lymph node size was similar between the arms.

In contrast, lymphocytosis was very different between the arms.

“As has been reported multiple times with targeted B-cell receptor signaling inhibitors,” Dr Sharman said, “patients treated with ibrutinib experienced rapid increase in their lymphocytes, returning approximately to baseline by 3 months and decreasing thereafter.”

“By contrast,” he continued, “those patients treated with the additional antibody had much more rapid resolution of their lymphocytosis. This was true whether patients were considered rituximab refractory or not.”

The investigators performed an additional analysis of ORR, this time including patients who achieved partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L). These patients were not included in the primary endpoint because the iwCLL 2008 criteria had not yet been updated to include PR-L.

The best overall response including active PR-L patients was 83% in the experimental arm and 59% in the ibrutinib monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

PFS showed a trend toward improvement in the patients treated with the combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.559, which was not of statistical significance at the time of analysis.

The investigators concluded that the study met its primary endpoint, with a greater response rate and a greater depth of response than ibrutinib alone.

And the addition of ublituximab did not alter the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy.

TG Therapeutics, Inc, funded the study. 

*Data in the abstract differ from the meeting presentation.

Photo © ASCO/Danny Morton 2017

Ibrutinib, the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has transformed the treatment landscape for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Yet for patients with high-risk molecular features, such as 11q deletion, 17p deletion, or TP53 mutation, relapse remains problematic.

Investigators evaluated whether the addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib would improve the outcome of patients with genetically high-risk CLL in the GENUINE (UTX-IB-301) phase 3 study.

Jeff P. Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center in Springfield, Oregon, reported the results at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7504).*

Ublituximab is a glycoengineered, anti-CD20 type 1 monoclonal antibody that maintains complement-dependent cytotoxicity and enhances antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. In a phase 2 study in combination with ibrutinib, it achieved an ORR of approximately 88%.

Protocol design

Originally, the study had co-primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). To adequately power for both endpoints, the target enrollment was 330 patients.

Dr Sharman explained that after 22 months of open enrollment, the trial sponsor determined that the original enrollment goal could not be met in a timely manner and elected to redesign the protocol.

In the modified protocol, ORR became the primary response rate and PFS a secondary endpoint. This allowed for a reduced target enrollment of 120. However, the study was no longer powered to detect a change in PFS.

Investigators stratified the patients by lines of prior therapy and then randomized them to receive ibrutinib or ublituximab plus ibrutinib.

The ibrutinib dose was 420 mg daily in both arms. Ublituximab dose was 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6 and every third cycle thereafter.

The primary endpoint was ORR as assessed by Independent Central Review (IRC) using the iwCLL 2008 criteria.

Secondary endpoints included PFS, the complete response (CR) rate and depth of response (minimal residual disease [MRD] negativity), and safety.

The investigators assessed patients for response on weeks 8, 16, 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter.

The primary endpoint was evaluated when all enrolled patients had at least 2 efficacy evaluations.

The median follow-up was 11.4 months.

 Patient characteristics

 Patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL had their disease centrally confirmed for the presence of deletion 17p, deletion 11q, and/or TP53 mutation.

They had measurable disease, ECOG performance status of 2 or less, no history of transformation of CLL, and no prior BTK inhibitor therapy.

 The investigators randomized 126 patients, and 117 received any dose of therapy.

“The dropout was because in part ibrutinib was via commercial supply and not every patient could get access,” Dr Sharman noted.

Fifty-nine patients were treated in the combination arm and 58 in the monotherapy arm.

All patients had at least one of the specified mutations, which were relatively balanced between the 2 arms.

Patients were a mean age of 67 (range, 43 – 87), had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1 – 8), and more than 70% were male.

Patient characteristics were similar in each arm except for bulky disease, with 45% in the combination arm having bulky disease of 5 cm or more at baseline, compared with 26% in the monotherapy arm.

Twenty percent of the patients were considered refractory to rituximab.

Safety

Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients in the combination arm and 5% had grade 3/4 reactions. None occurred in the ibrutinib arm, since the latter is an orally bioavailable drug.

Other adverse events of all grades occurring in 10% of patients or more for the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively, were: diarrhea (42% and 40%), fatigue (27% and 33%), insomnia (24% and 10%), nausea (22% and 21%), headache (20% and 28%), arthralgia (19% and 17%), cough (19% and 24%), abdominal pain (15% and 9%), stomatitis (15% and 9%), upper respiratory infection (15% and 12%), dizziness (15% and 22%), contusion (15% and 29%), anemia (14% and 17%), and peripheral edema (10% and 21%).

Neutropenia was higher in the experimental arm, 22% any grade, compared with 12% in the ibrutinib arm, although grade 3 or higher neutropenia was similar in the 2 arms. Other laboratory abnormalities were similar between the arms.

Efficacy

 The best ORR in the combination arm was 78%, with 7% achieving CR compared with 45% in the monotherapy arm with no CRs (P<0.001).

Nineteen percent of the combination arm achieved MRD negativity in peripheral blood compared with 2% of the monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

The reduction in lymph node size was similar between the arms.

In contrast, lymphocytosis was very different between the arms.

“As has been reported multiple times with targeted B-cell receptor signaling inhibitors,” Dr Sharman said, “patients treated with ibrutinib experienced rapid increase in their lymphocytes, returning approximately to baseline by 3 months and decreasing thereafter.”

“By contrast,” he continued, “those patients treated with the additional antibody had much more rapid resolution of their lymphocytosis. This was true whether patients were considered rituximab refractory or not.”

The investigators performed an additional analysis of ORR, this time including patients who achieved partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L). These patients were not included in the primary endpoint because the iwCLL 2008 criteria had not yet been updated to include PR-L.

The best overall response including active PR-L patients was 83% in the experimental arm and 59% in the ibrutinib monotherapy arm (P<0.01).

PFS showed a trend toward improvement in the patients treated with the combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.559, which was not of statistical significance at the time of analysis.

The investigators concluded that the study met its primary endpoint, with a greater response rate and a greater depth of response than ibrutinib alone.

And the addition of ublituximab did not alter the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy.

TG Therapeutics, Inc, funded the study. 

*Data in the abstract differ from the meeting presentation.

CHICAGO – Early data from a phase II trial of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat relapsed mesothelioma give hope that immunotherapy may be an effective therapeutic option for the rapidly progressive, currently incurable cancer.

Reporting on 12 weeks of data from the randomized multicenter trial, Arnaud Scherpereel, MD, the study’s first author, said in a video interview, “We were very pleased to see that we were able to increase ... the disease control rate to 44% with nivolumab, and 50% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. This was translated into a overall survival gain for these patients.” The best previous disease control rate seen with other therapies was less than 30%, said Dr. Scherpereel at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussing the early results in a video interview, Dr. Scherpereel, head of the pulmonary and thoracic oncology department at the University Hospital of Lille, France noted that the median overall survival for the nivolumab patients was 10.4 months, and has not yet been reached for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients. Further, he said in a press briefing, “Tumors shrunk in 18% of patients treated with nivolumab and 26% of those treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.”

The French MAPS-2 study has enrolled 125 adult patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had measurable disease progression after one or two prior lines of chemotherapy, including pemetrexed/platinum doublet. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab, until disease control or unacceptable toxicity was reached, for a maximum of 2 years. Patients were mostly (80%) male, with a median age of 71.8 years, and most had the epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma subtype.

In commentary at the press briefing announcing the findings, ASCO expert Michael Sabel, MD, said, “I need to emphasize that this is amazing, in that we are seeing [the use of] checkpoint inhibitors expanding beyond melanoma, to other cancers that we thought were not amenable to immunotherapy approaches.”

“This is a great example of how basic cancer research in one field can expand across others,” said Dr. Sabel of the departments of surgery and surgical oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Most side effects were not severe, but there were three potentially drug-related deaths in the nivolumab-ipilimumab combo arm: one patient died of fulminant hepatitis, one from metabolic encephalitis, and one from acute renal failure. “There is no identified factor that is predictive” in terms of which patients will have the more significant known adverse effects of checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Scherpereel. Patients, caregivers, and health care professionals all need to be alert to the possibility of adverse events and act promptly if concerning symptoms crop up, he said.

Dr. Scherpereel said that though his study group has not yet reported the quality of life findings from MAPS-2, he sees that his patients who are study participants are doing better. “In my patients, they have a very good tolerance to this treatment compared to chemotherapy. They have less dyspnea, less chest pain. Clearly, we hope to get these drugs into the routine very quickly for them.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb manufactures both nivolumab and ipilimumab and provided the study drugs. Dr. Sabel disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Dr. Scherpereel has no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Early data from a phase II trial of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat relapsed mesothelioma give hope that immunotherapy may be an effective therapeutic option for the rapidly progressive, currently incurable cancer.

Reporting on 12 weeks of data from the randomized multicenter trial, Arnaud Scherpereel, MD, the study’s first author, said in a video interview, “We were very pleased to see that we were able to increase ... the disease control rate to 44% with nivolumab, and 50% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. This was translated into a overall survival gain for these patients.” The best previous disease control rate seen with other therapies was less than 30%, said Dr. Scherpereel at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussing the early results in a video interview, Dr. Scherpereel, head of the pulmonary and thoracic oncology department at the University Hospital of Lille, France noted that the median overall survival for the nivolumab patients was 10.4 months, and has not yet been reached for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients. Further, he said in a press briefing, “Tumors shrunk in 18% of patients treated with nivolumab and 26% of those treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.”

The French MAPS-2 study has enrolled 125 adult patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had measurable disease progression after one or two prior lines of chemotherapy, including pemetrexed/platinum doublet. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab, until disease control or unacceptable toxicity was reached, for a maximum of 2 years. Patients were mostly (80%) male, with a median age of 71.8 years, and most had the epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma subtype.

In commentary at the press briefing announcing the findings, ASCO expert Michael Sabel, MD, said, “I need to emphasize that this is amazing, in that we are seeing [the use of] checkpoint inhibitors expanding beyond melanoma, to other cancers that we thought were not amenable to immunotherapy approaches.”

“This is a great example of how basic cancer research in one field can expand across others,” said Dr. Sabel of the departments of surgery and surgical oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Most side effects were not severe, but there were three potentially drug-related deaths in the nivolumab-ipilimumab combo arm: one patient died of fulminant hepatitis, one from metabolic encephalitis, and one from acute renal failure. “There is no identified factor that is predictive” in terms of which patients will have the more significant known adverse effects of checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Scherpereel. Patients, caregivers, and health care professionals all need to be alert to the possibility of adverse events and act promptly if concerning symptoms crop up, he said.

Dr. Scherpereel said that though his study group has not yet reported the quality of life findings from MAPS-2, he sees that his patients who are study participants are doing better. “In my patients, they have a very good tolerance to this treatment compared to chemotherapy. They have less dyspnea, less chest pain. Clearly, we hope to get these drugs into the routine very quickly for them.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb manufactures both nivolumab and ipilimumab and provided the study drugs. Dr. Sabel disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Dr. Scherpereel has no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Early data from a phase II trial of immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat relapsed mesothelioma give hope that immunotherapy may be an effective therapeutic option for the rapidly progressive, currently incurable cancer.

Reporting on 12 weeks of data from the randomized multicenter trial, Arnaud Scherpereel, MD, the study’s first author, said in a video interview, “We were very pleased to see that we were able to increase ... the disease control rate to 44% with nivolumab, and 50% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. This was translated into a overall survival gain for these patients.” The best previous disease control rate seen with other therapies was less than 30%, said Dr. Scherpereel at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussing the early results in a video interview, Dr. Scherpereel, head of the pulmonary and thoracic oncology department at the University Hospital of Lille, France noted that the median overall survival for the nivolumab patients was 10.4 months, and has not yet been reached for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients. Further, he said in a press briefing, “Tumors shrunk in 18% of patients treated with nivolumab and 26% of those treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.”

The French MAPS-2 study has enrolled 125 adult patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had measurable disease progression after one or two prior lines of chemotherapy, including pemetrexed/platinum doublet. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab, until disease control or unacceptable toxicity was reached, for a maximum of 2 years. Patients were mostly (80%) male, with a median age of 71.8 years, and most had the epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma subtype.

In commentary at the press briefing announcing the findings, ASCO expert Michael Sabel, MD, said, “I need to emphasize that this is amazing, in that we are seeing [the use of] checkpoint inhibitors expanding beyond melanoma, to other cancers that we thought were not amenable to immunotherapy approaches.”

“This is a great example of how basic cancer research in one field can expand across others,” said Dr. Sabel of the departments of surgery and surgical oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Most side effects were not severe, but there were three potentially drug-related deaths in the nivolumab-ipilimumab combo arm: one patient died of fulminant hepatitis, one from metabolic encephalitis, and one from acute renal failure. “There is no identified factor that is predictive” in terms of which patients will have the more significant known adverse effects of checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Scherpereel. Patients, caregivers, and health care professionals all need to be alert to the possibility of adverse events and act promptly if concerning symptoms crop up, he said.

Dr. Scherpereel said that though his study group has not yet reported the quality of life findings from MAPS-2, he sees that his patients who are study participants are doing better. “In my patients, they have a very good tolerance to this treatment compared to chemotherapy. They have less dyspnea, less chest pain. Clearly, we hope to get these drugs into the routine very quickly for them.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb manufactures both nivolumab and ipilimumab and provided the study drugs. Dr. Sabel disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Dr. Scherpereel has no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – The standard of care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is the ALK inhibitor crizotinib (Xalkori). However, many patients on crizotinib will have disease progression within the first year of therapy, and many will go on to have central nervous system (CNS) metastases.

The multicenter international ALEX trial compared crizotinib with the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa). The investigators found that alectinib reduced the risk of progression by 53% and the time to CNS progression by 84%.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, outlines the ALEX trial results, which are being hailed as “practice changing.”

CHICAGO – The standard of care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is the ALK inhibitor crizotinib (Xalkori). However, many patients on crizotinib will have disease progression within the first year of therapy, and many will go on to have central nervous system (CNS) metastases.

The multicenter international ALEX trial compared crizotinib with the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa). The investigators found that alectinib reduced the risk of progression by 53% and the time to CNS progression by 84%.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, outlines the ALEX trial results, which are being hailed as “practice changing.”

CHICAGO – The standard of care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is the ALK inhibitor crizotinib (Xalkori). However, many patients on crizotinib will have disease progression within the first year of therapy, and many will go on to have central nervous system (CNS) metastases.

The multicenter international ALEX trial compared crizotinib with the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa). The investigators found that alectinib reduced the risk of progression by 53% and the time to CNS progression by 84%.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, outlines the ALEX trial results, which are being hailed as “practice changing.”

CHICAGO – Adding an experimental immune-enhancing agent to a checkpoint inhibitor was safe and showed early promise of activity against advanced solid tumors in a phase I/IIa clinical trial.

BMS-986156 is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related gene. The drug acts synergistically with the programmed-death 1 inhibitor (PD-1) nivolumab (Opdivo) by increasing survival of T effector cells, promoting regulatory T-cell depletion and reduction, and reducing regulatory T cell suppression of T effector cells to produce a more robust antitumor immune response.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lillian Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, describes how the combination has induced durable partial responses in patients with tumors thought to be insensitive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had disease progression while on a PD-1 inhibitor.

CHICAGO – Adding an experimental immune-enhancing agent to a checkpoint inhibitor was safe and showed early promise of activity against advanced solid tumors in a phase I/IIa clinical trial.

BMS-986156 is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related gene. The drug acts synergistically with the programmed-death 1 inhibitor (PD-1) nivolumab (Opdivo) by increasing survival of T effector cells, promoting regulatory T-cell depletion and reduction, and reducing regulatory T cell suppression of T effector cells to produce a more robust antitumor immune response.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lillian Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, describes how the combination has induced durable partial responses in patients with tumors thought to be insensitive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had disease progression while on a PD-1 inhibitor.

CHICAGO – Adding an experimental immune-enhancing agent to a checkpoint inhibitor was safe and showed early promise of activity against advanced solid tumors in a phase I/IIa clinical trial.

BMS-986156 is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related gene. The drug acts synergistically with the programmed-death 1 inhibitor (PD-1) nivolumab (Opdivo) by increasing survival of T effector cells, promoting regulatory T-cell depletion and reduction, and reducing regulatory T cell suppression of T effector cells to produce a more robust antitumor immune response.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lillian Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, describes how the combination has induced durable partial responses in patients with tumors thought to be insensitive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had disease progression while on a PD-1 inhibitor.

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—A new type of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell, one that is specific for the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), has produced durable remissions in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research reported at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract LBA3001).

BCMA is a cell surface antigen universally expressed on malignant plasma cells. It plays a role in the progression of MM and is turning out to be a highly selective antigen to target in novel treatments for MM.

This trial of LCAR-B38M is one of the first clinical trials of CAR T cells to target BCMA.

“[W]hat makes our CAR T different from other CAR T all over the world is we are truly a bispecific CAR T modality,” Frank (Xiaohu) Fan, MD, PhD, explained in a media briefing, “especially our antigen-binding units compared to single domain antibodies.” Dr Fan is CSO of  Nanjing Legend Biotech in China, the developer of LCAR-B38M.

“We believe targeting BCMA alone should be enough to get a good efficacy,” he said.

To date the objective response rate is 100%.

The investigators treated 35 relapsed/refractory MM patients thus far with LCAR-B38M. Patients received the modified CAR T cells in 3 doses, on days 0, 2, and 6.

The investigators reported on 19 patients who they followed for more than 4 months, a criterion established by the International Myeloma Working Group for full efficacy evaluation.

Efficacy

Of the 19 patients, 14 (74%) achieved a stringent complete response (sCR), 4 (21%) a very good partial response (VGPR), and 1 (5%) a PR.

One patient who achieved a VGPR relapsed due to an extramedullary lesion.

Investigators observed no evidence of relapse among patients who achieved sCR.

Five patients have been followed for more than a year and all have maintained sCR.

Safety

Safety is a major issue with CAR T-cell therapies, with a frequent and major adverse event being cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

Of the 35 patients treated, 6 experienced no CRS, 17 had grade 1, 10 had grade 2, and 2 had grade 3 CRS. No patient experienced grade 4 CRS or any grade 5 event.

Because LCAR-B38M demonstrates “outstanding” efficacy with a “great” safety profile, the investigators believe this technology raises the hope of cure for MM patients.

A clinical trial of LCAR-B38M is planned in the United States.

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—A new type of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell, one that is specific for the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), has produced durable remissions in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research reported at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract LBA3001).

BCMA is a cell surface antigen universally expressed on malignant plasma cells. It plays a role in the progression of MM and is turning out to be a highly selective antigen to target in novel treatments for MM.

This trial of LCAR-B38M is one of the first clinical trials of CAR T cells to target BCMA.

“[W]hat makes our CAR T different from other CAR T all over the world is we are truly a bispecific CAR T modality,” Frank (Xiaohu) Fan, MD, PhD, explained in a media briefing, “especially our antigen-binding units compared to single domain antibodies.” Dr Fan is CSO of  Nanjing Legend Biotech in China, the developer of LCAR-B38M.

“We believe targeting BCMA alone should be enough to get a good efficacy,” he said.

To date the objective response rate is 100%.

The investigators treated 35 relapsed/refractory MM patients thus far with LCAR-B38M. Patients received the modified CAR T cells in 3 doses, on days 0, 2, and 6.

The investigators reported on 19 patients who they followed for more than 4 months, a criterion established by the International Myeloma Working Group for full efficacy evaluation.

Efficacy

Of the 19 patients, 14 (74%) achieved a stringent complete response (sCR), 4 (21%) a very good partial response (VGPR), and 1 (5%) a PR.

One patient who achieved a VGPR relapsed due to an extramedullary lesion.

Investigators observed no evidence of relapse among patients who achieved sCR.

Five patients have been followed for more than a year and all have maintained sCR.

Safety

Safety is a major issue with CAR T-cell therapies, with a frequent and major adverse event being cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

Of the 35 patients treated, 6 experienced no CRS, 17 had grade 1, 10 had grade 2, and 2 had grade 3 CRS. No patient experienced grade 4 CRS or any grade 5 event.

Because LCAR-B38M demonstrates “outstanding” efficacy with a “great” safety profile, the investigators believe this technology raises the hope of cure for MM patients.

A clinical trial of LCAR-B38M is planned in the United States.

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—A new type of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell, one that is specific for the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), has produced durable remissions in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research reported at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract LBA3001).

BCMA is a cell surface antigen universally expressed on malignant plasma cells. It plays a role in the progression of MM and is turning out to be a highly selective antigen to target in novel treatments for MM.

This trial of LCAR-B38M is one of the first clinical trials of CAR T cells to target BCMA.

“[W]hat makes our CAR T different from other CAR T all over the world is we are truly a bispecific CAR T modality,” Frank (Xiaohu) Fan, MD, PhD, explained in a media briefing, “especially our antigen-binding units compared to single domain antibodies.” Dr Fan is CSO of  Nanjing Legend Biotech in China, the developer of LCAR-B38M.

“We believe targeting BCMA alone should be enough to get a good efficacy,” he said.

To date the objective response rate is 100%.

The investigators treated 35 relapsed/refractory MM patients thus far with LCAR-B38M. Patients received the modified CAR T cells in 3 doses, on days 0, 2, and 6.

The investigators reported on 19 patients who they followed for more than 4 months, a criterion established by the International Myeloma Working Group for full efficacy evaluation.

Efficacy

Of the 19 patients, 14 (74%) achieved a stringent complete response (sCR), 4 (21%) a very good partial response (VGPR), and 1 (5%) a PR.

One patient who achieved a VGPR relapsed due to an extramedullary lesion.

Investigators observed no evidence of relapse among patients who achieved sCR.

Five patients have been followed for more than a year and all have maintained sCR.

Safety

Safety is a major issue with CAR T-cell therapies, with a frequent and major adverse event being cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

Of the 35 patients treated, 6 experienced no CRS, 17 had grade 1, 10 had grade 2, and 2 had grade 3 CRS. No patient experienced grade 4 CRS or any grade 5 event.

Because LCAR-B38M demonstrates “outstanding” efficacy with a “great” safety profile, the investigators believe this technology raises the hope of cure for MM patients.

A clinical trial of LCAR-B38M is planned in the United States.