User login
PREDIX HER2 trial: Similar efficacy, less toxicity with T-DM1 for HER2+, HR+ breast cancer
CHICAGO – Targeted neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) had similar efficacy with less toxicity, compared with a standard chemotherapy–based regimen for patients with HER2- and hormone receptor–positive breast cancers in the phase 2 Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial.
The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 45% among 98 participants who were randomized to received T-DM1, and 47% in those randomized to receive docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (DTP), Jonas C.S. Bergh, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The pCR rate in hormone receptor(HR) –positive tumors was 36% in both groups, and the rates in HR-negative tumors were 59% and 67% in the T-DM1 and DTP arms, respectively; any differences in pCR rates between the groups were not statistically significant, said Dr. Bergh of the Karolinska Institute and University Hospital, Stockholm.
Patients were adults with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or verified lymph node metastases at enrollment, and 62.6% of tumors were HR positive. Both treatment arms received their assigned therapy every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses, but the protocol allowed a switch to the competing treatment upon progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity. All received postoperative epirubicin+cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks, with the T-DM1 arm receiving 4 courses and the DTP arm receiving 2 courses, and both arms also received adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses.
Age (median of 52 years), menopausal status, and histological type and grade were well balanced between the treatment groups.
Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred on 63 occasions in the DTP arm, compared with 10 in the T-DM1 arm; febrile neutropenia accounted for 26 and 3 of the events in the groups, respectively. All events, with the exception of liver toxicity, occurred more frequently in the DTP arm, Dr. Bergh said.
Ultimately, 9 patients switched from T-DM1 to DTP – 7 for progression or lack of response and 2 because of toxicity, and 18 switched from DTP to T-DM1 because of either progression or lack of response, and 14 because of toxicity. One patient in each group achieved pCR after switching, he noted.
“There was clearly better quality of life [during the study] for the T-DM1 group,” he added, noting that the quality of life data were reported separately at the meeting.
Additionally, an exploratory analysis demonstrated an early steep decrease of F-FDG uptake, suggesting that PET/CT may be a useful tool for predicting pCR.
Although neoadjuvant therapy produces high pCR rates and is the standard of care in HER2 positive breast cancer, the optimal treatment regimen remains to be established; but the current findings, along with prior data showing efficacy with T-DM1 in patients who fail to respond to two or more lines of anti-HER2 therapies, suggest it is a potential new standard for neoadjuvant therapy, particularly for patients with HER2- and HR-positive disease, he concluded.
Dr. Bergh reported a financial relationship with UpToDate, and research funding to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi.
SOURCE: Bergh J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 501.
CHICAGO – Targeted neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) had similar efficacy with less toxicity, compared with a standard chemotherapy–based regimen for patients with HER2- and hormone receptor–positive breast cancers in the phase 2 Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial.
The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 45% among 98 participants who were randomized to received T-DM1, and 47% in those randomized to receive docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (DTP), Jonas C.S. Bergh, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The pCR rate in hormone receptor(HR) –positive tumors was 36% in both groups, and the rates in HR-negative tumors were 59% and 67% in the T-DM1 and DTP arms, respectively; any differences in pCR rates between the groups were not statistically significant, said Dr. Bergh of the Karolinska Institute and University Hospital, Stockholm.
Patients were adults with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or verified lymph node metastases at enrollment, and 62.6% of tumors were HR positive. Both treatment arms received their assigned therapy every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses, but the protocol allowed a switch to the competing treatment upon progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity. All received postoperative epirubicin+cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks, with the T-DM1 arm receiving 4 courses and the DTP arm receiving 2 courses, and both arms also received adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses.
Age (median of 52 years), menopausal status, and histological type and grade were well balanced between the treatment groups.
Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred on 63 occasions in the DTP arm, compared with 10 in the T-DM1 arm; febrile neutropenia accounted for 26 and 3 of the events in the groups, respectively. All events, with the exception of liver toxicity, occurred more frequently in the DTP arm, Dr. Bergh said.
Ultimately, 9 patients switched from T-DM1 to DTP – 7 for progression or lack of response and 2 because of toxicity, and 18 switched from DTP to T-DM1 because of either progression or lack of response, and 14 because of toxicity. One patient in each group achieved pCR after switching, he noted.
“There was clearly better quality of life [during the study] for the T-DM1 group,” he added, noting that the quality of life data were reported separately at the meeting.
Additionally, an exploratory analysis demonstrated an early steep decrease of F-FDG uptake, suggesting that PET/CT may be a useful tool for predicting pCR.
Although neoadjuvant therapy produces high pCR rates and is the standard of care in HER2 positive breast cancer, the optimal treatment regimen remains to be established; but the current findings, along with prior data showing efficacy with T-DM1 in patients who fail to respond to two or more lines of anti-HER2 therapies, suggest it is a potential new standard for neoadjuvant therapy, particularly for patients with HER2- and HR-positive disease, he concluded.
Dr. Bergh reported a financial relationship with UpToDate, and research funding to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi.
SOURCE: Bergh J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 501.
CHICAGO – Targeted neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) had similar efficacy with less toxicity, compared with a standard chemotherapy–based regimen for patients with HER2- and hormone receptor–positive breast cancers in the phase 2 Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial.
The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 45% among 98 participants who were randomized to received T-DM1, and 47% in those randomized to receive docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (DTP), Jonas C.S. Bergh, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The pCR rate in hormone receptor(HR) –positive tumors was 36% in both groups, and the rates in HR-negative tumors were 59% and 67% in the T-DM1 and DTP arms, respectively; any differences in pCR rates between the groups were not statistically significant, said Dr. Bergh of the Karolinska Institute and University Hospital, Stockholm.
Patients were adults with HER2-positive breast cancer and tumor size greater than 20 mm or verified lymph node metastases at enrollment, and 62.6% of tumors were HR positive. Both treatment arms received their assigned therapy every 3 weeks for a planned total of six courses, but the protocol allowed a switch to the competing treatment upon progression, lack of response, or drug-related severe toxicity. All received postoperative epirubicin+cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks, with the T-DM1 arm receiving 4 courses and the DTP arm receiving 2 courses, and both arms also received adjuvant trastuzumab for 11 courses.
Age (median of 52 years), menopausal status, and histological type and grade were well balanced between the treatment groups.
Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred on 63 occasions in the DTP arm, compared with 10 in the T-DM1 arm; febrile neutropenia accounted for 26 and 3 of the events in the groups, respectively. All events, with the exception of liver toxicity, occurred more frequently in the DTP arm, Dr. Bergh said.
Ultimately, 9 patients switched from T-DM1 to DTP – 7 for progression or lack of response and 2 because of toxicity, and 18 switched from DTP to T-DM1 because of either progression or lack of response, and 14 because of toxicity. One patient in each group achieved pCR after switching, he noted.
“There was clearly better quality of life [during the study] for the T-DM1 group,” he added, noting that the quality of life data were reported separately at the meeting.
Additionally, an exploratory analysis demonstrated an early steep decrease of F-FDG uptake, suggesting that PET/CT may be a useful tool for predicting pCR.
Although neoadjuvant therapy produces high pCR rates and is the standard of care in HER2 positive breast cancer, the optimal treatment regimen remains to be established; but the current findings, along with prior data showing efficacy with T-DM1 in patients who fail to respond to two or more lines of anti-HER2 therapies, suggest it is a potential new standard for neoadjuvant therapy, particularly for patients with HER2- and HR-positive disease, he concluded.
Dr. Bergh reported a financial relationship with UpToDate, and research funding to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi.
SOURCE: Bergh J et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 501.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Four-drug combo bests triplet in newly diagnosed myeloma
CHICAGO – Daratumumab plus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) provided a “robust clinical benefit” over bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone alone (VTd) in a phase 3 trial of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the trial’s principal investigator.
D-VTd produced significantly higher rates of stringent complete response (sCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) than did VTd, said Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University Hospital of Nantes (France).
Dr. Moreau presented these results, from the CASSIOPEIA trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2019 Jun 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31240-1).
CASSIOPEIA enrolled 1,085 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). This is a two-part trial, and Dr. Moreau presented final results from part 1.
In part 1, patients were randomized to induction with D-VTd or VTd, followed by autologous HSCT and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. In part 2, which is ongoing, patients who achieve a partial response or better are randomized to observation or maintenance with daratumumab for up to 2 years.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the D-VTd and VTd arms. The median age was 59 years (range, 22-65) and 58 years (range, 26-65), respectively. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and most had an International Staging System stage of I or II.
The median follow-up was 18.8 months. Most patients completed induction – 85% in the D-VTd arm and 81% in the VTd arm – and went on to HSCT – 90% and 89%, respectively. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation in both arms were adverse events and progression.
Response and survival
The primary endpoint for part 1 was the rate of sCR at 100 days after HSCT. The sCR rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than it was in the VTd arm – 29% and 20%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.60; P less than .0010).
The overall response rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than in the VTd arm – 93% and 90%, respectively (P less than .0001) – as was the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity – 64% and 44%, respectively (P less than .0001).
Dr. Moreau noted that sCR and MRD negativity rates were superior with D-VTd across all subgroups except among patients with high-risk cytogenetics and International Staging System stage III disease.
“Dara-VTd resulted in a robust clinical benefit with a higher rate of response, including stringent CR, including MRD negativity,” Dr. Moreau said. “And this translated into a better progression-free survival, with a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death.”
The 18-month PFS was 93% in the D-VTd arm and 85% in the VTd arm (hazard ratio, 0.47; P less than .0001). D-VTd reduced the risk of progression or death across all subgroups.
The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either treatment arm. The 18-month OS rate was 98% in the D-VTd arm and 95% in the VTd arm. The 24-month OS rate was 97% and 93%, respectively.
“These results are the best ever reported in the setting of stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Moreau said.
Safety
The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VTd and VTd arms, respectively) were neutropenia (28% and 15%), lymphopenia (17% and 10%), stomatitis (13% and 16%), and thrombocytopenia (11% and 7%).
The rate of infusion-related reactions was 35% in the D-VTd arm and 0% in the VTd arm. The rate of infections was 66% and 57%, respectively. The most common serious infection was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 2% of patients, respectively. The rate of second primary malignancies was 2% in both arms.
Based on the safety and efficacy results, Dr. Moreau concluded that D-VTd “should be considered a valid treatment option” for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are eligible for HSCT.
Dr. Moreau reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Takeda. The study is sponsored by the French Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome in collaboration with the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and Janssen Research & Development.
SOURCE: Moreau P et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8003.
CHICAGO – Daratumumab plus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) provided a “robust clinical benefit” over bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone alone (VTd) in a phase 3 trial of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the trial’s principal investigator.
D-VTd produced significantly higher rates of stringent complete response (sCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) than did VTd, said Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University Hospital of Nantes (France).
Dr. Moreau presented these results, from the CASSIOPEIA trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2019 Jun 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31240-1).
CASSIOPEIA enrolled 1,085 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). This is a two-part trial, and Dr. Moreau presented final results from part 1.
In part 1, patients were randomized to induction with D-VTd or VTd, followed by autologous HSCT and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. In part 2, which is ongoing, patients who achieve a partial response or better are randomized to observation or maintenance with daratumumab for up to 2 years.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the D-VTd and VTd arms. The median age was 59 years (range, 22-65) and 58 years (range, 26-65), respectively. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and most had an International Staging System stage of I or II.
The median follow-up was 18.8 months. Most patients completed induction – 85% in the D-VTd arm and 81% in the VTd arm – and went on to HSCT – 90% and 89%, respectively. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation in both arms were adverse events and progression.
Response and survival
The primary endpoint for part 1 was the rate of sCR at 100 days after HSCT. The sCR rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than it was in the VTd arm – 29% and 20%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.60; P less than .0010).
The overall response rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than in the VTd arm – 93% and 90%, respectively (P less than .0001) – as was the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity – 64% and 44%, respectively (P less than .0001).
Dr. Moreau noted that sCR and MRD negativity rates were superior with D-VTd across all subgroups except among patients with high-risk cytogenetics and International Staging System stage III disease.
“Dara-VTd resulted in a robust clinical benefit with a higher rate of response, including stringent CR, including MRD negativity,” Dr. Moreau said. “And this translated into a better progression-free survival, with a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death.”
The 18-month PFS was 93% in the D-VTd arm and 85% in the VTd arm (hazard ratio, 0.47; P less than .0001). D-VTd reduced the risk of progression or death across all subgroups.
The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either treatment arm. The 18-month OS rate was 98% in the D-VTd arm and 95% in the VTd arm. The 24-month OS rate was 97% and 93%, respectively.
“These results are the best ever reported in the setting of stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Moreau said.
Safety
The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VTd and VTd arms, respectively) were neutropenia (28% and 15%), lymphopenia (17% and 10%), stomatitis (13% and 16%), and thrombocytopenia (11% and 7%).
The rate of infusion-related reactions was 35% in the D-VTd arm and 0% in the VTd arm. The rate of infections was 66% and 57%, respectively. The most common serious infection was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 2% of patients, respectively. The rate of second primary malignancies was 2% in both arms.
Based on the safety and efficacy results, Dr. Moreau concluded that D-VTd “should be considered a valid treatment option” for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are eligible for HSCT.
Dr. Moreau reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Takeda. The study is sponsored by the French Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome in collaboration with the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and Janssen Research & Development.
SOURCE: Moreau P et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8003.
CHICAGO – Daratumumab plus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) provided a “robust clinical benefit” over bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone alone (VTd) in a phase 3 trial of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the trial’s principal investigator.
D-VTd produced significantly higher rates of stringent complete response (sCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) than did VTd, said Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University Hospital of Nantes (France).
Dr. Moreau presented these results, from the CASSIOPEIA trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The findings were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2019 Jun 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]31240-1).
CASSIOPEIA enrolled 1,085 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). This is a two-part trial, and Dr. Moreau presented final results from part 1.
In part 1, patients were randomized to induction with D-VTd or VTd, followed by autologous HSCT and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. In part 2, which is ongoing, patients who achieve a partial response or better are randomized to observation or maintenance with daratumumab for up to 2 years.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the D-VTd and VTd arms. The median age was 59 years (range, 22-65) and 58 years (range, 26-65), respectively. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and most had an International Staging System stage of I or II.
The median follow-up was 18.8 months. Most patients completed induction – 85% in the D-VTd arm and 81% in the VTd arm – and went on to HSCT – 90% and 89%, respectively. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation in both arms were adverse events and progression.
Response and survival
The primary endpoint for part 1 was the rate of sCR at 100 days after HSCT. The sCR rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than it was in the VTd arm – 29% and 20%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.60; P less than .0010).
The overall response rate was significantly higher in the D-VTd arm than in the VTd arm – 93% and 90%, respectively (P less than .0001) – as was the rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity – 64% and 44%, respectively (P less than .0001).
Dr. Moreau noted that sCR and MRD negativity rates were superior with D-VTd across all subgroups except among patients with high-risk cytogenetics and International Staging System stage III disease.
“Dara-VTd resulted in a robust clinical benefit with a higher rate of response, including stringent CR, including MRD negativity,” Dr. Moreau said. “And this translated into a better progression-free survival, with a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death.”
The 18-month PFS was 93% in the D-VTd arm and 85% in the VTd arm (hazard ratio, 0.47; P less than .0001). D-VTd reduced the risk of progression or death across all subgroups.
The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either treatment arm. The 18-month OS rate was 98% in the D-VTd arm and 95% in the VTd arm. The 24-month OS rate was 97% and 93%, respectively.
“These results are the best ever reported in the setting of stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Moreau said.
Safety
The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VTd and VTd arms, respectively) were neutropenia (28% and 15%), lymphopenia (17% and 10%), stomatitis (13% and 16%), and thrombocytopenia (11% and 7%).
The rate of infusion-related reactions was 35% in the D-VTd arm and 0% in the VTd arm. The rate of infections was 66% and 57%, respectively. The most common serious infection was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 2% of patients, respectively. The rate of second primary malignancies was 2% in both arms.
Based on the safety and efficacy results, Dr. Moreau concluded that D-VTd “should be considered a valid treatment option” for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are eligible for HSCT.
Dr. Moreau reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Takeda. The study is sponsored by the French Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome in collaboration with the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and Janssen Research & Development.
SOURCE: Moreau P et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8003.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Adding ipilimumab to nivolumab provides no benefit in SCC trial
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Key clinical point: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab appears no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
Major finding: The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab arm and 2.9 months in the nivolumab arm (P = .19). The median overall survival was 10.0 months and 11.0 months, respectively (P = .82).
Study details: A phase 3 trial of 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research. The researchers reported relationships with a range of companies. Source: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
KRISTINE: Three-year data help forge path to T-DM1-based deescalation in HER2+ BC
CHICAGO – Combining trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab (P) reduced grade 3+ toxicity in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer in the KRISTINE trial, but led to lower event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates vs. standard chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade, according to the preplanned 3-year final data analysis.
The EFS rate among participants in the randomized, phase 3 study who completed follow-up was 94.2% in 189 patients who received neoadjuvant T-DM1+P treatment and 85.3% in 196 patients who received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) plus pertuzumab (hazard ratio, 2.61). The difference was due to more locoregional progression events before surgery (15 [6.7%] vs. 0 in the groups, respectively), Dr. Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.
The curves separated early, prior to surgery, without much change after surgery, noted Dr. Hurvitz, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she also serves as director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program.
Additional analysis showed that low HER2 expression by mRNA or immunohistochemistry (IHC), and HER2 heterogeneity “tended to correlate with locoregional progression.”
Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) risk, however, was similar with the two treatments (93% and 92%, respectively; HR, 1.11), and, as has been shown “many times over,” experiencing a pCR was associated with reduced risk of an IDFS event (HR, 0.24), regardless of treatment arm, Dr. Hurvitz said.
The previously reported primary results of the study, which failed to reach its primary endpoint, showed a pCR of 44% vs. 56% in 223 women who received TDM-1+P and 221 who received TCH+P, respectively. (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:115-126. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[17]30716-7).
Of note, additional data reported in a poster at the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that pCR rates “were higher with TCH+P in those tumors with IHC2+ HER2 staining (20% vs. 7% in the T-DM1 arm), or IHC3+ HER2 staining (61% vs. 50%),” she said (SABCS 2016 P6-07-09).
“During neoadjuvant treatment, however, it’s not surprising that the T-DM1+P arm had a more favorable safety profile with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 events, lower incidence of [serious adverse events], and lower incidence of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation,” she said.
The overall rate of grade 3 or greater AEs was 31.8% vs. 67.6% with T-DM1+P vs. TCH+P, but the T-DM1 regimen was associated with more grade 3+ AEs during adjuvant treatment (24.5% vs. 9.9%), and with more adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation – both overall (20.2% vs. 11.0%) and during adjuvant therapy (18.4% vs. 3.8%), said Dr. Hurvitz, noting, however, that 50 patients in the T-DM1+P arm received cytotoxic chemotherapy in the adjuvant phase as allowed by study protocol.
Patient-reported outcomes favored T-DM1+P during the neoadjuvant phase, but were similar in the two groups during the adjuvant phase.
Adverse events occurring substantially more often with TCH+P (2% or greater difference in incidence between the groups) mainly included neutropenia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and anemia, but peripheral neuropathy was a bit higher in the T-DM1 arm, she said.
“Standard-of-care neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, followed by continued HER2 blockade in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Hurvitz said, noting that rates of pCR, which is associated with prolonged survival, range from 46% to 62%. “Despite the good outcomes ... 15% of patients will relapse or die; moreover, our standard cytotoxic approaches are associated with systemic toxicity, so there still is a need for effective, less toxic therapies.”
The antibody drug conjugate (ADC) T-DM1 is associated with a lower incidence of AEs typically associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy due to its targeted nature, and in the German ADAPT study it has shown some evidence of efficacy as monotherapy or with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting in HER2-positive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
“So when we designed this clinical trial we thought that combining T-DM1 with pertuzumab might be an efficacious therapy that would provide patients with a less toxic regimen,” she said.
Participants had centrally-confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer over 2 cm and were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-DM1+P or TCH+P every 3 weeks for six cycles prior to surgery. Those who received T-DM1+P continued adjuvant T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, and those who received TCH+P received adjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab for 12 cycles.
Those in the T-DM1 arm were allowed to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy at physician discretion – and were encouraged to do so if they had residual disease in the breast greater than 1 cm or lymph node-positive disease. They then went on to receive T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, she said.
“We know that patients who achieve a pathologic complete response have a very good 3-year [IDFS], and for our study, for either arm, it was around 97%. Patients with residual disease have a lower 3-year IDFS in the mid [80% range] representing an unmet need,” she said.
In addition, the similar overall risk of an IDFS event with T-DM1+P and TCH+P in this study suggests that systemic chemotherapy might be unnecessary for some patients.
“But, of course, identification of these patients is going to be critical in determining who can have a deescalation approach, and the clinical utility of chemotherapy-sparing regimens must be confirmed in prospective studies, hopefully using biomarkers,” she concluded.
In a companion article published June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Hurvitz and her colleagues further noted that “the role of T-DM1 in early HER2-positive breast cancer is evolving, with two trials evaluating this agent in the adjuvant setting.”
These include the KATHERINE trial, which showed a lower risk of invasive breast cancer recurrence or death with adjuvant T-DM1 vs. adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus single or dual HER-directed therapy (HR, 0.50), and the ongoing KAITLIN trial, which is comparing T-DM1+P with taxane plus trastuzumab after anthracyclines as adjuvant therapy in patients who have not received prior neoadjuvant therapy.
“Data from KAITLIN will further define the clinical utility of adjuvant T-DM1+P in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer,” they wrote.
During a discussion of the KRISTINE study findings and other related data presented at ASCO 2019, Mark D. Pegram, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that T-DM1-based neoadjuvant regimens appear, based on peer-reviewed published data from KRISTINE and other studies (such as the Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial, which was also discussed during the session), to be clinically active and well tolerated in HER2-positive early breast cancer.
“Early adopters may consider neoadjuvant T-DM1 in patients who are perhaps not candidates for chemotherapy due to comorbidities, age, et cetera, or those patients who frankly refuse chemotherapy, of which we all have a few,” said Dr. Pegram, who also is the first director of the Breast Cancer Oncology Program at Stanford Women’s Cancer Center. “The burden is on us to identify molecular, genetic, or perhaps imaging markers to identify patients who are most suitable for consideration of deescalation strategies with T-DM1 or newer HER2 antibody drug conjugates [in development].”
Dr. Pegram also highlighted the KRISTINE EFS finding on locoregional progression prior to surgery.
“Sara showed you that the ... event-free survival outcomes that are deleterious happen prior to surgery, which is, I think, fascinating, and if we could identify those patients prospectively, it could be very powerful in maximally exploiting the potential of deescalation with T-DM1 or T-DM1-based regimens,” he said. “But we’re not there yet, obviously.”
The KRISTINE study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Hurvitz reported research funding to her institution from Ambryx, Amgen, Bayer, Biomarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cascadian Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Dignitana, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Macrogenics, Medivation, Merrimack, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics, and travel/accommodations/expenses from Lilly, Novartis, and OBI Pharma. Dr. Pegram reported relationships (honoraria; consulting/advisory roles) with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Macrogenics, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Hurvitz S et al. ASCO 2019: Abstract 500.
CHICAGO – Combining trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab (P) reduced grade 3+ toxicity in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer in the KRISTINE trial, but led to lower event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates vs. standard chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade, according to the preplanned 3-year final data analysis.
The EFS rate among participants in the randomized, phase 3 study who completed follow-up was 94.2% in 189 patients who received neoadjuvant T-DM1+P treatment and 85.3% in 196 patients who received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) plus pertuzumab (hazard ratio, 2.61). The difference was due to more locoregional progression events before surgery (15 [6.7%] vs. 0 in the groups, respectively), Dr. Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.
The curves separated early, prior to surgery, without much change after surgery, noted Dr. Hurvitz, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she also serves as director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program.
Additional analysis showed that low HER2 expression by mRNA or immunohistochemistry (IHC), and HER2 heterogeneity “tended to correlate with locoregional progression.”
Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) risk, however, was similar with the two treatments (93% and 92%, respectively; HR, 1.11), and, as has been shown “many times over,” experiencing a pCR was associated with reduced risk of an IDFS event (HR, 0.24), regardless of treatment arm, Dr. Hurvitz said.
The previously reported primary results of the study, which failed to reach its primary endpoint, showed a pCR of 44% vs. 56% in 223 women who received TDM-1+P and 221 who received TCH+P, respectively. (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:115-126. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[17]30716-7).
Of note, additional data reported in a poster at the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that pCR rates “were higher with TCH+P in those tumors with IHC2+ HER2 staining (20% vs. 7% in the T-DM1 arm), or IHC3+ HER2 staining (61% vs. 50%),” she said (SABCS 2016 P6-07-09).
“During neoadjuvant treatment, however, it’s not surprising that the T-DM1+P arm had a more favorable safety profile with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 events, lower incidence of [serious adverse events], and lower incidence of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation,” she said.
The overall rate of grade 3 or greater AEs was 31.8% vs. 67.6% with T-DM1+P vs. TCH+P, but the T-DM1 regimen was associated with more grade 3+ AEs during adjuvant treatment (24.5% vs. 9.9%), and with more adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation – both overall (20.2% vs. 11.0%) and during adjuvant therapy (18.4% vs. 3.8%), said Dr. Hurvitz, noting, however, that 50 patients in the T-DM1+P arm received cytotoxic chemotherapy in the adjuvant phase as allowed by study protocol.
Patient-reported outcomes favored T-DM1+P during the neoadjuvant phase, but were similar in the two groups during the adjuvant phase.
Adverse events occurring substantially more often with TCH+P (2% or greater difference in incidence between the groups) mainly included neutropenia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and anemia, but peripheral neuropathy was a bit higher in the T-DM1 arm, she said.
“Standard-of-care neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, followed by continued HER2 blockade in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Hurvitz said, noting that rates of pCR, which is associated with prolonged survival, range from 46% to 62%. “Despite the good outcomes ... 15% of patients will relapse or die; moreover, our standard cytotoxic approaches are associated with systemic toxicity, so there still is a need for effective, less toxic therapies.”
The antibody drug conjugate (ADC) T-DM1 is associated with a lower incidence of AEs typically associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy due to its targeted nature, and in the German ADAPT study it has shown some evidence of efficacy as monotherapy or with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting in HER2-positive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
“So when we designed this clinical trial we thought that combining T-DM1 with pertuzumab might be an efficacious therapy that would provide patients with a less toxic regimen,” she said.
Participants had centrally-confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer over 2 cm and were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-DM1+P or TCH+P every 3 weeks for six cycles prior to surgery. Those who received T-DM1+P continued adjuvant T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, and those who received TCH+P received adjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab for 12 cycles.
Those in the T-DM1 arm were allowed to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy at physician discretion – and were encouraged to do so if they had residual disease in the breast greater than 1 cm or lymph node-positive disease. They then went on to receive T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, she said.
“We know that patients who achieve a pathologic complete response have a very good 3-year [IDFS], and for our study, for either arm, it was around 97%. Patients with residual disease have a lower 3-year IDFS in the mid [80% range] representing an unmet need,” she said.
In addition, the similar overall risk of an IDFS event with T-DM1+P and TCH+P in this study suggests that systemic chemotherapy might be unnecessary for some patients.
“But, of course, identification of these patients is going to be critical in determining who can have a deescalation approach, and the clinical utility of chemotherapy-sparing regimens must be confirmed in prospective studies, hopefully using biomarkers,” she concluded.
In a companion article published June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Hurvitz and her colleagues further noted that “the role of T-DM1 in early HER2-positive breast cancer is evolving, with two trials evaluating this agent in the adjuvant setting.”
These include the KATHERINE trial, which showed a lower risk of invasive breast cancer recurrence or death with adjuvant T-DM1 vs. adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus single or dual HER-directed therapy (HR, 0.50), and the ongoing KAITLIN trial, which is comparing T-DM1+P with taxane plus trastuzumab after anthracyclines as adjuvant therapy in patients who have not received prior neoadjuvant therapy.
“Data from KAITLIN will further define the clinical utility of adjuvant T-DM1+P in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer,” they wrote.
During a discussion of the KRISTINE study findings and other related data presented at ASCO 2019, Mark D. Pegram, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that T-DM1-based neoadjuvant regimens appear, based on peer-reviewed published data from KRISTINE and other studies (such as the Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial, which was also discussed during the session), to be clinically active and well tolerated in HER2-positive early breast cancer.
“Early adopters may consider neoadjuvant T-DM1 in patients who are perhaps not candidates for chemotherapy due to comorbidities, age, et cetera, or those patients who frankly refuse chemotherapy, of which we all have a few,” said Dr. Pegram, who also is the first director of the Breast Cancer Oncology Program at Stanford Women’s Cancer Center. “The burden is on us to identify molecular, genetic, or perhaps imaging markers to identify patients who are most suitable for consideration of deescalation strategies with T-DM1 or newer HER2 antibody drug conjugates [in development].”
Dr. Pegram also highlighted the KRISTINE EFS finding on locoregional progression prior to surgery.
“Sara showed you that the ... event-free survival outcomes that are deleterious happen prior to surgery, which is, I think, fascinating, and if we could identify those patients prospectively, it could be very powerful in maximally exploiting the potential of deescalation with T-DM1 or T-DM1-based regimens,” he said. “But we’re not there yet, obviously.”
The KRISTINE study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Hurvitz reported research funding to her institution from Ambryx, Amgen, Bayer, Biomarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cascadian Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Dignitana, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Macrogenics, Medivation, Merrimack, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics, and travel/accommodations/expenses from Lilly, Novartis, and OBI Pharma. Dr. Pegram reported relationships (honoraria; consulting/advisory roles) with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Macrogenics, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Hurvitz S et al. ASCO 2019: Abstract 500.
CHICAGO – Combining trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab (P) reduced grade 3+ toxicity in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer in the KRISTINE trial, but led to lower event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates vs. standard chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade, according to the preplanned 3-year final data analysis.
The EFS rate among participants in the randomized, phase 3 study who completed follow-up was 94.2% in 189 patients who received neoadjuvant T-DM1+P treatment and 85.3% in 196 patients who received docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) plus pertuzumab (hazard ratio, 2.61). The difference was due to more locoregional progression events before surgery (15 [6.7%] vs. 0 in the groups, respectively), Dr. Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.
The curves separated early, prior to surgery, without much change after surgery, noted Dr. Hurvitz, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she also serves as director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program.
Additional analysis showed that low HER2 expression by mRNA or immunohistochemistry (IHC), and HER2 heterogeneity “tended to correlate with locoregional progression.”
Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) risk, however, was similar with the two treatments (93% and 92%, respectively; HR, 1.11), and, as has been shown “many times over,” experiencing a pCR was associated with reduced risk of an IDFS event (HR, 0.24), regardless of treatment arm, Dr. Hurvitz said.
The previously reported primary results of the study, which failed to reach its primary endpoint, showed a pCR of 44% vs. 56% in 223 women who received TDM-1+P and 221 who received TCH+P, respectively. (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:115-126. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[17]30716-7).
Of note, additional data reported in a poster at the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that pCR rates “were higher with TCH+P in those tumors with IHC2+ HER2 staining (20% vs. 7% in the T-DM1 arm), or IHC3+ HER2 staining (61% vs. 50%),” she said (SABCS 2016 P6-07-09).
“During neoadjuvant treatment, however, it’s not surprising that the T-DM1+P arm had a more favorable safety profile with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 events, lower incidence of [serious adverse events], and lower incidence of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation,” she said.
The overall rate of grade 3 or greater AEs was 31.8% vs. 67.6% with T-DM1+P vs. TCH+P, but the T-DM1 regimen was associated with more grade 3+ AEs during adjuvant treatment (24.5% vs. 9.9%), and with more adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation – both overall (20.2% vs. 11.0%) and during adjuvant therapy (18.4% vs. 3.8%), said Dr. Hurvitz, noting, however, that 50 patients in the T-DM1+P arm received cytotoxic chemotherapy in the adjuvant phase as allowed by study protocol.
Patient-reported outcomes favored T-DM1+P during the neoadjuvant phase, but were similar in the two groups during the adjuvant phase.
Adverse events occurring substantially more often with TCH+P (2% or greater difference in incidence between the groups) mainly included neutropenia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and anemia, but peripheral neuropathy was a bit higher in the T-DM1 arm, she said.
“Standard-of-care neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is chemotherapy plus dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, followed by continued HER2 blockade in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Hurvitz said, noting that rates of pCR, which is associated with prolonged survival, range from 46% to 62%. “Despite the good outcomes ... 15% of patients will relapse or die; moreover, our standard cytotoxic approaches are associated with systemic toxicity, so there still is a need for effective, less toxic therapies.”
The antibody drug conjugate (ADC) T-DM1 is associated with a lower incidence of AEs typically associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy due to its targeted nature, and in the German ADAPT study it has shown some evidence of efficacy as monotherapy or with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting in HER2-positive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
“So when we designed this clinical trial we thought that combining T-DM1 with pertuzumab might be an efficacious therapy that would provide patients with a less toxic regimen,” she said.
Participants had centrally-confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer over 2 cm and were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-DM1+P or TCH+P every 3 weeks for six cycles prior to surgery. Those who received T-DM1+P continued adjuvant T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, and those who received TCH+P received adjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab for 12 cycles.
Those in the T-DM1 arm were allowed to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy at physician discretion – and were encouraged to do so if they had residual disease in the breast greater than 1 cm or lymph node-positive disease. They then went on to receive T-DM1+P for 12 cycles, she said.
“We know that patients who achieve a pathologic complete response have a very good 3-year [IDFS], and for our study, for either arm, it was around 97%. Patients with residual disease have a lower 3-year IDFS in the mid [80% range] representing an unmet need,” she said.
In addition, the similar overall risk of an IDFS event with T-DM1+P and TCH+P in this study suggests that systemic chemotherapy might be unnecessary for some patients.
“But, of course, identification of these patients is going to be critical in determining who can have a deescalation approach, and the clinical utility of chemotherapy-sparing regimens must be confirmed in prospective studies, hopefully using biomarkers,” she concluded.
In a companion article published June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Hurvitz and her colleagues further noted that “the role of T-DM1 in early HER2-positive breast cancer is evolving, with two trials evaluating this agent in the adjuvant setting.”
These include the KATHERINE trial, which showed a lower risk of invasive breast cancer recurrence or death with adjuvant T-DM1 vs. adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus single or dual HER-directed therapy (HR, 0.50), and the ongoing KAITLIN trial, which is comparing T-DM1+P with taxane plus trastuzumab after anthracyclines as adjuvant therapy in patients who have not received prior neoadjuvant therapy.
“Data from KAITLIN will further define the clinical utility of adjuvant T-DM1+P in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer,” they wrote.
During a discussion of the KRISTINE study findings and other related data presented at ASCO 2019, Mark D. Pegram, MD, a medical oncologist and professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that T-DM1-based neoadjuvant regimens appear, based on peer-reviewed published data from KRISTINE and other studies (such as the Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial, which was also discussed during the session), to be clinically active and well tolerated in HER2-positive early breast cancer.
“Early adopters may consider neoadjuvant T-DM1 in patients who are perhaps not candidates for chemotherapy due to comorbidities, age, et cetera, or those patients who frankly refuse chemotherapy, of which we all have a few,” said Dr. Pegram, who also is the first director of the Breast Cancer Oncology Program at Stanford Women’s Cancer Center. “The burden is on us to identify molecular, genetic, or perhaps imaging markers to identify patients who are most suitable for consideration of deescalation strategies with T-DM1 or newer HER2 antibody drug conjugates [in development].”
Dr. Pegram also highlighted the KRISTINE EFS finding on locoregional progression prior to surgery.
“Sara showed you that the ... event-free survival outcomes that are deleterious happen prior to surgery, which is, I think, fascinating, and if we could identify those patients prospectively, it could be very powerful in maximally exploiting the potential of deescalation with T-DM1 or T-DM1-based regimens,” he said. “But we’re not there yet, obviously.”
The KRISTINE study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Hurvitz reported research funding to her institution from Ambryx, Amgen, Bayer, Biomarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cascadian Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Dignitana, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Macrogenics, Medivation, Merrimack, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics, and travel/accommodations/expenses from Lilly, Novartis, and OBI Pharma. Dr. Pegram reported relationships (honoraria; consulting/advisory roles) with Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Macrogenics, and Seattle Genetics.
SOURCE: Hurvitz S et al. ASCO 2019: Abstract 500.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Antibody targeting ‘do not eat me’ signals is active in AML, MDS
CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.
Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.
With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.
“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.
“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.
The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.
However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.
“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”
Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.
When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.
“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.
Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.
CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.
Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.
With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.
“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.
“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.
The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.
However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.
“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”
Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.
When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.
“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.
Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.
CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.
Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.
With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.
“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.
“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.
The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.
However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.
“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”
Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.
When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.
“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.
Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Pregnancy deemed safe in BRCA-mutated breast cancer survivors
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Adjuvant immunotherapy results ‘encouraging’ in early NSCLC
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Nivo/ipi shrinks early NSCLC before surgery
CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.
Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.
The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.
The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.
Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.
In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.
“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.
Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.
Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.
“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.
CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.
Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.
The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.
The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.
Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.
In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.
“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.
Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.
Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.
“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.
CHICAGO – Two immune checkpoint inhibitors were better than one as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 2 NEOSTAR trial.
Among 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC who were randomized to either a combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) or to nivolumab alone, the combination was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of major pathological response (MPR), defined as a reduction in viable tumors cells to 10% or less, reported Tina Cascone, MD, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Nivolumab/ipilimumab induced a 44% MPR rate in resected patients, met the trial prespecified boundary with seven MPRs in the intention-to-treat population, and induced pathologic complete responses in 38% of resected patients,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
To test whether neoadjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy could improve outcomes of standard induction chemotherapy, NEOSTAR investigators enrolled patients with NSCLC stage I-IIIA, including patients with a single involved mediastinal node (N2 single station) who were eligible for surgical resection.
The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 29 alone or in combination with ipilimumab delivered 1 mg/kg on day 1, followed by surgery 3-6 weeks after the last study dose and then postoperative standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Of 53 patients screened, 44 were eligible, with 23 randomized to nivolumab monotherapy and 21 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab. Of this group, five did not proceed to surgery (one in the monotherapy arm, four in the combination arm) because of either high surgical risk, lack of respectability, or refusal of surgery. The mean age at randomization was 65.6 years. In all, 18% were never smokers, and the remaining 82% were former or current smokers.
The MPR rate in the intention-to-treat population – the primary endpoint – was reached in four patients (17%) in the monotherapy arm and in seven patients (33%) in the combination arm. As noted, the combination arm reached the prespecified boundary of six or more patients with an MPR. All patients in each arm who had an MPR also had a pathologic complete responses.
Of the 39 patients who went on to resection, 37 were evaluable, and in these patients the respective MPR rates were 19% and 44%. Two patients on nivolumab alone and six on nivolumab plus ipilimumab had 0% viable tumor detectable at the time of surgery. Radiographic responses included one complete response in the combination arm and eight total partial responses, in five and three patients, respectively. The objective response rated was 20%. The responses, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were positively associated with MPR, Dr. Cascone said.
In 11% of patients, the investigators observed apparent radiographic progression after neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in mediastinal and or in nonregional nodes. However, pathological assessment and evaluation of the flaring nodes did not reveal evidence of disease, but instead showed noncaseating granulomas that were not present at baseline.
“Awareness of this phenomenon, which we named the ‘nodal immune flare,’ is of critical importance, as if the clinician fails to distinguish the nodal immune flare from disease progression, potential curative surgery for these patients could be avoided,” she said.
Grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events included rash, itching, fatigue, anemia, cough, and diarrhea. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events included hypoxia, pneumonia, and pneumonitis in the nivolumab monotherapy arm and diarrhea and hyponatremia in the combination group. One patient treated with nivolumab monotherapy, who had achieved 0% viable tumor, had grade 3 pneumonia and pneumonitis, which was treated with steroids that impeded the healing of a bronchopleural fistula and subsequent empyema. Other surgical complications included air leaks, which occurred in five patients in the nivolumab group and three in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.
Two patients died, one in the monotherapy arm from steroid-treated pneumonitis 4.1 months after randomization and one in the combination arm who had progressive disease 2 months after randomization, and died from the disease 15 months later.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, from Stanford (California) University School of Medicine, commented that the choice of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not based on molecular markers, “and I think we have a major unmet need for developing biomarkers for personalized treatment in this area.
“Ideally, the biomarkers that we would have in this setting would, A, allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease and therefore are likely to benefit from the upfront systemic therapy and, secondly, also could tell us which neoadjuvant therapy they would respond to, be it immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or the combination,” he added.
The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Cascone disclosed honoraria from the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Cascone T. et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8504.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Nearly two-thirds of gynecologic oncology respondents experienced sexual harassment
CHICAGO – Nearly two-thirds of more than 400 U.S.-based physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who participated in a recent survey reported experiencing sexual harassment in training or practice.
Notably, of the 255 women and 147 men who responded, 71% and 51%, respectively, reported such sexual harassment – and only 15% overall reported it to officials, Marina Stasenko, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The survey also addressed gender-based discrimination and disparities, including respondents’ views on pay disparities. In this video interview, Dr. Stasenko, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discusses the findings, their implications and context in this age of #MeToo and #TimesUp, and potential approaches to addressing the ongoing problem and the concerns victims have about reporting harassment.
“We need to start by setting an example, saying these things are not tolerated [and] put that into policy – really show folks how it can be reported and what is being done once that report is filed,” she said.
Dr. Stasenko reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Stasenko M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract LBA10502.
CHICAGO – Nearly two-thirds of more than 400 U.S.-based physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who participated in a recent survey reported experiencing sexual harassment in training or practice.
Notably, of the 255 women and 147 men who responded, 71% and 51%, respectively, reported such sexual harassment – and only 15% overall reported it to officials, Marina Stasenko, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The survey also addressed gender-based discrimination and disparities, including respondents’ views on pay disparities. In this video interview, Dr. Stasenko, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discusses the findings, their implications and context in this age of #MeToo and #TimesUp, and potential approaches to addressing the ongoing problem and the concerns victims have about reporting harassment.
“We need to start by setting an example, saying these things are not tolerated [and] put that into policy – really show folks how it can be reported and what is being done once that report is filed,” she said.
Dr. Stasenko reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Stasenko M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract LBA10502.
CHICAGO – Nearly two-thirds of more than 400 U.S.-based physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who participated in a recent survey reported experiencing sexual harassment in training or practice.
Notably, of the 255 women and 147 men who responded, 71% and 51%, respectively, reported such sexual harassment – and only 15% overall reported it to officials, Marina Stasenko, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The survey also addressed gender-based discrimination and disparities, including respondents’ views on pay disparities. In this video interview, Dr. Stasenko, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, discusses the findings, their implications and context in this age of #MeToo and #TimesUp, and potential approaches to addressing the ongoing problem and the concerns victims have about reporting harassment.
“We need to start by setting an example, saying these things are not tolerated [and] put that into policy – really show folks how it can be reported and what is being done once that report is filed,” she said.
Dr. Stasenko reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Stasenko M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract LBA10502.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Inhibitor produces high response rate in relapsed/refractory FL
CHICAGO – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase–delta inhibitor ME-401, given with or without rituximab, produced an overall response rate of 80% in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.
Response rates were similar between patients who received ME-401 alone and those who received it in combination with rituximab.
Response rates were also similar between patients on an intermittent dosing schedule and those on a continuous dosing schedule. However, intermittent dosing decreased the rate of delayed grade 3 adverse events (AEs).
“The idea that continuous inhibition of target is absolutely essential for activity of this class of drugs has not been proven,” said Andrew Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“The promising results of this somewhat novel intermittent schedule that we used with ME-401 suggests to me that we can maintain efficacy and reduce toxicity.”
Dr. Zelenetz and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients and dosing
Data were presented for 54 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma enrolled on this study. The patients had a median age of 63.5 years, and 80% were male. They had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-10).
Initially, patients received ME-401 at 60 mg, 120 mg, or 180 mg once daily continuously on a 28-day cycle. However, the dose-escalation portion of the study was closed because response rates were comparable among the three doses, the safety profile was similar, and there were no dose-limiting toxicities.
Two additional groups of patients received ME-401 at 60 mg daily for two cycles, followed by an intermittent schedule (IS) of 60 mg on days 1-7, repeated every 28 days.
The researchers had observed delayed grade 3 AEs on the continuous schedule (CS), and they hypothesized that the IS might prevent these events. Patients could revert to the CS if they had stable disease or progressed on the IS.
“One of the advantages of this particular agent is the very long half-life,” Dr. Zelenetz said. “So, essentially, we have 2 weeks on drug and 2 weeks off [with the IS]. It takes about a week to clear the drug because it has about a 30-hour half-life.”
In all, 40 patients received ME-401 monotherapy, and 14 received ME-401 plus rituximab at 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks and then on day 1 of cycles 3-6. There were 31 patients who received ME-401 on the CS and 23 who received ME-401 on the IS.
Results
A total of 50 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate in these patients was 80% (40/50), and 20% (10/50) achieved a complete response.
The overall response rate was 79% (30/38) in patients who received ME-401 alone, 83% (10/12) in those who received ME-401 plus rituximab, 83% (25/30) in patients on the CS, and 75% (15/20) in those on the IS.
The median duration of response and median progression-free survival have not been reached. The median follow-up for response duration is 8.8 months in the IS group and 8.3 months in the CS group. The median follow-up for progression-free survival is 5.5 months and 6.5 months, respectively.
A total of 18 patients on the IS (78%) were still on therapy at the data cutoff, as were 14 patients (45%) on the CS.
Seven patients (23%) on the CS and two patients (9%) on the IS discontinued treatment due to progression. Four patients in the IS group and two in the CS group who were switched to IS dosing reverted to CS dosing after experiencing progression.
Four CS patients (13%) discontinued treatment because of AEs, but none of the IS patients did.
AEs occurring in at least 15% of patients were diarrhea/colitis (40.7%), fatigue (35.2%), cough (33.3%), rash (24.1%), ALT increase (24.1%), nausea (24.1%), AST increase (22.2%), and decreased appetite (16.7%).
There were no grade 4-5 AEs. Grade 3 drug-related AEs of special interest (in the CS and IS groups, respectively) were diarrhea/colitis (16.1% and 8.7%), rash (12.9% and 0%), ALT increase (6.5% and 4.3%), AST increase (6.5% and 0%), pneumonia (6.5% and 0%), and mucositis (1.9% and 0%).
“[W]hile the grade 3 immune-related events seem to be very consistent in terms of class effects, they did seem to improve with transition to intermittent schedule,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
“And I think that this novel design helps to create an opportunity to limit treatment and mitigate toxicity without necessarily compromising efficacy.”
The phase 1b trial is sponsored by MEI Pharma. Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with MEI Pharma and several other companies. Dr. Casulo reported relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Zelenetz A et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7512.
CHICAGO – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase–delta inhibitor ME-401, given with or without rituximab, produced an overall response rate of 80% in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.
Response rates were similar between patients who received ME-401 alone and those who received it in combination with rituximab.
Response rates were also similar between patients on an intermittent dosing schedule and those on a continuous dosing schedule. However, intermittent dosing decreased the rate of delayed grade 3 adverse events (AEs).
“The idea that continuous inhibition of target is absolutely essential for activity of this class of drugs has not been proven,” said Andrew Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“The promising results of this somewhat novel intermittent schedule that we used with ME-401 suggests to me that we can maintain efficacy and reduce toxicity.”
Dr. Zelenetz and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients and dosing
Data were presented for 54 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma enrolled on this study. The patients had a median age of 63.5 years, and 80% were male. They had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-10).
Initially, patients received ME-401 at 60 mg, 120 mg, or 180 mg once daily continuously on a 28-day cycle. However, the dose-escalation portion of the study was closed because response rates were comparable among the three doses, the safety profile was similar, and there were no dose-limiting toxicities.
Two additional groups of patients received ME-401 at 60 mg daily for two cycles, followed by an intermittent schedule (IS) of 60 mg on days 1-7, repeated every 28 days.
The researchers had observed delayed grade 3 AEs on the continuous schedule (CS), and they hypothesized that the IS might prevent these events. Patients could revert to the CS if they had stable disease or progressed on the IS.
“One of the advantages of this particular agent is the very long half-life,” Dr. Zelenetz said. “So, essentially, we have 2 weeks on drug and 2 weeks off [with the IS]. It takes about a week to clear the drug because it has about a 30-hour half-life.”
In all, 40 patients received ME-401 monotherapy, and 14 received ME-401 plus rituximab at 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks and then on day 1 of cycles 3-6. There were 31 patients who received ME-401 on the CS and 23 who received ME-401 on the IS.
Results
A total of 50 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate in these patients was 80% (40/50), and 20% (10/50) achieved a complete response.
The overall response rate was 79% (30/38) in patients who received ME-401 alone, 83% (10/12) in those who received ME-401 plus rituximab, 83% (25/30) in patients on the CS, and 75% (15/20) in those on the IS.
The median duration of response and median progression-free survival have not been reached. The median follow-up for response duration is 8.8 months in the IS group and 8.3 months in the CS group. The median follow-up for progression-free survival is 5.5 months and 6.5 months, respectively.
A total of 18 patients on the IS (78%) were still on therapy at the data cutoff, as were 14 patients (45%) on the CS.
Seven patients (23%) on the CS and two patients (9%) on the IS discontinued treatment due to progression. Four patients in the IS group and two in the CS group who were switched to IS dosing reverted to CS dosing after experiencing progression.
Four CS patients (13%) discontinued treatment because of AEs, but none of the IS patients did.
AEs occurring in at least 15% of patients were diarrhea/colitis (40.7%), fatigue (35.2%), cough (33.3%), rash (24.1%), ALT increase (24.1%), nausea (24.1%), AST increase (22.2%), and decreased appetite (16.7%).
There were no grade 4-5 AEs. Grade 3 drug-related AEs of special interest (in the CS and IS groups, respectively) were diarrhea/colitis (16.1% and 8.7%), rash (12.9% and 0%), ALT increase (6.5% and 4.3%), AST increase (6.5% and 0%), pneumonia (6.5% and 0%), and mucositis (1.9% and 0%).
“[W]hile the grade 3 immune-related events seem to be very consistent in terms of class effects, they did seem to improve with transition to intermittent schedule,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
“And I think that this novel design helps to create an opportunity to limit treatment and mitigate toxicity without necessarily compromising efficacy.”
The phase 1b trial is sponsored by MEI Pharma. Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with MEI Pharma and several other companies. Dr. Casulo reported relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Zelenetz A et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7512.
CHICAGO – The phosphoinositide 3-kinase–delta inhibitor ME-401, given with or without rituximab, produced an overall response rate of 80% in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.
Response rates were similar between patients who received ME-401 alone and those who received it in combination with rituximab.
Response rates were also similar between patients on an intermittent dosing schedule and those on a continuous dosing schedule. However, intermittent dosing decreased the rate of delayed grade 3 adverse events (AEs).
“The idea that continuous inhibition of target is absolutely essential for activity of this class of drugs has not been proven,” said Andrew Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“The promising results of this somewhat novel intermittent schedule that we used with ME-401 suggests to me that we can maintain efficacy and reduce toxicity.”
Dr. Zelenetz and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Patients and dosing
Data were presented for 54 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma enrolled on this study. The patients had a median age of 63.5 years, and 80% were male. They had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-10).
Initially, patients received ME-401 at 60 mg, 120 mg, or 180 mg once daily continuously on a 28-day cycle. However, the dose-escalation portion of the study was closed because response rates were comparable among the three doses, the safety profile was similar, and there were no dose-limiting toxicities.
Two additional groups of patients received ME-401 at 60 mg daily for two cycles, followed by an intermittent schedule (IS) of 60 mg on days 1-7, repeated every 28 days.
The researchers had observed delayed grade 3 AEs on the continuous schedule (CS), and they hypothesized that the IS might prevent these events. Patients could revert to the CS if they had stable disease or progressed on the IS.
“One of the advantages of this particular agent is the very long half-life,” Dr. Zelenetz said. “So, essentially, we have 2 weeks on drug and 2 weeks off [with the IS]. It takes about a week to clear the drug because it has about a 30-hour half-life.”
In all, 40 patients received ME-401 monotherapy, and 14 received ME-401 plus rituximab at 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks and then on day 1 of cycles 3-6. There were 31 patients who received ME-401 on the CS and 23 who received ME-401 on the IS.
Results
A total of 50 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate in these patients was 80% (40/50), and 20% (10/50) achieved a complete response.
The overall response rate was 79% (30/38) in patients who received ME-401 alone, 83% (10/12) in those who received ME-401 plus rituximab, 83% (25/30) in patients on the CS, and 75% (15/20) in those on the IS.
The median duration of response and median progression-free survival have not been reached. The median follow-up for response duration is 8.8 months in the IS group and 8.3 months in the CS group. The median follow-up for progression-free survival is 5.5 months and 6.5 months, respectively.
A total of 18 patients on the IS (78%) were still on therapy at the data cutoff, as were 14 patients (45%) on the CS.
Seven patients (23%) on the CS and two patients (9%) on the IS discontinued treatment due to progression. Four patients in the IS group and two in the CS group who were switched to IS dosing reverted to CS dosing after experiencing progression.
Four CS patients (13%) discontinued treatment because of AEs, but none of the IS patients did.
AEs occurring in at least 15% of patients were diarrhea/colitis (40.7%), fatigue (35.2%), cough (33.3%), rash (24.1%), ALT increase (24.1%), nausea (24.1%), AST increase (22.2%), and decreased appetite (16.7%).
There were no grade 4-5 AEs. Grade 3 drug-related AEs of special interest (in the CS and IS groups, respectively) were diarrhea/colitis (16.1% and 8.7%), rash (12.9% and 0%), ALT increase (6.5% and 4.3%), AST increase (6.5% and 0%), pneumonia (6.5% and 0%), and mucositis (1.9% and 0%).
“[W]hile the grade 3 immune-related events seem to be very consistent in terms of class effects, they did seem to improve with transition to intermittent schedule,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
“And I think that this novel design helps to create an opportunity to limit treatment and mitigate toxicity without necessarily compromising efficacy.”
The phase 1b trial is sponsored by MEI Pharma. Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with MEI Pharma and several other companies. Dr. Casulo reported relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Zelenetz A et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7512.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019