Follicular Lymphoma

Photo by Larry Young

LA JOLLA, CA—A 2-drug combination has demonstrated preferential activity in T-cell lymphomas over B-cell lymphomas, according to researchers.

In a small, phase 1/2 study, treatment with oral 5-azacitidine and romidepsin produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with T-cell lymphomas.

“In a very limited sample, we’ve definitely observed exquisite activity of the combination in patients with T-cell lymphoma compared to all other subtypes,” said Lorenzo Falchi, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.

Dr Falchi presented these results at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The research was funded by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Lymphoma Research Fund at Columbia University, and Celgene.

The phase 1 portion of this study included patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or Hodgkin lymphoma. The phase 2 portion included only patients with T-cell lymphomas, newly diagnosed or previously treated.

Thirty-three patients were enrolled—12 with Hodgkin lymphoma, 8 with B-cell NHL, and 13 with T-cell NHL.

The patients’ median age was 54 (range, 23-79). Fifty-seven percent (n=19) were male. Sixty-one percent of patients were non-Hispanic white (n=20), 24% (n=8) were black, and 12% (n=4) were Asian.

“This was a very heavily pretreated patient population,” Dr Falchi noted. “I’d like to emphasize that the median number of prior treatments is 5 [range, 0-15].”

“Over half of patients had had stem cell transplantation [17 autologous and 5 allogeneic]. And, if you look at the subtypes by histology, all patients, pretty much, at some point, received all the standard chemotherapy or treatment approaches that are typically used for that subtype.”

Treatment

Patients were divided into 7 dosing cohorts. Azacitidine doses ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg on days 1-14 or days 1-21 per cycle.

Romidepsin doses ranged from 10 mg/m² to 14 mg/m². The drug was given on days 8 and 15 every 21 or 28 days, or it was given on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

There were 2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cohort 2—grade 3 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 pleural effusion. In this cohort, 3 patients received azacitidine at 200 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 every 21 days.

There were 3 DLTs in cohort 7—2 cases of grade 4 neutropenia and 1 case of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In this cohort, 5 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1 to 21 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Because of the DLTs in cohort 7, cohort 6 was chosen as the maximum tolerated dose. In cohort 6, 3 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Patients in the expansion cohort received treatment at the maximum tolerated dose. This cohort included 7 patients with T-cell lymphoma.

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included:

• Anemia—3% grade 3
• Anorexia—9% grade 1
• Back pain—6% grade 2
• Constipation—6% grade 1
• Cough—9% grade 1
• Depression—3% grade 1 and 2
• Diarrhea—15% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Dyspnea—3% grade 1 and 2
• Fatigue—21% grade 1, 9% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Febrile neutropenia—3% grade 3 and 4
• Fever—6% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• General disorders and administration site conditions—15% grade 1
• Hyperglycemia—3% grade 3
• Hypokalemia—6% grade 1
• Hypotension—3% grade 3
• Insomnia—6% grade 1
• Oral mucositis—9% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• Nausea—18% grade 1, 27% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Neutrophil count decrease—3% grade 3 and 4
• Pain—3% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Pain of skin—3% grade 1 and 2
• Platelet count decrease—6% grade 2, 9% grade 3, and 6% grade 4
• Urinary tract infection—3% grade 3
• Vomiting—18% grade 1 and 21% grade 2.

Efficacy

Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. The ORR for these patients was 36% (n=10).

The complete response (CR) rate was 22% (n=6), and the partial response (PR) rate was 14% (n=4). Twenty-five percent of patients (n=7) had stable disease, and 39% (n=11) progressed.

Dr Falchi noted that the ORR was “much higher” in patients with T-cell lymphoma than in those with B-cell lymphoma—80% (n=8) and 11% (n=2), respectively.

The CR rates were 50% (n=5) in T-cell lymphoma patients and 5.5% (n=1) in B-cell patients. PR rates were 30% (n=3) and 5.5% (n=1), respectively. Thirty-nine percent (n=7) of B-cell patients had stable disease, but none of the T-cell patients did.

“Patients with non-T-cell lymphoma were much more likely to progress on treatment,” Dr Falchi noted. “Half of them did so [n=9].”

This is in comparison to the 20% of T-cell lymphoma patients who progressed on treatment (n=2).

Disease subtypes for complete responders included transformed follicular lymphoma (n=1), T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (n=1), extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=2).

Partial responders had follicular lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=1).

The 2 responders with B-cell lymphoma (1 CR and 1 PR) ultimately progressed and died.

Of the 8 responders with T-cell lymphoma, 3 have an ongoing CR, and 2 of these patients proceeded to transplant.

One T-cell patient who achieved a CR and proceeded to transplant was lost to follow-up. Another died after transplant.

Two T-cell patients who achieved a PR progressed and died. And 1 patient has an ongoing PR.

In total, 75% of patients (n=21) progressed. The median PFS for the entire study cohort was 3.6 months (range, 1.5-5.7).

The median PFS was 2.2 months (range, 1.1-3.2) for patients with B-cell lymphomas and was not reached for the T-cell lymphoma patients.

Eighty-nine percent of B-cell patients progressed (n=16), as did 40% of T-cell patients (n=4).

Dr Falchi and his colleagues are now conducting studies to correlate the pharmacokinetics of azacitidine-romidepsin with genome-wide methylation and correlate TET2, IDH2, and DNMT3A mutation status with clinical response.

Photo by Larry Young

LA JOLLA, CA—A 2-drug combination has demonstrated preferential activity in T-cell lymphomas over B-cell lymphomas, according to researchers.

In a small, phase 1/2 study, treatment with oral 5-azacitidine and romidepsin produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with T-cell lymphomas.

“In a very limited sample, we’ve definitely observed exquisite activity of the combination in patients with T-cell lymphoma compared to all other subtypes,” said Lorenzo Falchi, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.

Dr Falchi presented these results at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The research was funded by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Lymphoma Research Fund at Columbia University, and Celgene.

The phase 1 portion of this study included patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or Hodgkin lymphoma. The phase 2 portion included only patients with T-cell lymphomas, newly diagnosed or previously treated.

Thirty-three patients were enrolled—12 with Hodgkin lymphoma, 8 with B-cell NHL, and 13 with T-cell NHL.

The patients’ median age was 54 (range, 23-79). Fifty-seven percent (n=19) were male. Sixty-one percent of patients were non-Hispanic white (n=20), 24% (n=8) were black, and 12% (n=4) were Asian.

“This was a very heavily pretreated patient population,” Dr Falchi noted. “I’d like to emphasize that the median number of prior treatments is 5 [range, 0-15].”

“Over half of patients had had stem cell transplantation [17 autologous and 5 allogeneic]. And, if you look at the subtypes by histology, all patients, pretty much, at some point, received all the standard chemotherapy or treatment approaches that are typically used for that subtype.”

Treatment

Patients were divided into 7 dosing cohorts. Azacitidine doses ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg on days 1-14 or days 1-21 per cycle.

Romidepsin doses ranged from 10 mg/m² to 14 mg/m². The drug was given on days 8 and 15 every 21 or 28 days, or it was given on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

There were 2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cohort 2—grade 3 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 pleural effusion. In this cohort, 3 patients received azacitidine at 200 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 every 21 days.

There were 3 DLTs in cohort 7—2 cases of grade 4 neutropenia and 1 case of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In this cohort, 5 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1 to 21 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Because of the DLTs in cohort 7, cohort 6 was chosen as the maximum tolerated dose. In cohort 6, 3 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Patients in the expansion cohort received treatment at the maximum tolerated dose. This cohort included 7 patients with T-cell lymphoma.

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included:

• Anemia—3% grade 3
• Anorexia—9% grade 1
• Back pain—6% grade 2
• Constipation—6% grade 1
• Cough—9% grade 1
• Depression—3% grade 1 and 2
• Diarrhea—15% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Dyspnea—3% grade 1 and 2
• Fatigue—21% grade 1, 9% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Febrile neutropenia—3% grade 3 and 4
• Fever—6% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• General disorders and administration site conditions—15% grade 1
• Hyperglycemia—3% grade 3
• Hypokalemia—6% grade 1
• Hypotension—3% grade 3
• Insomnia—6% grade 1
• Oral mucositis—9% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• Nausea—18% grade 1, 27% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Neutrophil count decrease—3% grade 3 and 4
• Pain—3% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Pain of skin—3% grade 1 and 2
• Platelet count decrease—6% grade 2, 9% grade 3, and 6% grade 4
• Urinary tract infection—3% grade 3
• Vomiting—18% grade 1 and 21% grade 2.

Efficacy

Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. The ORR for these patients was 36% (n=10).

The complete response (CR) rate was 22% (n=6), and the partial response (PR) rate was 14% (n=4). Twenty-five percent of patients (n=7) had stable disease, and 39% (n=11) progressed.

Dr Falchi noted that the ORR was “much higher” in patients with T-cell lymphoma than in those with B-cell lymphoma—80% (n=8) and 11% (n=2), respectively.

The CR rates were 50% (n=5) in T-cell lymphoma patients and 5.5% (n=1) in B-cell patients. PR rates were 30% (n=3) and 5.5% (n=1), respectively. Thirty-nine percent (n=7) of B-cell patients had stable disease, but none of the T-cell patients did.

“Patients with non-T-cell lymphoma were much more likely to progress on treatment,” Dr Falchi noted. “Half of them did so [n=9].”

This is in comparison to the 20% of T-cell lymphoma patients who progressed on treatment (n=2).

Disease subtypes for complete responders included transformed follicular lymphoma (n=1), T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (n=1), extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=2).

Partial responders had follicular lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=1).

The 2 responders with B-cell lymphoma (1 CR and 1 PR) ultimately progressed and died.

Of the 8 responders with T-cell lymphoma, 3 have an ongoing CR, and 2 of these patients proceeded to transplant.

One T-cell patient who achieved a CR and proceeded to transplant was lost to follow-up. Another died after transplant.

Two T-cell patients who achieved a PR progressed and died. And 1 patient has an ongoing PR.

In total, 75% of patients (n=21) progressed. The median PFS for the entire study cohort was 3.6 months (range, 1.5-5.7).

The median PFS was 2.2 months (range, 1.1-3.2) for patients with B-cell lymphomas and was not reached for the T-cell lymphoma patients.

Eighty-nine percent of B-cell patients progressed (n=16), as did 40% of T-cell patients (n=4).

Dr Falchi and his colleagues are now conducting studies to correlate the pharmacokinetics of azacitidine-romidepsin with genome-wide methylation and correlate TET2, IDH2, and DNMT3A mutation status with clinical response.

Photo by Larry Young

LA JOLLA, CA—A 2-drug combination has demonstrated preferential activity in T-cell lymphomas over B-cell lymphomas, according to researchers.

In a small, phase 1/2 study, treatment with oral 5-azacitidine and romidepsin produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with T-cell lymphomas.

“In a very limited sample, we’ve definitely observed exquisite activity of the combination in patients with T-cell lymphoma compared to all other subtypes,” said Lorenzo Falchi, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.

Dr Falchi presented these results at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The research was funded by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Lymphoma Research Fund at Columbia University, and Celgene.

The phase 1 portion of this study included patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or Hodgkin lymphoma. The phase 2 portion included only patients with T-cell lymphomas, newly diagnosed or previously treated.

Thirty-three patients were enrolled—12 with Hodgkin lymphoma, 8 with B-cell NHL, and 13 with T-cell NHL.

The patients’ median age was 54 (range, 23-79). Fifty-seven percent (n=19) were male. Sixty-one percent of patients were non-Hispanic white (n=20), 24% (n=8) were black, and 12% (n=4) were Asian.

“This was a very heavily pretreated patient population,” Dr Falchi noted. “I’d like to emphasize that the median number of prior treatments is 5 [range, 0-15].”

“Over half of patients had had stem cell transplantation [17 autologous and 5 allogeneic]. And, if you look at the subtypes by histology, all patients, pretty much, at some point, received all the standard chemotherapy or treatment approaches that are typically used for that subtype.”

Treatment

Patients were divided into 7 dosing cohorts. Azacitidine doses ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg on days 1-14 or days 1-21 per cycle.

Romidepsin doses ranged from 10 mg/m² to 14 mg/m². The drug was given on days 8 and 15 every 21 or 28 days, or it was given on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

There were 2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cohort 2—grade 3 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 pleural effusion. In this cohort, 3 patients received azacitidine at 200 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 8 and 15 every 21 days.

There were 3 DLTs in cohort 7—2 cases of grade 4 neutropenia and 1 case of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In this cohort, 5 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1 to 21 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Because of the DLTs in cohort 7, cohort 6 was chosen as the maximum tolerated dose. In cohort 6, 3 patients received azacitidine at 300 mg on days 1-14 plus romidepsin at 14 mg/m² on days 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days.

Patients in the expansion cohort received treatment at the maximum tolerated dose. This cohort included 7 patients with T-cell lymphoma.

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients included:

• Anemia—3% grade 3
• Anorexia—9% grade 1
• Back pain—6% grade 2
• Constipation—6% grade 1
• Cough—9% grade 1
• Depression—3% grade 1 and 2
• Diarrhea—15% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Dyspnea—3% grade 1 and 2
• Fatigue—21% grade 1, 9% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Febrile neutropenia—3% grade 3 and 4
• Fever—6% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• General disorders and administration site conditions—15% grade 1
• Hyperglycemia—3% grade 3
• Hypokalemia—6% grade 1
• Hypotension—3% grade 3
• Insomnia—6% grade 1
• Oral mucositis—9% grade 1 and 3% grade 2
• Nausea—18% grade 1, 27% grade 2, and 3% grade 3
• Neutrophil count decrease—3% grade 3 and 4
• Pain—3% grade 1 and 6% grade 2
• Pain of skin—3% grade 1 and 2
• Platelet count decrease—6% grade 2, 9% grade 3, and 6% grade 4
• Urinary tract infection—3% grade 3
• Vomiting—18% grade 1 and 21% grade 2.

Efficacy

Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. The ORR for these patients was 36% (n=10).

The complete response (CR) rate was 22% (n=6), and the partial response (PR) rate was 14% (n=4). Twenty-five percent of patients (n=7) had stable disease, and 39% (n=11) progressed.

Dr Falchi noted that the ORR was “much higher” in patients with T-cell lymphoma than in those with B-cell lymphoma—80% (n=8) and 11% (n=2), respectively.

The CR rates were 50% (n=5) in T-cell lymphoma patients and 5.5% (n=1) in B-cell patients. PR rates were 30% (n=3) and 5.5% (n=1), respectively. Thirty-nine percent (n=7) of B-cell patients had stable disease, but none of the T-cell patients did.

“Patients with non-T-cell lymphoma were much more likely to progress on treatment,” Dr Falchi noted. “Half of them did so [n=9].”

This is in comparison to the 20% of T-cell lymphoma patients who progressed on treatment (n=2).

Disease subtypes for complete responders included transformed follicular lymphoma (n=1), T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (n=1), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (n=1), extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=2).

Partial responders had follicular lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n=1), cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=1), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (n=1).

The 2 responders with B-cell lymphoma (1 CR and 1 PR) ultimately progressed and died.

Of the 8 responders with T-cell lymphoma, 3 have an ongoing CR, and 2 of these patients proceeded to transplant.

One T-cell patient who achieved a CR and proceeded to transplant was lost to follow-up. Another died after transplant.

Two T-cell patients who achieved a PR progressed and died. And 1 patient has an ongoing PR.

In total, 75% of patients (n=21) progressed. The median PFS for the entire study cohort was 3.6 months (range, 1.5-5.7).

The median PFS was 2.2 months (range, 1.1-3.2) for patients with B-cell lymphomas and was not reached for the T-cell lymphoma patients.

Eighty-nine percent of B-cell patients progressed (n=16), as did 40% of T-cell patients (n=4).

Dr Falchi and his colleagues are now conducting studies to correlate the pharmacokinetics of azacitidine-romidepsin with genome-wide methylation and correlate TET2, IDH2, and DNMT3A mutation status with clinical response.

SAN FRANCISCO – The CD19-directed 4-1BB chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product JCAR017 demonstrated increased CAR T-cell expansion and persistence, and higher durability of response at higher dose levels – with manageable toxicities – in a pivotal phase 1 trial of relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

However, preliminary modeling data suggest that a therapeutic window exists for the CAR T-cell expansion, which means that development of strategies for pushing patients into that window could enhance efficacy and limit toxicity associated with JCAR017, Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., reported at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is a multicenter, seamless design, pivotal trial, which started as a phase 1 first-in-human study of JCAR017, a defined composition CAR T-cell product also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel and administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. Dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts have been investigated, and currently the pivotal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohort is enrolling, Dr. Saddiqi said, noting that dose level 2 (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose) was selected for that cohort.

The current findings are based on the TRANSCEND core population – a set of patients selected from the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts. This population includes patients with DLBCL not otherwise specified, transformed follicular lymphoma, or high-grade double- or triple-hit lymphomas, she said, explaining that she and her colleagues looked at prelymphodepletion baseline patient characteristics and biomarkers to assess how they related to outcomes and toxicities. This precise dosing of JCAR017 reduces variability, enabling the identification of potential patient factors associated with clinical outcomes, she said.

Response rates among 27 patients who received dose level 2 were high, with an 81% overall response rate and a 63% complete response rate.

“Patients with complete remission seemed to have more of a durable response,” she said. “In the core population at dose level 2, 50% with 6 months of follow-up seemed to remain in complete response, so there’s a dose-response effect in these patients.”

It doesn’t appear that the dose affects development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurotoxicity (NT), as the rates of these (30% and 20%, respectively) did not differ by dose level or schedule, but certain baseline features, such as a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above 500 U/L and tumor burden measured as the sum of the product of diameters of 50 cm or greater, do appear to affect the development of these toxicities.

For example, 10 of 13 (77%) of patients with both of those baseline characteristics developed CRS, and 7 of 13 (54%) developed NT; for those without these characteristics, the odds of developing CRS and NT were significantly lower, she said.

Of note, higher C_max, or peak expansion of CAR T cells in vivo, was seen at dose level 2, and exposure (area under the curve) was also higher, as was expected at that dose level, Dr. Siddiqi said.

“It also appears that there is a trend of patients with higher tumor burden to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells in vivo,” she said, noting that some of those patients were “superexpanders” with very high expansion of CAR T cells. “Similarly there were certain cytokines at the prelymphodepletion time point that seem to be higher … in patients who also go on to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells.”

These included interleukin-7, IL-15, MIP (macrophage inflammatory protein)–1alpha, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha.

“Patients with certain higher inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers of inflammation also were noted to have higher events of CRS and neurotoxicity, so not just higher tumor burden, but also higher inflammatory state at baseline seems to affect patients in terms of getting any grade CRS or any grade neurotoxicity,” she said.

Those associated with CRS included ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1beta levels, and those associated with NT included ferritin, CRP, d-dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1alpha levels.

“Interestingly, there’s an inverse relationship between the expression of some of these biomarkers and inflammatory markers and the durability of response at 3 months,” she said.

Patients with higher tumor burden, LDH, and other markers either had no response at 3 months, or they had a very rapid response at the 1-month mark and then lost their response by 3 months, she noted.

“One of the theories could be that these patients with higher tumor burden, higher inflammatory state – they have such a high peak expansion rapidly after receiving their CAR T cells that potentially those CAR T cells may be getting exhausted or dying off very quickly, and therefore patients can lose their response,” she said.

When these data are considered together and modeled, there seems to be a therapeutic window where patients who have optimal expansion of CAR T cells in vivo may have lesser toxicity, higher overall response rates, and better durability of response, she said.

That is, on one end of the spectrum, there are patients with lower CAR T-cell expansion who have lower toxicities, but who also have lower overall response rates and lower durability of response, and on the other end, there are patients with superhigh expansion of CAR T cells, who have higher response rates, but also higher rates of toxicity, and who lose their response quickly.

“So if we can identify patients who would be in this window of optimal target expansion of CAR T cells, and if we could find strategies or mechanisms to move patients who are on either end of that spectrum into this window, we may be able to get patients with better efficacy and lower toxicities, and there could be combination strategies that could help get us there,” she said.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi reported serving as a consultant or adviser for Juno Therapeutics, and as a member of the speakers bureau for Pharmacyclics/Janssen and Seattle Genetics. Research funding was provided to her institution by Juno Therapeutics and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASCO-SITC, abstract 122.

SAN FRANCISCO – The CD19-directed 4-1BB chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product JCAR017 demonstrated increased CAR T-cell expansion and persistence, and higher durability of response at higher dose levels – with manageable toxicities – in a pivotal phase 1 trial of relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

However, preliminary modeling data suggest that a therapeutic window exists for the CAR T-cell expansion, which means that development of strategies for pushing patients into that window could enhance efficacy and limit toxicity associated with JCAR017, Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., reported at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is a multicenter, seamless design, pivotal trial, which started as a phase 1 first-in-human study of JCAR017, a defined composition CAR T-cell product also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel and administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. Dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts have been investigated, and currently the pivotal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohort is enrolling, Dr. Saddiqi said, noting that dose level 2 (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose) was selected for that cohort.

The current findings are based on the TRANSCEND core population – a set of patients selected from the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts. This population includes patients with DLBCL not otherwise specified, transformed follicular lymphoma, or high-grade double- or triple-hit lymphomas, she said, explaining that she and her colleagues looked at prelymphodepletion baseline patient characteristics and biomarkers to assess how they related to outcomes and toxicities. This precise dosing of JCAR017 reduces variability, enabling the identification of potential patient factors associated with clinical outcomes, she said.

Response rates among 27 patients who received dose level 2 were high, with an 81% overall response rate and a 63% complete response rate.

“Patients with complete remission seemed to have more of a durable response,” she said. “In the core population at dose level 2, 50% with 6 months of follow-up seemed to remain in complete response, so there’s a dose-response effect in these patients.”

It doesn’t appear that the dose affects development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurotoxicity (NT), as the rates of these (30% and 20%, respectively) did not differ by dose level or schedule, but certain baseline features, such as a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above 500 U/L and tumor burden measured as the sum of the product of diameters of 50 cm or greater, do appear to affect the development of these toxicities.

For example, 10 of 13 (77%) of patients with both of those baseline characteristics developed CRS, and 7 of 13 (54%) developed NT; for those without these characteristics, the odds of developing CRS and NT were significantly lower, she said.

Of note, higher C_max, or peak expansion of CAR T cells in vivo, was seen at dose level 2, and exposure (area under the curve) was also higher, as was expected at that dose level, Dr. Siddiqi said.

“It also appears that there is a trend of patients with higher tumor burden to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells in vivo,” she said, noting that some of those patients were “superexpanders” with very high expansion of CAR T cells. “Similarly there were certain cytokines at the prelymphodepletion time point that seem to be higher … in patients who also go on to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells.”

These included interleukin-7, IL-15, MIP (macrophage inflammatory protein)–1alpha, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha.

“Patients with certain higher inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers of inflammation also were noted to have higher events of CRS and neurotoxicity, so not just higher tumor burden, but also higher inflammatory state at baseline seems to affect patients in terms of getting any grade CRS or any grade neurotoxicity,” she said.

Those associated with CRS included ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1beta levels, and those associated with NT included ferritin, CRP, d-dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1alpha levels.

“Interestingly, there’s an inverse relationship between the expression of some of these biomarkers and inflammatory markers and the durability of response at 3 months,” she said.

Patients with higher tumor burden, LDH, and other markers either had no response at 3 months, or they had a very rapid response at the 1-month mark and then lost their response by 3 months, she noted.

“One of the theories could be that these patients with higher tumor burden, higher inflammatory state – they have such a high peak expansion rapidly after receiving their CAR T cells that potentially those CAR T cells may be getting exhausted or dying off very quickly, and therefore patients can lose their response,” she said.

When these data are considered together and modeled, there seems to be a therapeutic window where patients who have optimal expansion of CAR T cells in vivo may have lesser toxicity, higher overall response rates, and better durability of response, she said.

That is, on one end of the spectrum, there are patients with lower CAR T-cell expansion who have lower toxicities, but who also have lower overall response rates and lower durability of response, and on the other end, there are patients with superhigh expansion of CAR T cells, who have higher response rates, but also higher rates of toxicity, and who lose their response quickly.

“So if we can identify patients who would be in this window of optimal target expansion of CAR T cells, and if we could find strategies or mechanisms to move patients who are on either end of that spectrum into this window, we may be able to get patients with better efficacy and lower toxicities, and there could be combination strategies that could help get us there,” she said.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi reported serving as a consultant or adviser for Juno Therapeutics, and as a member of the speakers bureau for Pharmacyclics/Janssen and Seattle Genetics. Research funding was provided to her institution by Juno Therapeutics and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASCO-SITC, abstract 122.

SAN FRANCISCO – The CD19-directed 4-1BB chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product JCAR017 demonstrated increased CAR T-cell expansion and persistence, and higher durability of response at higher dose levels – with manageable toxicities – in a pivotal phase 1 trial of relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

However, preliminary modeling data suggest that a therapeutic window exists for the CAR T-cell expansion, which means that development of strategies for pushing patients into that window could enhance efficacy and limit toxicity associated with JCAR017, Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., reported at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is a multicenter, seamless design, pivotal trial, which started as a phase 1 first-in-human study of JCAR017, a defined composition CAR T-cell product also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel and administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. Dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts have been investigated, and currently the pivotal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohort is enrolling, Dr. Saddiqi said, noting that dose level 2 (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose) was selected for that cohort.

The current findings are based on the TRANSCEND core population – a set of patients selected from the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts. This population includes patients with DLBCL not otherwise specified, transformed follicular lymphoma, or high-grade double- or triple-hit lymphomas, she said, explaining that she and her colleagues looked at prelymphodepletion baseline patient characteristics and biomarkers to assess how they related to outcomes and toxicities. This precise dosing of JCAR017 reduces variability, enabling the identification of potential patient factors associated with clinical outcomes, she said.

Response rates among 27 patients who received dose level 2 were high, with an 81% overall response rate and a 63% complete response rate.

“Patients with complete remission seemed to have more of a durable response,” she said. “In the core population at dose level 2, 50% with 6 months of follow-up seemed to remain in complete response, so there’s a dose-response effect in these patients.”

It doesn’t appear that the dose affects development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurotoxicity (NT), as the rates of these (30% and 20%, respectively) did not differ by dose level or schedule, but certain baseline features, such as a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above 500 U/L and tumor burden measured as the sum of the product of diameters of 50 cm or greater, do appear to affect the development of these toxicities.

For example, 10 of 13 (77%) of patients with both of those baseline characteristics developed CRS, and 7 of 13 (54%) developed NT; for those without these characteristics, the odds of developing CRS and NT were significantly lower, she said.

Of note, higher C_max, or peak expansion of CAR T cells in vivo, was seen at dose level 2, and exposure (area under the curve) was also higher, as was expected at that dose level, Dr. Siddiqi said.

“It also appears that there is a trend of patients with higher tumor burden to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells in vivo,” she said, noting that some of those patients were “superexpanders” with very high expansion of CAR T cells. “Similarly there were certain cytokines at the prelymphodepletion time point that seem to be higher … in patients who also go on to have higher expansion of their CAR T cells.”

These included interleukin-7, IL-15, MIP (macrophage inflammatory protein)–1alpha, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha.

“Patients with certain higher inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers of inflammation also were noted to have higher events of CRS and neurotoxicity, so not just higher tumor burden, but also higher inflammatory state at baseline seems to affect patients in terms of getting any grade CRS or any grade neurotoxicity,” she said.

Those associated with CRS included ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1beta levels, and those associated with NT included ferritin, CRP, d-dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNF-alpha, and MIP-1alpha levels.

“Interestingly, there’s an inverse relationship between the expression of some of these biomarkers and inflammatory markers and the durability of response at 3 months,” she said.

Patients with higher tumor burden, LDH, and other markers either had no response at 3 months, or they had a very rapid response at the 1-month mark and then lost their response by 3 months, she noted.

“One of the theories could be that these patients with higher tumor burden, higher inflammatory state – they have such a high peak expansion rapidly after receiving their CAR T cells that potentially those CAR T cells may be getting exhausted or dying off very quickly, and therefore patients can lose their response,” she said.

When these data are considered together and modeled, there seems to be a therapeutic window where patients who have optimal expansion of CAR T cells in vivo may have lesser toxicity, higher overall response rates, and better durability of response, she said.

That is, on one end of the spectrum, there are patients with lower CAR T-cell expansion who have lower toxicities, but who also have lower overall response rates and lower durability of response, and on the other end, there are patients with superhigh expansion of CAR T cells, who have higher response rates, but also higher rates of toxicity, and who lose their response quickly.

“So if we can identify patients who would be in this window of optimal target expansion of CAR T cells, and if we could find strategies or mechanisms to move patients who are on either end of that spectrum into this window, we may be able to get patients with better efficacy and lower toxicities, and there could be combination strategies that could help get us there,” she said.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi reported serving as a consultant or adviser for Juno Therapeutics, and as a member of the speakers bureau for Pharmacyclics/Janssen and Seattle Genetics. Research funding was provided to her institution by Juno Therapeutics and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASCO-SITC, abstract 122.

ATLANTA – Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111), an investigational BTK inhibitor, was well tolerated and active as a single agent in patients with indolent and aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Response rates ranged from 31% to 88% depending on the lymphoma subtype. Overall, approximately 10% of patients discontinued the drug because of adverse events, reported Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre & St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.

“There was encouraging activity against all the spectrum of indolent and aggressive NHL subtypes … and durable responses were observed across a variety of histologies,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib is a second-generation BTK inhibitor that, based on biochemical assays, has higher selectivity against BTK than ibrutinib, Dr. Tam said.

He presented results of an open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study of daily or twice-daily zanubrutinib in patients with B-cell malignancies, most of them relapsed or refractory to prior therapies. The lymphoma subtypes he presented included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

For 34 patients with indolent lymphomas (FL and MZL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and upper respiratory tract infection. Eleven grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, infection, nausea, urinary tract infection, and abdominal pain.

Atrial fibrillation was observed in two patients in the aggressive NHL cohort, for an overall AF rate of approximately 2%, Dr. Tam said.

For 65 patients with aggressive lymphomas (DLBCL and MCL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and diarrhea; 27 grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, pneumonia, and anemia.

The highest overall response rate reported was for MCL, at 88% (28 of 32 patients) followed by MZL at 78% (7 of 9 patients), FL at 41% (7 of 17 patients), and DLBCL 31% (8 of 26 patients).

The recommended phase 2 dose for zanubrutinib is either 320 mg/day once daily or a split dose of 160 mg twice daily, Dr. Tam said.

Based on this experience, investigators started a registration trial of zanubrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab for FL, and additional trials are planned, according to Dr. Tam.

There are also registration trials in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia based on other data suggesting activity of zanubrutinib in those disease types, he added.

Zanubrutinib is a product of BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Roche, Janssen Cilag, Abbvie, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Onyx, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Tam C et al, ASH 2017, Abstract 152

ATLANTA – Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111), an investigational BTK inhibitor, was well tolerated and active as a single agent in patients with indolent and aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Response rates ranged from 31% to 88% depending on the lymphoma subtype. Overall, approximately 10% of patients discontinued the drug because of adverse events, reported Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre & St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.

“There was encouraging activity against all the spectrum of indolent and aggressive NHL subtypes … and durable responses were observed across a variety of histologies,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib is a second-generation BTK inhibitor that, based on biochemical assays, has higher selectivity against BTK than ibrutinib, Dr. Tam said.

He presented results of an open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study of daily or twice-daily zanubrutinib in patients with B-cell malignancies, most of them relapsed or refractory to prior therapies. The lymphoma subtypes he presented included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

For 34 patients with indolent lymphomas (FL and MZL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and upper respiratory tract infection. Eleven grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, infection, nausea, urinary tract infection, and abdominal pain.

Atrial fibrillation was observed in two patients in the aggressive NHL cohort, for an overall AF rate of approximately 2%, Dr. Tam said.

For 65 patients with aggressive lymphomas (DLBCL and MCL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and diarrhea; 27 grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, pneumonia, and anemia.

The highest overall response rate reported was for MCL, at 88% (28 of 32 patients) followed by MZL at 78% (7 of 9 patients), FL at 41% (7 of 17 patients), and DLBCL 31% (8 of 26 patients).

The recommended phase 2 dose for zanubrutinib is either 320 mg/day once daily or a split dose of 160 mg twice daily, Dr. Tam said.

Based on this experience, investigators started a registration trial of zanubrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab for FL, and additional trials are planned, according to Dr. Tam.

There are also registration trials in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia based on other data suggesting activity of zanubrutinib in those disease types, he added.

Zanubrutinib is a product of BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Roche, Janssen Cilag, Abbvie, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Onyx, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Tam C et al, ASH 2017, Abstract 152

ATLANTA – Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111), an investigational BTK inhibitor, was well tolerated and active as a single agent in patients with indolent and aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Response rates ranged from 31% to 88% depending on the lymphoma subtype. Overall, approximately 10% of patients discontinued the drug because of adverse events, reported Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre & St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.

“There was encouraging activity against all the spectrum of indolent and aggressive NHL subtypes … and durable responses were observed across a variety of histologies,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib is a second-generation BTK inhibitor that, based on biochemical assays, has higher selectivity against BTK than ibrutinib, Dr. Tam said.

He presented results of an open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study of daily or twice-daily zanubrutinib in patients with B-cell malignancies, most of them relapsed or refractory to prior therapies. The lymphoma subtypes he presented included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

For 34 patients with indolent lymphomas (FL and MZL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and upper respiratory tract infection. Eleven grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, infection, nausea, urinary tract infection, and abdominal pain.

Atrial fibrillation was observed in two patients in the aggressive NHL cohort, for an overall AF rate of approximately 2%, Dr. Tam said.

For 65 patients with aggressive lymphomas (DLBCL and MCL), the most frequent adverse events were petechiae/purpura/contusion and diarrhea; 27 grade 3-5 adverse events were reported, including neutropenia, pneumonia, and anemia.

The highest overall response rate reported was for MCL, at 88% (28 of 32 patients) followed by MZL at 78% (7 of 9 patients), FL at 41% (7 of 17 patients), and DLBCL 31% (8 of 26 patients).

The recommended phase 2 dose for zanubrutinib is either 320 mg/day once daily or a split dose of 160 mg twice daily, Dr. Tam said.

Based on this experience, investigators started a registration trial of zanubrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab for FL, and additional trials are planned, according to Dr. Tam.

There are also registration trials in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia based on other data suggesting activity of zanubrutinib in those disease types, he added.

Zanubrutinib is a product of BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Roche, Janssen Cilag, Abbvie, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Onyx, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Tam C et al, ASH 2017, Abstract 152

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; KTE-C19) is showing consistent, ongoing responses more than a year after infusion.

An updated analysis of the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 trial showed that 42% of patients who received axi-cel maintained an objective response at a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

Forty percent of patients have maintained a complete response (CR).

This compares with a 44% objective response rate and a 39% CR rate in the primary analysis of phase 2 ZUMA-1 data, when the median follow-up was 8.7 months.

Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, reported the long-term results from ZUMA-1 at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 578). The findings were published simultaneously in NEJM.

The primary phase 2 analysis was previously presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017.

At ASH 2017, Dr Neelapu disclosed that he has received research funding and served as a consultant for Kite Pharma, the developer of axi-cel. Kite Pharma and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program supported ZUMA-1.

Study schema and patient characteristics

Phase 1 of ZUMA-1 enrolled 7 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

In phase 2, 101 patients were grouped into 2 cohorts—77 with refractory DLBCL and 24 with refractory PMBCL/TFL.

A total of 108 patients were treated in phases 1 and 2 and were included in the long-term pooled analysis.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and, 2 days later, a fixed dose of axi-cel at 2 x 10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

“Importantly, the product could be manufactured for 99% of enrolled patients,” Dr Neelapu said. “Moreover, 91% of the enrolled patients were dosed with axi-cel, and there were no patients lost to follow-up.”

Patients in the pooled analysis were a median age of 58 (range, 23–76), and 27 (25%) were 65 or older.

Seventy-three patients (68%) were male, 62 (57%) had an ECOG status of 1, 90 (83%) had stage III or IV disease, and 48 (44%) had an IPI score of 3 to 4.

Seventy-six patients (70%) had received 3 or more prior therapies.

Eighty patients (74%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 70 (65%) had progressive disease as their best response to their last prior therapy. Twenty-five patients (23%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Response

The data cutoff for the long-term analysis was August 11, 2017.

In addition to the ongoing responses mentioned above, the best objective response was 82% in both the phase 2 primary analysis and the long-term analysis for phases 1 and 2.

CR as the best objective response increased from 54% in the primary analysis to 58% at the longer follow-up.

“We did observe deepening of the responses over time,” Dr Neelapu said. “At the time of the first tumor assessment, 60 patients had either partial remission or stable disease. But 23 of those 60 eventually achieved a complete remission up to 15 months post-infusion without any additional therapy.”

The median time to conversion from partial response to CR was 64 days (range, 49–242).

“The durability of these responses was observed consistently across key covariates,” Dr Neelapu added, “including the refractory subgroups, the disease stage groups, IPI risk groups. The CD19 status at baseline did not matter, nor did the cell of origin, or the CD4/CD8 ratio of the product.”

Furthermore, the investigators observed no differences in patients who received tocilizumab or corticosteroids.

The median duration of response for all patients was 11.1 months. For those who achieved CR, the median duration of response has not yet been reached.

Three of the 7 patients (43%) in the phase 1 part of the trial had an ongoing CR at 24 months.

At the median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients were progression-free, and 56% were alive.

The median overall survival has not been reached. Investigators estimated the 18-month overall survival to be 52%.

Safety

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 97% of patients, and serious AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 46% of patients in the updated analysis.

No new axi-cel-related AEs of cytokine release syndrome, neurologic events, or grade 5 AEs have arisen since the primary analysis.

There were four grade 5 events, 2 of which were related to axi-cel.

“All these four grade 5 events were previously reported—three in the phase 2 and one in the phase 1 trial,” Dr Neelapu said.

Most patients experienced hypogammaglobulinemia and B-cell aplasia. Eight percent of patients had IVIG support during the study.

Infections, such as pneumonia, influenza, and viral infection, were the most common new-onset treatment-emergent serious AEs occurring after 6 months in 10 patients. All were manageable and resolved prior to the data cut-off.

Persistence and resistance

“We observed long-term persistence of the CAR T cells,” Dr Neelapu said.

CAR T cells persisted in 71% of patients still responding at 1 year. And durable responses were observed in patients with and without detectable CAR T cells.

A central review committee analyzed biopsies of 21 evaluable patients at progression to try to determine the mechanism of resistance.

Fourteen of 21 (67%) biopsies were CD19-positive. Of these, 9 were PD-L1-positive, 4 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

Seven patients (33%) were CD19-negative compared to baseline. Of these, 4 were PD-L1-positive, 2 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

“This PD-L1 expression was observed in both CD19-positive relapses and CD19-negative relapses,” Dr Neelapu emphasized.

Of the 21 patients, 62% were PD-L1-positive.

Investigators hypothesize that 2 potential mechanisms could contribute to relapse: loss of CD19 and expression of PD-L1.

Axi-cel (Yescarta™) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in October for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; KTE-C19) is showing consistent, ongoing responses more than a year after infusion.

An updated analysis of the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 trial showed that 42% of patients who received axi-cel maintained an objective response at a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

Forty percent of patients have maintained a complete response (CR).

This compares with a 44% objective response rate and a 39% CR rate in the primary analysis of phase 2 ZUMA-1 data, when the median follow-up was 8.7 months.

Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, reported the long-term results from ZUMA-1 at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 578). The findings were published simultaneously in NEJM.

The primary phase 2 analysis was previously presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017.

At ASH 2017, Dr Neelapu disclosed that he has received research funding and served as a consultant for Kite Pharma, the developer of axi-cel. Kite Pharma and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program supported ZUMA-1.

Study schema and patient characteristics

Phase 1 of ZUMA-1 enrolled 7 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

In phase 2, 101 patients were grouped into 2 cohorts—77 with refractory DLBCL and 24 with refractory PMBCL/TFL.

A total of 108 patients were treated in phases 1 and 2 and were included in the long-term pooled analysis.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and, 2 days later, a fixed dose of axi-cel at 2 x 10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

“Importantly, the product could be manufactured for 99% of enrolled patients,” Dr Neelapu said. “Moreover, 91% of the enrolled patients were dosed with axi-cel, and there were no patients lost to follow-up.”

Patients in the pooled analysis were a median age of 58 (range, 23–76), and 27 (25%) were 65 or older.

Seventy-three patients (68%) were male, 62 (57%) had an ECOG status of 1, 90 (83%) had stage III or IV disease, and 48 (44%) had an IPI score of 3 to 4.

Seventy-six patients (70%) had received 3 or more prior therapies.

Eighty patients (74%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 70 (65%) had progressive disease as their best response to their last prior therapy. Twenty-five patients (23%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Response

The data cutoff for the long-term analysis was August 11, 2017.

In addition to the ongoing responses mentioned above, the best objective response was 82% in both the phase 2 primary analysis and the long-term analysis for phases 1 and 2.

CR as the best objective response increased from 54% in the primary analysis to 58% at the longer follow-up.

“We did observe deepening of the responses over time,” Dr Neelapu said. “At the time of the first tumor assessment, 60 patients had either partial remission or stable disease. But 23 of those 60 eventually achieved a complete remission up to 15 months post-infusion without any additional therapy.”

The median time to conversion from partial response to CR was 64 days (range, 49–242).

“The durability of these responses was observed consistently across key covariates,” Dr Neelapu added, “including the refractory subgroups, the disease stage groups, IPI risk groups. The CD19 status at baseline did not matter, nor did the cell of origin, or the CD4/CD8 ratio of the product.”

Furthermore, the investigators observed no differences in patients who received tocilizumab or corticosteroids.

The median duration of response for all patients was 11.1 months. For those who achieved CR, the median duration of response has not yet been reached.

Three of the 7 patients (43%) in the phase 1 part of the trial had an ongoing CR at 24 months.

At the median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients were progression-free, and 56% were alive.

The median overall survival has not been reached. Investigators estimated the 18-month overall survival to be 52%.

Safety

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 97% of patients, and serious AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 46% of patients in the updated analysis.

No new axi-cel-related AEs of cytokine release syndrome, neurologic events, or grade 5 AEs have arisen since the primary analysis.

There were four grade 5 events, 2 of which were related to axi-cel.

“All these four grade 5 events were previously reported—three in the phase 2 and one in the phase 1 trial,” Dr Neelapu said.

Most patients experienced hypogammaglobulinemia and B-cell aplasia. Eight percent of patients had IVIG support during the study.

Infections, such as pneumonia, influenza, and viral infection, were the most common new-onset treatment-emergent serious AEs occurring after 6 months in 10 patients. All were manageable and resolved prior to the data cut-off.

Persistence and resistance

“We observed long-term persistence of the CAR T cells,” Dr Neelapu said.

CAR T cells persisted in 71% of patients still responding at 1 year. And durable responses were observed in patients with and without detectable CAR T cells.

A central review committee analyzed biopsies of 21 evaluable patients at progression to try to determine the mechanism of resistance.

Fourteen of 21 (67%) biopsies were CD19-positive. Of these, 9 were PD-L1-positive, 4 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

Seven patients (33%) were CD19-negative compared to baseline. Of these, 4 were PD-L1-positive, 2 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

“This PD-L1 expression was observed in both CD19-positive relapses and CD19-negative relapses,” Dr Neelapu emphasized.

Of the 21 patients, 62% were PD-L1-positive.

Investigators hypothesize that 2 potential mechanisms could contribute to relapse: loss of CD19 and expression of PD-L1.

Axi-cel (Yescarta™) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in October for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; KTE-C19) is showing consistent, ongoing responses more than a year after infusion.

An updated analysis of the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 trial showed that 42% of patients who received axi-cel maintained an objective response at a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

Forty percent of patients have maintained a complete response (CR).

This compares with a 44% objective response rate and a 39% CR rate in the primary analysis of phase 2 ZUMA-1 data, when the median follow-up was 8.7 months.

Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, reported the long-term results from ZUMA-1 at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 578). The findings were published simultaneously in NEJM.

The primary phase 2 analysis was previously presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017.

At ASH 2017, Dr Neelapu disclosed that he has received research funding and served as a consultant for Kite Pharma, the developer of axi-cel. Kite Pharma and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program supported ZUMA-1.

Study schema and patient characteristics

Phase 1 of ZUMA-1 enrolled 7 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

In phase 2, 101 patients were grouped into 2 cohorts—77 with refractory DLBCL and 24 with refractory PMBCL/TFL.

A total of 108 patients were treated in phases 1 and 2 and were included in the long-term pooled analysis.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and, 2 days later, a fixed dose of axi-cel at 2 x 10⁶ CAR T cells/kg.

“Importantly, the product could be manufactured for 99% of enrolled patients,” Dr Neelapu said. “Moreover, 91% of the enrolled patients were dosed with axi-cel, and there were no patients lost to follow-up.”

Patients in the pooled analysis were a median age of 58 (range, 23–76), and 27 (25%) were 65 or older.

Seventy-three patients (68%) were male, 62 (57%) had an ECOG status of 1, 90 (83%) had stage III or IV disease, and 48 (44%) had an IPI score of 3 to 4.

Seventy-six patients (70%) had received 3 or more prior therapies.

Eighty patients (74%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 70 (65%) had progressive disease as their best response to their last prior therapy. Twenty-five patients (23%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Response

The data cutoff for the long-term analysis was August 11, 2017.

In addition to the ongoing responses mentioned above, the best objective response was 82% in both the phase 2 primary analysis and the long-term analysis for phases 1 and 2.

CR as the best objective response increased from 54% in the primary analysis to 58% at the longer follow-up.

“We did observe deepening of the responses over time,” Dr Neelapu said. “At the time of the first tumor assessment, 60 patients had either partial remission or stable disease. But 23 of those 60 eventually achieved a complete remission up to 15 months post-infusion without any additional therapy.”

The median time to conversion from partial response to CR was 64 days (range, 49–242).

“The durability of these responses was observed consistently across key covariates,” Dr Neelapu added, “including the refractory subgroups, the disease stage groups, IPI risk groups. The CD19 status at baseline did not matter, nor did the cell of origin, or the CD4/CD8 ratio of the product.”

Furthermore, the investigators observed no differences in patients who received tocilizumab or corticosteroids.

The median duration of response for all patients was 11.1 months. For those who achieved CR, the median duration of response has not yet been reached.

Three of the 7 patients (43%) in the phase 1 part of the trial had an ongoing CR at 24 months.

At the median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients were progression-free, and 56% were alive.

The median overall survival has not been reached. Investigators estimated the 18-month overall survival to be 52%.

Safety

Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 97% of patients, and serious AEs of grade 3 or higher occurred in 46% of patients in the updated analysis.

No new axi-cel-related AEs of cytokine release syndrome, neurologic events, or grade 5 AEs have arisen since the primary analysis.

There were four grade 5 events, 2 of which were related to axi-cel.

“All these four grade 5 events were previously reported—three in the phase 2 and one in the phase 1 trial,” Dr Neelapu said.

Most patients experienced hypogammaglobulinemia and B-cell aplasia. Eight percent of patients had IVIG support during the study.

Infections, such as pneumonia, influenza, and viral infection, were the most common new-onset treatment-emergent serious AEs occurring after 6 months in 10 patients. All were manageable and resolved prior to the data cut-off.

Persistence and resistance

“We observed long-term persistence of the CAR T cells,” Dr Neelapu said.

CAR T cells persisted in 71% of patients still responding at 1 year. And durable responses were observed in patients with and without detectable CAR T cells.

A central review committee analyzed biopsies of 21 evaluable patients at progression to try to determine the mechanism of resistance.

Fourteen of 21 (67%) biopsies were CD19-positive. Of these, 9 were PD-L1-positive, 4 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

Seven patients (33%) were CD19-negative compared to baseline. Of these, 4 were PD-L1-positive, 2 were PD-L1-negative, and 1 was not evaluable.

“This PD-L1 expression was observed in both CD19-positive relapses and CD19-negative relapses,” Dr Neelapu emphasized.

Of the 21 patients, 62% were PD-L1-positive.

Investigators hypothesize that 2 potential mechanisms could contribute to relapse: loss of CD19 and expression of PD-L1.

Axi-cel (Yescarta™) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in October for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

© Scott Morgan 2017

ATLANTA—Data suggest a therapeutic window may exist for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell expansion with JCAR017, according to a preliminary model.

In a core set of 67 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had received JCAR017 in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial, investigators observed that baseline high tumor burden and inflammatory biomarkers were associated with high CAR T-cell expansion and increased rates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.

If the model holds up, researchers say they could potentially identify patients at risk for low or high T-cell expansion levels and develop a strategy to enhance or limit the expansion.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 (NCT02631044) is a multicenter, phase 1 trial in relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma evaluating 2 dose levels of JCAR017, also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel for short.

Liso-cel is a CD19-directed 4-1BB CAR T cell administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. It had previously demonstrated high complete remission (CR) rates and low incidences of CRS and neurotoxicity.

Tanya Saddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, presented data from the dose-finding and expansion cohorts at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 193*).

Study design

Patients with DLBCL after 2 lines of prior therapy or mantle cell lymphoma after 1 prior line of therapy were eligible to enroll in TRANSCEND NHL 001.

Patients with de novo DLBCL, those who transformed from follicular lymphoma, or those with high-grade B-cell lymphoma made up the pivotal or core population. All DLBCL patients enrolled on the trial comprised the full population.

Patients were screened, enrolled, and underwent apheresis. Bridging therapy was permitted while their CAR T cells were being manufactured.

Patients then had a PET scan and lab tests prior to lymphodepletion.

“This is the time point of our interest,” Dr Saddiqi said, “to see if there are any patient characteristics or biomarkers that we can identify . . .  that could help us figure out which patients are at higher risk of toxicity, potentially.”

Lymphodepletion consisted of fludarabine (30 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m² for 3 days).

Patients received the JCAR017 infusion, and, at specific time points thereafter, cytokine, pharmacokinetic (PK), and clinical lab evaluations were conducted. PK evaluation and scans were performed every 3 months for the first year after JCAR017 infusion, and safety and viral vector follow-up for 15 years.

Dose levels were 5 x 10⁷ cells as a single or double dose (DL1S) and 1 x 10⁸ cells as a single dose (DL2S). Dose level 2 was chosen for further study, and double dosing was discontinued.

“Double dosing was actually not pursued further,” Dr Saddiqi explained, “because it did not seem to add any benefit over single dosing.”

At the time of the presentation, 91 total patients were treated, 67 of whom were the core population.

Results

Dr Saddiqi reported that patients treated with JCAR017 achieved a relatively high best overall response rate (ORR) and high durable CR rates.

“And this seems to be especially true for the core set of patients and particularly for patients at dose level 2,” she added.

At all dose levels, the core patients had a best ORR of 84% (41/49) and a CR rate of 61% (30/49).

At follow-up of 3 months or longer, the core group had an ORR of 65% (26/40) for all dose levels, 52% (11/21) for dose level 1, and 80% (12/15) for dose level 2.

The 3-month CR rate was 53% (21/40) for all dose levels in the core group, 33% (7/21) in dose level 1, and 73% (11/15) in dose level 2.

Dr Saddiqi noted that CRS and neurotoxicity did not differ by dose level or schedule, and there were no grade 5 events of CRS or neurotoxicity.

“Among the core group, dose level change did not add to their toxicity,” she said. “And so the question is: Is it patient factors, is it tumor factors? What is it that is actually causing the toxicities in these patients?”

Dr Saddiqi focused the presentation on patient factors.

Patient factors

The data showed that tumor burden and lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity.

Univariate analysis revealed that CRS and neurotoxicity were associated with a shorter time since diagnosis.

However, prior number of therapies, patient weight, and disease stage were not associated with CRS or neurotoxicity.

Investigators were able to identify preliminary risk boundaries. Core patients with high LDH levels (≥ 500 U/L) and sum of the products of diameters (SPD)  ≥ 50 cm² at baseline had an 8-fold increase in risk of CRS and neurotoxicity.

“Inversely, if these patients did not meet the cutoff for LDH or SPD,” Dr Saddiqi pointed out, “if they were lower than that, they have significantly lower CRS and neurotoxicity events.”

Investigators also observed that baseline markers of inflammation and inflammatory cytokines trended higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity. For CRS, this includes ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNFα, and MIP-1β. For neurotoxicity, this includes ferritin, CRP, d-Dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNFα, and MIP-1α.

The team also observed that tumor burden, baseline markers of inflammation, and inflammatory cytokines trended lower in core patients with durable responses.

“Interestingly, it’s inversely true that patients who did have these higher levels [of inflammation markers], and higher tumor burden, and higher LDH, actually were the ones that were either showing no response at 3 months or had lost their response by the 3-month assessment point,” Dr Saddiqi explained.

And in patients with higher baseline tumor burden and inflammatory cytokine levels, JCAR017 T-cell expansion trended higher.

“Some were deemed to be super expanders because their CAR T-cell levels were very high in their blood,” she added.

The investigators created a preliminary logistic model based on the data that suggests a therapeutic window might be able to limit toxicity and optimize efficacy.

The model indicates that patients with higher tumor burden, higher LDH, and higher inflammatory state at baseline seem to be the ones who are having more CRS and more neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell infusion.

“They are expanding their cells much more, yet their responses at 3 months seem to be affected adversely by this entire situation,” Dr Saddiqi said.

"One explanation, potentially, could be that these CAR T cells are seeing a lot of antigen when they go into the body. They have the perfect cytokine milieu to grow, expand, and go crazy in the body, if you will, and very quickly peter out as well because there’s T-cell exhaustion that happens rather rapidly and clinical responses are then then lost.”

The investigators believe that if they can identify those patients ahead of time who may be at risk of too high expansion or too low expansion of their CAR T cells, they may be able to find strategies to push expansion into the “sweet spot of CAR T-cell expansion and ultimately get the holy grail of having durable responses for all with minimal toxicity,” Dr Saddiqi concluded.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Saddiqi has served on a steering committee for JCAR017.

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

© Scott Morgan 2017

ATLANTA—Data suggest a therapeutic window may exist for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell expansion with JCAR017, according to a preliminary model.

In a core set of 67 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had received JCAR017 in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial, investigators observed that baseline high tumor burden and inflammatory biomarkers were associated with high CAR T-cell expansion and increased rates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.

If the model holds up, researchers say they could potentially identify patients at risk for low or high T-cell expansion levels and develop a strategy to enhance or limit the expansion.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 (NCT02631044) is a multicenter, phase 1 trial in relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma evaluating 2 dose levels of JCAR017, also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel for short.

Liso-cel is a CD19-directed 4-1BB CAR T cell administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. It had previously demonstrated high complete remission (CR) rates and low incidences of CRS and neurotoxicity.

Tanya Saddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, presented data from the dose-finding and expansion cohorts at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 193*).

Study design

Patients with DLBCL after 2 lines of prior therapy or mantle cell lymphoma after 1 prior line of therapy were eligible to enroll in TRANSCEND NHL 001.

Patients with de novo DLBCL, those who transformed from follicular lymphoma, or those with high-grade B-cell lymphoma made up the pivotal or core population. All DLBCL patients enrolled on the trial comprised the full population.

Patients were screened, enrolled, and underwent apheresis. Bridging therapy was permitted while their CAR T cells were being manufactured.

Patients then had a PET scan and lab tests prior to lymphodepletion.

“This is the time point of our interest,” Dr Saddiqi said, “to see if there are any patient characteristics or biomarkers that we can identify . . .  that could help us figure out which patients are at higher risk of toxicity, potentially.”

Lymphodepletion consisted of fludarabine (30 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m² for 3 days).

Patients received the JCAR017 infusion, and, at specific time points thereafter, cytokine, pharmacokinetic (PK), and clinical lab evaluations were conducted. PK evaluation and scans were performed every 3 months for the first year after JCAR017 infusion, and safety and viral vector follow-up for 15 years.

Dose levels were 5 x 10⁷ cells as a single or double dose (DL1S) and 1 x 10⁸ cells as a single dose (DL2S). Dose level 2 was chosen for further study, and double dosing was discontinued.

“Double dosing was actually not pursued further,” Dr Saddiqi explained, “because it did not seem to add any benefit over single dosing.”

At the time of the presentation, 91 total patients were treated, 67 of whom were the core population.

Results

Dr Saddiqi reported that patients treated with JCAR017 achieved a relatively high best overall response rate (ORR) and high durable CR rates.

“And this seems to be especially true for the core set of patients and particularly for patients at dose level 2,” she added.

At all dose levels, the core patients had a best ORR of 84% (41/49) and a CR rate of 61% (30/49).

At follow-up of 3 months or longer, the core group had an ORR of 65% (26/40) for all dose levels, 52% (11/21) for dose level 1, and 80% (12/15) for dose level 2.

The 3-month CR rate was 53% (21/40) for all dose levels in the core group, 33% (7/21) in dose level 1, and 73% (11/15) in dose level 2.

Dr Saddiqi noted that CRS and neurotoxicity did not differ by dose level or schedule, and there were no grade 5 events of CRS or neurotoxicity.

“Among the core group, dose level change did not add to their toxicity,” she said. “And so the question is: Is it patient factors, is it tumor factors? What is it that is actually causing the toxicities in these patients?”

Dr Saddiqi focused the presentation on patient factors.

Patient factors

The data showed that tumor burden and lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity.

Univariate analysis revealed that CRS and neurotoxicity were associated with a shorter time since diagnosis.

However, prior number of therapies, patient weight, and disease stage were not associated with CRS or neurotoxicity.

Investigators were able to identify preliminary risk boundaries. Core patients with high LDH levels (≥ 500 U/L) and sum of the products of diameters (SPD)  ≥ 50 cm² at baseline had an 8-fold increase in risk of CRS and neurotoxicity.

“Inversely, if these patients did not meet the cutoff for LDH or SPD,” Dr Saddiqi pointed out, “if they were lower than that, they have significantly lower CRS and neurotoxicity events.”

Investigators also observed that baseline markers of inflammation and inflammatory cytokines trended higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity. For CRS, this includes ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNFα, and MIP-1β. For neurotoxicity, this includes ferritin, CRP, d-Dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNFα, and MIP-1α.

The team also observed that tumor burden, baseline markers of inflammation, and inflammatory cytokines trended lower in core patients with durable responses.

“Interestingly, it’s inversely true that patients who did have these higher levels [of inflammation markers], and higher tumor burden, and higher LDH, actually were the ones that were either showing no response at 3 months or had lost their response by the 3-month assessment point,” Dr Saddiqi explained.

And in patients with higher baseline tumor burden and inflammatory cytokine levels, JCAR017 T-cell expansion trended higher.

“Some were deemed to be super expanders because their CAR T-cell levels were very high in their blood,” she added.

The investigators created a preliminary logistic model based on the data that suggests a therapeutic window might be able to limit toxicity and optimize efficacy.

The model indicates that patients with higher tumor burden, higher LDH, and higher inflammatory state at baseline seem to be the ones who are having more CRS and more neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell infusion.

“They are expanding their cells much more, yet their responses at 3 months seem to be affected adversely by this entire situation,” Dr Saddiqi said.

"One explanation, potentially, could be that these CAR T cells are seeing a lot of antigen when they go into the body. They have the perfect cytokine milieu to grow, expand, and go crazy in the body, if you will, and very quickly peter out as well because there’s T-cell exhaustion that happens rather rapidly and clinical responses are then then lost.”

The investigators believe that if they can identify those patients ahead of time who may be at risk of too high expansion or too low expansion of their CAR T cells, they may be able to find strategies to push expansion into the “sweet spot of CAR T-cell expansion and ultimately get the holy grail of having durable responses for all with minimal toxicity,” Dr Saddiqi concluded.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Saddiqi has served on a steering committee for JCAR017.

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

© Scott Morgan 2017

ATLANTA—Data suggest a therapeutic window may exist for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell expansion with JCAR017, according to a preliminary model.

In a core set of 67 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had received JCAR017 in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial, investigators observed that baseline high tumor burden and inflammatory biomarkers were associated with high CAR T-cell expansion and increased rates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.

If the model holds up, researchers say they could potentially identify patients at risk for low or high T-cell expansion levels and develop a strategy to enhance or limit the expansion.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 (NCT02631044) is a multicenter, phase 1 trial in relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma evaluating 2 dose levels of JCAR017, also known as lisocabtagene maraleucel, or liso-cel for short.

Liso-cel is a CD19-directed 4-1BB CAR T cell administered at precise doses of CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells. It had previously demonstrated high complete remission (CR) rates and low incidences of CRS and neurotoxicity.

Tanya Saddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, presented data from the dose-finding and expansion cohorts at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 193*).

Study design

Patients with DLBCL after 2 lines of prior therapy or mantle cell lymphoma after 1 prior line of therapy were eligible to enroll in TRANSCEND NHL 001.

Patients with de novo DLBCL, those who transformed from follicular lymphoma, or those with high-grade B-cell lymphoma made up the pivotal or core population. All DLBCL patients enrolled on the trial comprised the full population.

Patients were screened, enrolled, and underwent apheresis. Bridging therapy was permitted while their CAR T cells were being manufactured.

Patients then had a PET scan and lab tests prior to lymphodepletion.

“This is the time point of our interest,” Dr Saddiqi said, “to see if there are any patient characteristics or biomarkers that we can identify . . .  that could help us figure out which patients are at higher risk of toxicity, potentially.”

Lymphodepletion consisted of fludarabine (30 mg/m²) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m² for 3 days).

Patients received the JCAR017 infusion, and, at specific time points thereafter, cytokine, pharmacokinetic (PK), and clinical lab evaluations were conducted. PK evaluation and scans were performed every 3 months for the first year after JCAR017 infusion, and safety and viral vector follow-up for 15 years.

Dose levels were 5 x 10⁷ cells as a single or double dose (DL1S) and 1 x 10⁸ cells as a single dose (DL2S). Dose level 2 was chosen for further study, and double dosing was discontinued.

“Double dosing was actually not pursued further,” Dr Saddiqi explained, “because it did not seem to add any benefit over single dosing.”

At the time of the presentation, 91 total patients were treated, 67 of whom were the core population.

Results

Dr Saddiqi reported that patients treated with JCAR017 achieved a relatively high best overall response rate (ORR) and high durable CR rates.

“And this seems to be especially true for the core set of patients and particularly for patients at dose level 2,” she added.

At all dose levels, the core patients had a best ORR of 84% (41/49) and a CR rate of 61% (30/49).

At follow-up of 3 months or longer, the core group had an ORR of 65% (26/40) for all dose levels, 52% (11/21) for dose level 1, and 80% (12/15) for dose level 2.

The 3-month CR rate was 53% (21/40) for all dose levels in the core group, 33% (7/21) in dose level 1, and 73% (11/15) in dose level 2.

Dr Saddiqi noted that CRS and neurotoxicity did not differ by dose level or schedule, and there were no grade 5 events of CRS or neurotoxicity.

“Among the core group, dose level change did not add to their toxicity,” she said. “And so the question is: Is it patient factors, is it tumor factors? What is it that is actually causing the toxicities in these patients?”

Dr Saddiqi focused the presentation on patient factors.

Patient factors

The data showed that tumor burden and lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity.

Univariate analysis revealed that CRS and neurotoxicity were associated with a shorter time since diagnosis.

However, prior number of therapies, patient weight, and disease stage were not associated with CRS or neurotoxicity.

Investigators were able to identify preliminary risk boundaries. Core patients with high LDH levels (≥ 500 U/L) and sum of the products of diameters (SPD)  ≥ 50 cm² at baseline had an 8-fold increase in risk of CRS and neurotoxicity.

“Inversely, if these patients did not meet the cutoff for LDH or SPD,” Dr Saddiqi pointed out, “if they were lower than that, they have significantly lower CRS and neurotoxicity events.”

Investigators also observed that baseline markers of inflammation and inflammatory cytokines trended higher in patients with CRS and neurotoxicity. For CRS, this includes ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-10, IL-15, IL-16, TNFα, and MIP-1β. For neurotoxicity, this includes ferritin, CRP, d-Dimer, IL-6, IL-15, TNFα, and MIP-1α.

The team also observed that tumor burden, baseline markers of inflammation, and inflammatory cytokines trended lower in core patients with durable responses.

“Interestingly, it’s inversely true that patients who did have these higher levels [of inflammation markers], and higher tumor burden, and higher LDH, actually were the ones that were either showing no response at 3 months or had lost their response by the 3-month assessment point,” Dr Saddiqi explained.

And in patients with higher baseline tumor burden and inflammatory cytokine levels, JCAR017 T-cell expansion trended higher.

“Some were deemed to be super expanders because their CAR T-cell levels were very high in their blood,” she added.

The investigators created a preliminary logistic model based on the data that suggests a therapeutic window might be able to limit toxicity and optimize efficacy.

The model indicates that patients with higher tumor burden, higher LDH, and higher inflammatory state at baseline seem to be the ones who are having more CRS and more neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell infusion.

“They are expanding their cells much more, yet their responses at 3 months seem to be affected adversely by this entire situation,” Dr Saddiqi said.

"One explanation, potentially, could be that these CAR T cells are seeing a lot of antigen when they go into the body. They have the perfect cytokine milieu to grow, expand, and go crazy in the body, if you will, and very quickly peter out as well because there’s T-cell exhaustion that happens rather rapidly and clinical responses are then then lost.”

The investigators believe that if they can identify those patients ahead of time who may be at risk of too high expansion or too low expansion of their CAR T cells, they may be able to find strategies to push expansion into the “sweet spot of CAR T-cell expansion and ultimately get the holy grail of having durable responses for all with minimal toxicity,” Dr Saddiqi concluded.

TRANSCEND NHL 001 is sponsored by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Saddiqi has served on a steering committee for JCAR017.

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

This past year will likely be remembered as one of breakthrough advances in reducing the burden of cancer, with some landmark “firsts” coming out of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among the notable approvals were the first CART [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] immunotherapies – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) for B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma; the first US-approved biosimilar for cancer, bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) for multiple types of cancer; and first-time approvals for neratinib (Nerlynx) as an extended adjuvant therapy for early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, and avelumab (Bavencio) for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. But our excitement about those advances will undoubtedly be tempered by the continued challenges in expanding access to better quality health care, piloting more effective payment models, and consolidating delivery systems.

Our excitement has also been tempered by the rapid rise in the cost of effective biologic, immunologic, and targeted therapies. With the approval of trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri), the first targeted biosimilar for HER2-positive breast and gastrointestinal cancers, we can look forward to price decreases possibly in the 20%-30% range over time from a targeted therapy with remarkable clinical efficacy. We know that approved biosimilars have demonstrated clinical efficacy along with similar minor biologic diversity that is also seen in the reference biologic.¹ We can also hope that increasing competition among biosimilar and reference compounds will lead to improvements in production methodologies that can allow further price reductions so that even more patients can gain access to these highly effective therapies.

In addition, the first FDA approval for the next-generation sequencing (NGS) FoundationOne profiling test and the rapid announcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that it will cover the cost of that testing brings us a step closer to knowing which patients most likely will or won’t benefit from costly and toxic targeted therapies. Along with the many clinical trials studying which mutations predict which efficacies of individual or combinations of targeted agents, the approval and CMS coverage policy will help us improve value to our patients; when we can recommend the most beneficial therapies and avoid futile ones.

Finally, the approval for the DigniCap Scalp Cooling System for patients on chemotherapy for all solid tumors is of great importance. Pending coverage availability, it may influence some patients to get chemotherapy they might otherwise have forgone to avoid hair loss (see related article).

More consolidation: the best of all worlds?

In my 27 years in private practice, during which practice revenues grew with the favorable profit margins on novel therapies, forward-thinking physician leaders piloted innovations in oncology electronic medical records (EMRs), the delivery of team-based care, clinical research partnerships, and more comprehensive care services to better serve diverse communities, including those in rural areas. At my previous practice, that included adding clinicians to our group to serve patients at hospital clinics in 2 counties in southern California, each county with populations larger than 15 states. Our private practice worked with these public entities to bring state-of-the art care and private practice efficiencies to the uninsured and underserved in our region.

Unfortunately, revenues plummeted with changes in reimbursement after passage of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 and they continue to destabilize and reduce the number of community practices across the country. Many oncologists and oncology practices, including mine, chose to join larger academic or hospital systems or larger oncology networks at a time they are also facing growing pressures to contain costs, focus on out-patient care, complex clinical trials, and expanded access to care.

Although we may lament the shrinking landscape of private oncology practices, we can also be inspired by the physicians who have joined ranks with the better-funded, better-resourced, more traditional hospital and academic systems. These larger systems have more resources, more clincial trial offerings, staffing, technology, and analytics to expand value-based care initiatives to larger numbers of patients.

The hub-and-spoke models of oncology care with integrated networks linked by technology, and networked into larger analytic and decision support systems such as CancerLinQ, the health information technology program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO),² could facilitate documentable delivery of comprehensive, evidence-based care, moving us closer to meeting the Quadruple Aim of optimal health care: improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction); improving the health of populations; reducing the per capita cost of health care; and improving the work life of those who deliver care.^3,4

Payment reform: working to align incentives

Everyone seems to agree that the fee-for-service payment models do not align incentives for improving total health outcomes at the lowest costs, but at the moment, there seems to be no best way of aligning them. Robinson has reported on the oncology payment initiatives at four major health insurance plans – Medicare (public) and Anthem, Aetna, and UnitedHealthcare (all private), noting that:⁵

• Medicare is testing its Oncology Care Model at more than 200 sites in the United States, and early data are expected to be released in 2018.
• Anthem continues with its Cancer Care Quality Program that includes adherence to 2 key requirements: that participants are compliant with Anthem-approved drug pathways, and that they register their patients at the insurer’s oncology website and enter their clinical data. Anthem is also considering expanding the management fee for certain high priority clinical trials.
• Aetna’s Oncology Solutions takes a different approach by providing increased payments for generic chemotherapies.
• United has eliminated the mark-up for new drugs and continues to mark up the prices of the older and generic therapies. Its episode-based pricing gives practices upfront payments based on expected drug margins so that practices can fund more comprehensive evidence-based care. In a presentation at a Washington State Medical Oncology Society meeting recently, United’s Lee Newcomer, reported that the insurer continues to see improved clinical and financial outcomes as well as encouraging early data showing that patients might do better in the real-world setting on some therapies that have not been fully compared in head-to-head randomized clinical trials.^6,7

ASCO is pulling these ideas together at the national level with its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model, which is similar to Medicare’s alternative payment model. The PCOP model focuses on high-value, quality care. Higher upfront payments would cover the additional diagnostic services, care planning, and management to improve compliance and adherence as well as clinical trial evaluations. The model was developed and vetted by the ASCO Clinical Practice Committee and practicing oncologists, and is supported by staff and consultants. It is currently in its second year of operation with a commercial payer and will be submitted for review to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee of the Health and Human Services. The results of the review are expected in 2018. If the model is approved, it could provide a uniform approach for payers that would align incentives for high-quality cancer care and allow for better predictive modeling for practices, irrespective of size, to invest in infrastructure and staffing to meet the growing demand for high-quality, value-based cancer care.

Better science: the promise of more cures

The FDA approved a record number drugs and biologics in 2017 for various cancers,⁸ including the landmark approval of the first CART therapy for cancer, tisagenlecleucel, which targets CD19 on B cells in the treatment of acute leukemia. That approval was rapidly followed by a second anti-CD19 CART therapy, axicabtagene ciloluecel, for refractory, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.^9,10 Although these therapies can achieve remarkable response and even complete response rates in otherwise refractory patients, only some achieve a long-term remission, and the costs are an order of magnitude above most other cancer therapies. That raises the question of what duration of benefit we should expect for treatments that cost in the range of $500,000 for the therapy alone, along with the additional costs for care, hospitalization, monitoring, expensive biologics (eg, tocilizumab, for the severe and potentially life-threatening cytokine-release syndrome associated with CART therapies), and significant neurologic and other therapy-related toxicities.

Novel arrangements between pharmaceutical companies and payers are currently being discussed so that only patients who meet specific response criteria would be charged for the therapy. In addition, we await findings from ongoing research to see if new approaches can find specific targetable sites on solid tumors that could spare the healthy organ tissues while eliminating highly resistant or heterogeneous populations of mutations in patients with advanced solid tumors. Such development of highly specific targets for CART therapies would improve their efficacy and safety, and with defined protocols in place to address toxicities and efforts to reduce the costs of the therapies, we can hopefully ensure broader access for patients to this potentially transformative therapeutic tool.

In addition to the excitement around the CART therapies, many of the years other new approvals will bring incremental but meaningful improvement in outcomes for patients with common cancers. The approval of neratinib, the first agent approved as extended adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer, is welcome, given the current 30% recurrence risk that extends past 10 years for women in that disease population who have completed standard adjuvant HER2-directed therapies. The 34% reduction in recurrence risk with a year of extended oral adjuvant therapy, as reported by Martin and colleagues,¹¹ with benefits sustained out to 5 years and with controllable diarrhea as the major toxicity, are encouraging. This oral therapy may be especially beneficial for hormone-receptor–positive women in whom blocking the HER2/neu pathway may enhance cell signaling through the hormone pathways, which can be blocked with oral agents at the same time to provide significant reduction of recurrence risk.

Diagnostics

The concept of personalized medicine is based on identifying biomarkers that are predictive of a patient’s response to treatment. There has been much progress toward applying NGS of tumors for use in the clinic, but we are still awaiting evidence from randomized clinical trials that such approaches prolong overall or progression-free survival.¹² Dr Julie Lange, an associate professor of clinical surgery and director of the Breast Cancer Program at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, provided me with the references to key studies in this field in which she is a leading researcher.¹³ However, she pointed out that in the absence of effective therapies, advanced biomarker testing may be less helpful, as is the case in heavily pretreated patients,¹⁴ unless a molecular test can pinpoint a potentially clinically actionable mutation. With the plethora of available assays and the high costs of molecular testing, clinicians are challenged in knowing what testing is best for which patients. Findings from a number of key ongoing national trials may eventually help us understand which tumor mutations in which tumor types can be most effectively targeted when multiple targetable mutations are found (TAPUR,¹⁵ MATCH,¹⁶ and QUILT¹⁷ and other basket trials¹⁸). The complexity of molecular testing has led to the development of institutional, trial-based, or co-operative group molecular tumor boards to provide guidance on specific targeted therapies for specific tumor mutations.

ASCO has launched a monthly series called Molecular Oncology Tumor Boards¹⁹ to expand the knowledge base in this field. It is presented as user-driven discussions designed to help providers integrate the use of the new genetic and genomic tests and their results into the day-to-day clinical care of patients with cancer.²⁰

Liquid biopsies

As busy clinicians, we need to understand the differences in liquid biopsy tests and their correlation with actionable targets, especially given the rapid progress in this field. Again, Dr Lange offered clarity on those differences. Liquid biopsy, refers to using a blood draw to isolate circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to assess tumor biomarkers.²¹ Both CTCs and ctDNA tests have been shown to be prognostic of worse survival.^22-24 Liquid biopsies are currently supplemental to direct tumor biopsies, not replacements for them. The theoretical advantage of liquid biopsies is that they may reflect tumor heterogeneity by examining the repertoire of mutations contributed by diverse metastatic sites that shed CTCs or ctDNA into the circulation. The question is which type of testing can best inform therapy decisions.

Assays for ctDNA using droplet digital PCR [polymerase chain reaction], a digital PCR method based on water-oil emulsion droplet technology, require a priori knowledge of the specific mutation associated with response or lack of response to a specific therapy.^25,26 Technical issues related to the detection of rare alleles present within a mixed population of leukocytes, and ctDNA remains a challenge for many ctDNA assays. However, there is evidence to suggest that whole-exome sequencing of ctDNA is concordant with mutations in metastases,²⁷ however benchmarking ctDNA against tissue biopsies of metastases was not possible in all studies because tumor blocks were not available or because of the failure of tumor NGS assays. ^28,29

Newer generations of CTC assays take advantage of the circulating tumor cell as a functional assay for mutational status, gene expression, proteomics, epigenetics, and/or chemosensitivity of cultured cells. The relationship between CTCs and ctDNA remains uncertain as to whether CTCs are the cell of origin for ctDNA or if ctDNA may reflect responding or resistant tumor populations. The use of NGS on tumor specimens, ctDNA, and CTCs as a discovery tool is advancing the field by improving the understanding of disease heterogeneity and potential treatment targets. These results require correlation with patterns of response to therapy, and ultimately require validation in randomized clinical trials to provide strong evidence justifying their use outside of clinical trials. We can look forward to a time in the not distant future when specific liquid biopsy assays will reflect the array of mutations in different metastatic sites with validation that they correlate with efficacy of targeting those mutations that have targetable therapies.

From the FDA

New approvals

• Trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri, Mylan; Dec 1) was approved as a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech) for the treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing breast or metastatic stomach cancer (gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma).
• Sunitinib malate (Sutent, Pfizer; Nov 16) was approved for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.
• Obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Genentech; Nov 16) received regular approval in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy in patients achieving partial remission, for adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III, or IV follicular lymphoma.
• Emicizumab-kxwh (Hemlibra, Genentech; Nov 16) was approved for routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes in adult and pediatric patients with hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.
• Dasatinib (Sprycel, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Nov 9) was approved for the treatment of pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase.
• Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris, Seattle Genetics; Nov 9) for the treatment of previously treated adult patients with primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides.
• Alectinib (Alecensa, Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; Nov 6) was approved for treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Vemurafenib (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-La Roche; Nov 6) received approval for the treatment of Acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca/Acerta; Oct 31) was granted accelerated approval for treatment of adult patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have received at least one previous therapy.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta, Kite; Oct 18), a CART therapy, was approved for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma. The complete remission rate reviewed by the FDA for trial patients was 51%.³⁰ It was the second CART therapy this year to receive approval (see tisagenlecleucel; Aug 30). The agency granted orphan drug designation and priority review to therapy for this indication.
• Abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly; Sep 28) was approved in combination with fulvestrant for women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy.
• Copanlisib (Aliqopa, Bayer; Sep 14) got accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
• Bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi, Amgen; Sep 14) was approved as a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) for treating multiple types of cancer. It was the first biosimilar approved in the US for the treatment of cancer.
• Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg, Pfizer; Sep 1) was approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults and of relapsed/refractory CD33-positive AML in adults and pediatric patients aged 2 or older. It can be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine for adults with newly diagnosed AML, or as a standalone treatment for certain adult and pediatric patients. The drug was originally approved in 2000 as a standalone treatment for CD33-positive AML in patients older than 60 years, but was withdrawn in 2010 because of safety concerns and postmarketing trials could not confirm benefit. The current approval is for a lower recommended dose and schedule.³¹
• Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah, Novartis; Aug 30) was approved for the treatment of patients up to age 25 years with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory or in second or later relapse. It is the first CART immunotherapy approved by the agency.
• Inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa, Wyeth; Aug 17) was approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL.
• A liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine (Vyxeos, Jazz; Aug 3) was approved for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), two types of AML having a poor prognosis.
• Enasidenib (Idhifa, Celgene; Aug 1) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma; Jul 17) was approved as the first extended adjuvant therapy for adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, to follow adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
• Blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen; Jul 11) was approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults and children.
• L-glutamine oral powder (Endari, Emmaus; Jul 7) was approved for oral administration to reduce the acute complications of sickle cell disease in adult and pediatric patients 5 years and older.
• Betrixaban (Bevyxxa, Portola; Jun 23) was approved for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness who are at risk for thromboembolic complications because of moderate or severe restricted mobility and other risk factors for VTE.
• The combination of rituximab and hyaluronidase human (Rituxan Hycela, Genentech; Jun 22) was approved for adult patients with follicular lymphoma, DLBCL, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Hyaluronidase human is an enzyme that helps deliver the rituximab. This formulation allows subcutaneous administration of the combination, which will shorten patient visit times and potentially even allow at-home therapy delivery.
• Ceritinib (Zykadia, Novartis; May 26) was approved for patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono; May 9) got accelerated approval for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Durvalumab (ImfinzI, AstraZeneca; May 1) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Brigatinib (Alunbrig tablets, Takeda through Ariad; Apr 28) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib.
• Midostaurin (Rydapt, Novartis; Apr 28) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed AML who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test, in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction and cytarabine consolidation.
• Osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca; Mar 30) got regular approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive NSCLC, as detected by an FDA-approved test, whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy.
• Niraparib (Zejula, Tesaro; Mar 27), a poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, was approved for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Avelumab (Mar 23), a PD-L1–blocking human IgG1 lambda monoclonal antibody, got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. It is the first FDA-approved product to treat this type of cancer.
• Ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis; Mar 13), a CDK4/6 inhibitor, was approved as a breakthrough therapy after priority review for use in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine-based therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Expanded/additional indications

• Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients previously treated with sorafenib.
• Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• DigniCap Scalp Cooling System (Dignitana Inc; Jul 3) was cleared for expanded use for reducing hair loss during chemotherapy for all solid tumors. Marketing authorization for the cooling cap had been granted in 2015 for patients with breast cancer.
• Olaparib tablets (Lynparza, AstraZeneca; Aug 17) got approval for an expanded indication as maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, who are in a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Ibrutinib (Imbruvica, Pharmacyclics; Aug 2) got expanded indication approval for the treatment of adult patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy. It was the first FDA-approved therapy for the treatment of cGVHD. (Ibrutinib was previously approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma with 17p deletion, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, marginal zone lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma).
• Nivolumab (Aug 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Dabrafenib and trametinib (Tafinlar and Mekinist, Novartis; Jun 22) were approved for the expanded indication in combination for patients with metastatic NSCLC with BRAF V600E mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination demonstrated superior efficacy compared with dabrafenib alone (overall response rate: 61% and 27%, respectively).³²
• Pembrolizumab (May 23) got approved for expanded indication for adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic, MSI-H or dMMR solid tumors that have progressed after treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options or with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Pembrolizumab (May 18) got approval for expanded indication for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab (May 10) got accelerated expanded indication for use combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin for the treatment of patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.
• Regorafenib (Stivarga, Bayer; Apr 27) got an additional indication for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• Palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer; Mar 31) got an expanded indication that includes first-line therapy for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine based therapy in postmenopausal women.
• Pembrolizumab (Mar 15) got an accelerated additional indication approval for treatment of adult and pediatric patients with refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, or those who have relapsed after three or more previous lines of therapy.
• Lenalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene; Feb 22) got an additional indication as maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant.
• Nivolumab (Feb 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Modified use

• Cabazitaxel (Jevtana, Sanofi-Aventis; Sep 14) in combination with prednisone was approved at a lower dose of 20 mg/m² every 3 weeks for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It had been approved at 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks for this indication in 2010.

Tests/diagnostics

• Marketing approval was given to the FoundationOne CDx (Foundation Medicine; Nov 30), an NGS-based in vitro diagnostic to detect genetic mutations in 324 genes and 2 genomic signatures in any solid tumor type.
• Marketing approval was given to the Praxis Extended RAS Panel (Illumina; Jun 29), a next generation sequencing test to detect certain genetic mutations in RAS genes in tumor samples of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The test is used to aid in the identification of patients who may be eligible for treatment with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen).
• Marketing was approved for ipsogen JAK2 RGQ PCR Kit (Qiagen ; Mar 27) to detect mutations affecting the Janus tyrosine kinase 2 gene. This is the first FDA-authorized test intended to help physicians in evaluating patients for suspected polycythemia vera.

Imaging and pathology aids

• Aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride, known as ALA HCl (Gleolan, NX; Jun 6) was approved as an optical imaging agent indicated in patients with gliomas (suspected World Health Organization grades III or IV on preoperative imaging) as an adjunct for the visualization of malignant tissue during surgery.
• Marketing was approved for the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution (PIPS, Philips Medical Systems Nederland; Apr 17), as an aid to the pathologist to review and interpret digital images of surgical pathology slides prepared from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue.
   

Challenges and uncertainties

The current administration’s initiatives to reduce administrative burdens is underway with the Patients Over Paperwork initiative. Eliminating and streamlining regulations to increase efficiency and improve beneficiary experience could be helpful to both oncologists and patients. For now, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) program, allows you to “pick your pace” in the 2017 performance year and report on at least one measure to avoid a payment reduction penalty on your Medicare payments in 2019. In the final rule for 2018, the CMS finalized a proposal to apply the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System] adjustment to all Part B items and services, which will include Part B drugs. This would be unfair to oncologists who treat on the basis of evidence-based guidelines and pathways and have no control over the costs of the drugs they prescribe.

In addition, more requirements will be imposed in 2018 in a move toward full MACRA implementation. All four composite categories (Quality – 60% for 2017; Advancing Care Information (ACI, renamed from Meaningful Use) – 25% for 2017; Improvement Activities (IA) – 15% for 2017; and Cost – 0% for 2017, but weighted in the future) will be scored, including resource use (cost) at 10%. CMS will collect data to assess the total cost of care and the Medicare Spend per Beneficiary to assess use. Full program implementation, with cost being assessed at 30% of your score is expected in the 2019 performance year. ASCO’s clinical affairs and policy experts have studied the implications of Part B chemotherapy drugs being included in the cost component of the MIPS scoring and will continue advocating for policies that hold clinicians responsible only for the aspects of care they can control, such as providing high-quality care based on the patient’s disease, biomarkers, comorbidities, and preferences, and not the costs of the evidence-based therapies needed by patients.
 

Toward a better 2018 for ourselves and our patients

As an eternal optimist, I remain enthusiastic that despite the many challenges, we will find effective ways to bring standard as well as newer, cell-based and targeted therapies to our patients and cover the costs of highly effective therapies. I also remain hopeful that improving technological capabilities and payment reforms will be used by innovative clinical and administrative care teams to give clinicians more time to improve the care and health of patients while validating the methodologies so that real world data can help us further craft therapies to improve the health of each individual who needs our care. As we close this 15th year of our journal, we hope our presentations of practical science and implementation content has helped support your work while freeing some time for you to enjoy the journey. Our best wishes for a joyful holiday season celebrated with friends and family and the patients who entrust us to help them face and live beyond their cancer diagnoses.

This past year will likely be remembered as one of breakthrough advances in reducing the burden of cancer, with some landmark “firsts” coming out of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among the notable approvals were the first CART [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] immunotherapies – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) for B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma; the first US-approved biosimilar for cancer, bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) for multiple types of cancer; and first-time approvals for neratinib (Nerlynx) as an extended adjuvant therapy for early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, and avelumab (Bavencio) for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. But our excitement about those advances will undoubtedly be tempered by the continued challenges in expanding access to better quality health care, piloting more effective payment models, and consolidating delivery systems.

Our excitement has also been tempered by the rapid rise in the cost of effective biologic, immunologic, and targeted therapies. With the approval of trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri), the first targeted biosimilar for HER2-positive breast and gastrointestinal cancers, we can look forward to price decreases possibly in the 20%-30% range over time from a targeted therapy with remarkable clinical efficacy. We know that approved biosimilars have demonstrated clinical efficacy along with similar minor biologic diversity that is also seen in the reference biologic.¹ We can also hope that increasing competition among biosimilar and reference compounds will lead to improvements in production methodologies that can allow further price reductions so that even more patients can gain access to these highly effective therapies.

In addition, the first FDA approval for the next-generation sequencing (NGS) FoundationOne profiling test and the rapid announcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that it will cover the cost of that testing brings us a step closer to knowing which patients most likely will or won’t benefit from costly and toxic targeted therapies. Along with the many clinical trials studying which mutations predict which efficacies of individual or combinations of targeted agents, the approval and CMS coverage policy will help us improve value to our patients; when we can recommend the most beneficial therapies and avoid futile ones.

Finally, the approval for the DigniCap Scalp Cooling System for patients on chemotherapy for all solid tumors is of great importance. Pending coverage availability, it may influence some patients to get chemotherapy they might otherwise have forgone to avoid hair loss (see related article).

More consolidation: the best of all worlds?

In my 27 years in private practice, during which practice revenues grew with the favorable profit margins on novel therapies, forward-thinking physician leaders piloted innovations in oncology electronic medical records (EMRs), the delivery of team-based care, clinical research partnerships, and more comprehensive care services to better serve diverse communities, including those in rural areas. At my previous practice, that included adding clinicians to our group to serve patients at hospital clinics in 2 counties in southern California, each county with populations larger than 15 states. Our private practice worked with these public entities to bring state-of-the art care and private practice efficiencies to the uninsured and underserved in our region.

Unfortunately, revenues plummeted with changes in reimbursement after passage of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 and they continue to destabilize and reduce the number of community practices across the country. Many oncologists and oncology practices, including mine, chose to join larger academic or hospital systems or larger oncology networks at a time they are also facing growing pressures to contain costs, focus on out-patient care, complex clinical trials, and expanded access to care.

Although we may lament the shrinking landscape of private oncology practices, we can also be inspired by the physicians who have joined ranks with the better-funded, better-resourced, more traditional hospital and academic systems. These larger systems have more resources, more clincial trial offerings, staffing, technology, and analytics to expand value-based care initiatives to larger numbers of patients.

The hub-and-spoke models of oncology care with integrated networks linked by technology, and networked into larger analytic and decision support systems such as CancerLinQ, the health information technology program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO),² could facilitate documentable delivery of comprehensive, evidence-based care, moving us closer to meeting the Quadruple Aim of optimal health care: improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction); improving the health of populations; reducing the per capita cost of health care; and improving the work life of those who deliver care.^3,4

Payment reform: working to align incentives

Everyone seems to agree that the fee-for-service payment models do not align incentives for improving total health outcomes at the lowest costs, but at the moment, there seems to be no best way of aligning them. Robinson has reported on the oncology payment initiatives at four major health insurance plans – Medicare (public) and Anthem, Aetna, and UnitedHealthcare (all private), noting that:⁵

• Medicare is testing its Oncology Care Model at more than 200 sites in the United States, and early data are expected to be released in 2018.
• Anthem continues with its Cancer Care Quality Program that includes adherence to 2 key requirements: that participants are compliant with Anthem-approved drug pathways, and that they register their patients at the insurer’s oncology website and enter their clinical data. Anthem is also considering expanding the management fee for certain high priority clinical trials.
• Aetna’s Oncology Solutions takes a different approach by providing increased payments for generic chemotherapies.
• United has eliminated the mark-up for new drugs and continues to mark up the prices of the older and generic therapies. Its episode-based pricing gives practices upfront payments based on expected drug margins so that practices can fund more comprehensive evidence-based care. In a presentation at a Washington State Medical Oncology Society meeting recently, United’s Lee Newcomer, reported that the insurer continues to see improved clinical and financial outcomes as well as encouraging early data showing that patients might do better in the real-world setting on some therapies that have not been fully compared in head-to-head randomized clinical trials.^6,7

ASCO is pulling these ideas together at the national level with its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model, which is similar to Medicare’s alternative payment model. The PCOP model focuses on high-value, quality care. Higher upfront payments would cover the additional diagnostic services, care planning, and management to improve compliance and adherence as well as clinical trial evaluations. The model was developed and vetted by the ASCO Clinical Practice Committee and practicing oncologists, and is supported by staff and consultants. It is currently in its second year of operation with a commercial payer and will be submitted for review to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee of the Health and Human Services. The results of the review are expected in 2018. If the model is approved, it could provide a uniform approach for payers that would align incentives for high-quality cancer care and allow for better predictive modeling for practices, irrespective of size, to invest in infrastructure and staffing to meet the growing demand for high-quality, value-based cancer care.

Better science: the promise of more cures

The FDA approved a record number drugs and biologics in 2017 for various cancers,⁸ including the landmark approval of the first CART therapy for cancer, tisagenlecleucel, which targets CD19 on B cells in the treatment of acute leukemia. That approval was rapidly followed by a second anti-CD19 CART therapy, axicabtagene ciloluecel, for refractory, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.^9,10 Although these therapies can achieve remarkable response and even complete response rates in otherwise refractory patients, only some achieve a long-term remission, and the costs are an order of magnitude above most other cancer therapies. That raises the question of what duration of benefit we should expect for treatments that cost in the range of $500,000 for the therapy alone, along with the additional costs for care, hospitalization, monitoring, expensive biologics (eg, tocilizumab, for the severe and potentially life-threatening cytokine-release syndrome associated with CART therapies), and significant neurologic and other therapy-related toxicities.

Novel arrangements between pharmaceutical companies and payers are currently being discussed so that only patients who meet specific response criteria would be charged for the therapy. In addition, we await findings from ongoing research to see if new approaches can find specific targetable sites on solid tumors that could spare the healthy organ tissues while eliminating highly resistant or heterogeneous populations of mutations in patients with advanced solid tumors. Such development of highly specific targets for CART therapies would improve their efficacy and safety, and with defined protocols in place to address toxicities and efforts to reduce the costs of the therapies, we can hopefully ensure broader access for patients to this potentially transformative therapeutic tool.

In addition to the excitement around the CART therapies, many of the years other new approvals will bring incremental but meaningful improvement in outcomes for patients with common cancers. The approval of neratinib, the first agent approved as extended adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer, is welcome, given the current 30% recurrence risk that extends past 10 years for women in that disease population who have completed standard adjuvant HER2-directed therapies. The 34% reduction in recurrence risk with a year of extended oral adjuvant therapy, as reported by Martin and colleagues,¹¹ with benefits sustained out to 5 years and with controllable diarrhea as the major toxicity, are encouraging. This oral therapy may be especially beneficial for hormone-receptor–positive women in whom blocking the HER2/neu pathway may enhance cell signaling through the hormone pathways, which can be blocked with oral agents at the same time to provide significant reduction of recurrence risk.

Diagnostics

The concept of personalized medicine is based on identifying biomarkers that are predictive of a patient’s response to treatment. There has been much progress toward applying NGS of tumors for use in the clinic, but we are still awaiting evidence from randomized clinical trials that such approaches prolong overall or progression-free survival.¹² Dr Julie Lange, an associate professor of clinical surgery and director of the Breast Cancer Program at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, provided me with the references to key studies in this field in which she is a leading researcher.¹³ However, she pointed out that in the absence of effective therapies, advanced biomarker testing may be less helpful, as is the case in heavily pretreated patients,¹⁴ unless a molecular test can pinpoint a potentially clinically actionable mutation. With the plethora of available assays and the high costs of molecular testing, clinicians are challenged in knowing what testing is best for which patients. Findings from a number of key ongoing national trials may eventually help us understand which tumor mutations in which tumor types can be most effectively targeted when multiple targetable mutations are found (TAPUR,¹⁵ MATCH,¹⁶ and QUILT¹⁷ and other basket trials¹⁸). The complexity of molecular testing has led to the development of institutional, trial-based, or co-operative group molecular tumor boards to provide guidance on specific targeted therapies for specific tumor mutations.

ASCO has launched a monthly series called Molecular Oncology Tumor Boards¹⁹ to expand the knowledge base in this field. It is presented as user-driven discussions designed to help providers integrate the use of the new genetic and genomic tests and their results into the day-to-day clinical care of patients with cancer.²⁰

Liquid biopsies

As busy clinicians, we need to understand the differences in liquid biopsy tests and their correlation with actionable targets, especially given the rapid progress in this field. Again, Dr Lange offered clarity on those differences. Liquid biopsy, refers to using a blood draw to isolate circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to assess tumor biomarkers.²¹ Both CTCs and ctDNA tests have been shown to be prognostic of worse survival.^22-24 Liquid biopsies are currently supplemental to direct tumor biopsies, not replacements for them. The theoretical advantage of liquid biopsies is that they may reflect tumor heterogeneity by examining the repertoire of mutations contributed by diverse metastatic sites that shed CTCs or ctDNA into the circulation. The question is which type of testing can best inform therapy decisions.

Assays for ctDNA using droplet digital PCR [polymerase chain reaction], a digital PCR method based on water-oil emulsion droplet technology, require a priori knowledge of the specific mutation associated with response or lack of response to a specific therapy.^25,26 Technical issues related to the detection of rare alleles present within a mixed population of leukocytes, and ctDNA remains a challenge for many ctDNA assays. However, there is evidence to suggest that whole-exome sequencing of ctDNA is concordant with mutations in metastases,²⁷ however benchmarking ctDNA against tissue biopsies of metastases was not possible in all studies because tumor blocks were not available or because of the failure of tumor NGS assays. ^28,29

Newer generations of CTC assays take advantage of the circulating tumor cell as a functional assay for mutational status, gene expression, proteomics, epigenetics, and/or chemosensitivity of cultured cells. The relationship between CTCs and ctDNA remains uncertain as to whether CTCs are the cell of origin for ctDNA or if ctDNA may reflect responding or resistant tumor populations. The use of NGS on tumor specimens, ctDNA, and CTCs as a discovery tool is advancing the field by improving the understanding of disease heterogeneity and potential treatment targets. These results require correlation with patterns of response to therapy, and ultimately require validation in randomized clinical trials to provide strong evidence justifying their use outside of clinical trials. We can look forward to a time in the not distant future when specific liquid biopsy assays will reflect the array of mutations in different metastatic sites with validation that they correlate with efficacy of targeting those mutations that have targetable therapies.

From the FDA

New approvals

• Trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri, Mylan; Dec 1) was approved as a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech) for the treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing breast or metastatic stomach cancer (gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma).
• Sunitinib malate (Sutent, Pfizer; Nov 16) was approved for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.
• Obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Genentech; Nov 16) received regular approval in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy in patients achieving partial remission, for adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III, or IV follicular lymphoma.
• Emicizumab-kxwh (Hemlibra, Genentech; Nov 16) was approved for routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes in adult and pediatric patients with hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.
• Dasatinib (Sprycel, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Nov 9) was approved for the treatment of pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase.
• Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris, Seattle Genetics; Nov 9) for the treatment of previously treated adult patients with primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides.
• Alectinib (Alecensa, Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; Nov 6) was approved for treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Vemurafenib (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-La Roche; Nov 6) received approval for the treatment of Acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca/Acerta; Oct 31) was granted accelerated approval for treatment of adult patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have received at least one previous therapy.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta, Kite; Oct 18), a CART therapy, was approved for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma. The complete remission rate reviewed by the FDA for trial patients was 51%.³⁰ It was the second CART therapy this year to receive approval (see tisagenlecleucel; Aug 30). The agency granted orphan drug designation and priority review to therapy for this indication.
• Abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly; Sep 28) was approved in combination with fulvestrant for women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy.
• Copanlisib (Aliqopa, Bayer; Sep 14) got accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
• Bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi, Amgen; Sep 14) was approved as a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) for treating multiple types of cancer. It was the first biosimilar approved in the US for the treatment of cancer.
• Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg, Pfizer; Sep 1) was approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults and of relapsed/refractory CD33-positive AML in adults and pediatric patients aged 2 or older. It can be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine for adults with newly diagnosed AML, or as a standalone treatment for certain adult and pediatric patients. The drug was originally approved in 2000 as a standalone treatment for CD33-positive AML in patients older than 60 years, but was withdrawn in 2010 because of safety concerns and postmarketing trials could not confirm benefit. The current approval is for a lower recommended dose and schedule.³¹
• Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah, Novartis; Aug 30) was approved for the treatment of patients up to age 25 years with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory or in second or later relapse. It is the first CART immunotherapy approved by the agency.
• Inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa, Wyeth; Aug 17) was approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL.
• A liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine (Vyxeos, Jazz; Aug 3) was approved for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), two types of AML having a poor prognosis.
• Enasidenib (Idhifa, Celgene; Aug 1) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma; Jul 17) was approved as the first extended adjuvant therapy for adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, to follow adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
• Blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen; Jul 11) was approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults and children.
• L-glutamine oral powder (Endari, Emmaus; Jul 7) was approved for oral administration to reduce the acute complications of sickle cell disease in adult and pediatric patients 5 years and older.
• Betrixaban (Bevyxxa, Portola; Jun 23) was approved for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness who are at risk for thromboembolic complications because of moderate or severe restricted mobility and other risk factors for VTE.
• The combination of rituximab and hyaluronidase human (Rituxan Hycela, Genentech; Jun 22) was approved for adult patients with follicular lymphoma, DLBCL, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Hyaluronidase human is an enzyme that helps deliver the rituximab. This formulation allows subcutaneous administration of the combination, which will shorten patient visit times and potentially even allow at-home therapy delivery.
• Ceritinib (Zykadia, Novartis; May 26) was approved for patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono; May 9) got accelerated approval for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Durvalumab (ImfinzI, AstraZeneca; May 1) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Brigatinib (Alunbrig tablets, Takeda through Ariad; Apr 28) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib.
• Midostaurin (Rydapt, Novartis; Apr 28) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed AML who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test, in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction and cytarabine consolidation.
• Osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca; Mar 30) got regular approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive NSCLC, as detected by an FDA-approved test, whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy.
• Niraparib (Zejula, Tesaro; Mar 27), a poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, was approved for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Avelumab (Mar 23), a PD-L1–blocking human IgG1 lambda monoclonal antibody, got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. It is the first FDA-approved product to treat this type of cancer.
• Ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis; Mar 13), a CDK4/6 inhibitor, was approved as a breakthrough therapy after priority review for use in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine-based therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Expanded/additional indications

• Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients previously treated with sorafenib.
• Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• DigniCap Scalp Cooling System (Dignitana Inc; Jul 3) was cleared for expanded use for reducing hair loss during chemotherapy for all solid tumors. Marketing authorization for the cooling cap had been granted in 2015 for patients with breast cancer.
• Olaparib tablets (Lynparza, AstraZeneca; Aug 17) got approval for an expanded indication as maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, who are in a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Ibrutinib (Imbruvica, Pharmacyclics; Aug 2) got expanded indication approval for the treatment of adult patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy. It was the first FDA-approved therapy for the treatment of cGVHD. (Ibrutinib was previously approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma with 17p deletion, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, marginal zone lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma).
• Nivolumab (Aug 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Dabrafenib and trametinib (Tafinlar and Mekinist, Novartis; Jun 22) were approved for the expanded indication in combination for patients with metastatic NSCLC with BRAF V600E mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination demonstrated superior efficacy compared with dabrafenib alone (overall response rate: 61% and 27%, respectively).³²
• Pembrolizumab (May 23) got approved for expanded indication for adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic, MSI-H or dMMR solid tumors that have progressed after treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options or with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Pembrolizumab (May 18) got approval for expanded indication for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab (May 10) got accelerated expanded indication for use combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin for the treatment of patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.
• Regorafenib (Stivarga, Bayer; Apr 27) got an additional indication for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• Palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer; Mar 31) got an expanded indication that includes first-line therapy for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine based therapy in postmenopausal women.
• Pembrolizumab (Mar 15) got an accelerated additional indication approval for treatment of adult and pediatric patients with refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, or those who have relapsed after three or more previous lines of therapy.
• Lenalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene; Feb 22) got an additional indication as maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant.
• Nivolumab (Feb 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Modified use

• Cabazitaxel (Jevtana, Sanofi-Aventis; Sep 14) in combination with prednisone was approved at a lower dose of 20 mg/m² every 3 weeks for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It had been approved at 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks for this indication in 2010.

Tests/diagnostics

• Marketing approval was given to the FoundationOne CDx (Foundation Medicine; Nov 30), an NGS-based in vitro diagnostic to detect genetic mutations in 324 genes and 2 genomic signatures in any solid tumor type.
• Marketing approval was given to the Praxis Extended RAS Panel (Illumina; Jun 29), a next generation sequencing test to detect certain genetic mutations in RAS genes in tumor samples of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The test is used to aid in the identification of patients who may be eligible for treatment with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen).
• Marketing was approved for ipsogen JAK2 RGQ PCR Kit (Qiagen ; Mar 27) to detect mutations affecting the Janus tyrosine kinase 2 gene. This is the first FDA-authorized test intended to help physicians in evaluating patients for suspected polycythemia vera.

Imaging and pathology aids

• Aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride, known as ALA HCl (Gleolan, NX; Jun 6) was approved as an optical imaging agent indicated in patients with gliomas (suspected World Health Organization grades III or IV on preoperative imaging) as an adjunct for the visualization of malignant tissue during surgery.
• Marketing was approved for the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution (PIPS, Philips Medical Systems Nederland; Apr 17), as an aid to the pathologist to review and interpret digital images of surgical pathology slides prepared from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue.
   

Challenges and uncertainties

The current administration’s initiatives to reduce administrative burdens is underway with the Patients Over Paperwork initiative. Eliminating and streamlining regulations to increase efficiency and improve beneficiary experience could be helpful to both oncologists and patients. For now, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) program, allows you to “pick your pace” in the 2017 performance year and report on at least one measure to avoid a payment reduction penalty on your Medicare payments in 2019. In the final rule for 2018, the CMS finalized a proposal to apply the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System] adjustment to all Part B items and services, which will include Part B drugs. This would be unfair to oncologists who treat on the basis of evidence-based guidelines and pathways and have no control over the costs of the drugs they prescribe.

In addition, more requirements will be imposed in 2018 in a move toward full MACRA implementation. All four composite categories (Quality – 60% for 2017; Advancing Care Information (ACI, renamed from Meaningful Use) – 25% for 2017; Improvement Activities (IA) – 15% for 2017; and Cost – 0% for 2017, but weighted in the future) will be scored, including resource use (cost) at 10%. CMS will collect data to assess the total cost of care and the Medicare Spend per Beneficiary to assess use. Full program implementation, with cost being assessed at 30% of your score is expected in the 2019 performance year. ASCO’s clinical affairs and policy experts have studied the implications of Part B chemotherapy drugs being included in the cost component of the MIPS scoring and will continue advocating for policies that hold clinicians responsible only for the aspects of care they can control, such as providing high-quality care based on the patient’s disease, biomarkers, comorbidities, and preferences, and not the costs of the evidence-based therapies needed by patients.
 

Toward a better 2018 for ourselves and our patients

As an eternal optimist, I remain enthusiastic that despite the many challenges, we will find effective ways to bring standard as well as newer, cell-based and targeted therapies to our patients and cover the costs of highly effective therapies. I also remain hopeful that improving technological capabilities and payment reforms will be used by innovative clinical and administrative care teams to give clinicians more time to improve the care and health of patients while validating the methodologies so that real world data can help us further craft therapies to improve the health of each individual who needs our care. As we close this 15th year of our journal, we hope our presentations of practical science and implementation content has helped support your work while freeing some time for you to enjoy the journey. Our best wishes for a joyful holiday season celebrated with friends and family and the patients who entrust us to help them face and live beyond their cancer diagnoses.

This past year will likely be remembered as one of breakthrough advances in reducing the burden of cancer, with some landmark “firsts” coming out of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among the notable approvals were the first CART [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] immunotherapies – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) for B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma; the first US-approved biosimilar for cancer, bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) for multiple types of cancer; and first-time approvals for neratinib (Nerlynx) as an extended adjuvant therapy for early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, and avelumab (Bavencio) for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. But our excitement about those advances will undoubtedly be tempered by the continued challenges in expanding access to better quality health care, piloting more effective payment models, and consolidating delivery systems.

Our excitement has also been tempered by the rapid rise in the cost of effective biologic, immunologic, and targeted therapies. With the approval of trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri), the first targeted biosimilar for HER2-positive breast and gastrointestinal cancers, we can look forward to price decreases possibly in the 20%-30% range over time from a targeted therapy with remarkable clinical efficacy. We know that approved biosimilars have demonstrated clinical efficacy along with similar minor biologic diversity that is also seen in the reference biologic.¹ We can also hope that increasing competition among biosimilar and reference compounds will lead to improvements in production methodologies that can allow further price reductions so that even more patients can gain access to these highly effective therapies.

In addition, the first FDA approval for the next-generation sequencing (NGS) FoundationOne profiling test and the rapid announcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that it will cover the cost of that testing brings us a step closer to knowing which patients most likely will or won’t benefit from costly and toxic targeted therapies. Along with the many clinical trials studying which mutations predict which efficacies of individual or combinations of targeted agents, the approval and CMS coverage policy will help us improve value to our patients; when we can recommend the most beneficial therapies and avoid futile ones.

Finally, the approval for the DigniCap Scalp Cooling System for patients on chemotherapy for all solid tumors is of great importance. Pending coverage availability, it may influence some patients to get chemotherapy they might otherwise have forgone to avoid hair loss (see related article).

More consolidation: the best of all worlds?

In my 27 years in private practice, during which practice revenues grew with the favorable profit margins on novel therapies, forward-thinking physician leaders piloted innovations in oncology electronic medical records (EMRs), the delivery of team-based care, clinical research partnerships, and more comprehensive care services to better serve diverse communities, including those in rural areas. At my previous practice, that included adding clinicians to our group to serve patients at hospital clinics in 2 counties in southern California, each county with populations larger than 15 states. Our private practice worked with these public entities to bring state-of-the art care and private practice efficiencies to the uninsured and underserved in our region.

Unfortunately, revenues plummeted with changes in reimbursement after passage of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 and they continue to destabilize and reduce the number of community practices across the country. Many oncologists and oncology practices, including mine, chose to join larger academic or hospital systems or larger oncology networks at a time they are also facing growing pressures to contain costs, focus on out-patient care, complex clinical trials, and expanded access to care.

Although we may lament the shrinking landscape of private oncology practices, we can also be inspired by the physicians who have joined ranks with the better-funded, better-resourced, more traditional hospital and academic systems. These larger systems have more resources, more clincial trial offerings, staffing, technology, and analytics to expand value-based care initiatives to larger numbers of patients.

The hub-and-spoke models of oncology care with integrated networks linked by technology, and networked into larger analytic and decision support systems such as CancerLinQ, the health information technology program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO),² could facilitate documentable delivery of comprehensive, evidence-based care, moving us closer to meeting the Quadruple Aim of optimal health care: improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction); improving the health of populations; reducing the per capita cost of health care; and improving the work life of those who deliver care.^3,4

Payment reform: working to align incentives

Everyone seems to agree that the fee-for-service payment models do not align incentives for improving total health outcomes at the lowest costs, but at the moment, there seems to be no best way of aligning them. Robinson has reported on the oncology payment initiatives at four major health insurance plans – Medicare (public) and Anthem, Aetna, and UnitedHealthcare (all private), noting that:⁵

• Medicare is testing its Oncology Care Model at more than 200 sites in the United States, and early data are expected to be released in 2018.
• Anthem continues with its Cancer Care Quality Program that includes adherence to 2 key requirements: that participants are compliant with Anthem-approved drug pathways, and that they register their patients at the insurer’s oncology website and enter their clinical data. Anthem is also considering expanding the management fee for certain high priority clinical trials.
• Aetna’s Oncology Solutions takes a different approach by providing increased payments for generic chemotherapies.
• United has eliminated the mark-up for new drugs and continues to mark up the prices of the older and generic therapies. Its episode-based pricing gives practices upfront payments based on expected drug margins so that practices can fund more comprehensive evidence-based care. In a presentation at a Washington State Medical Oncology Society meeting recently, United’s Lee Newcomer, reported that the insurer continues to see improved clinical and financial outcomes as well as encouraging early data showing that patients might do better in the real-world setting on some therapies that have not been fully compared in head-to-head randomized clinical trials.^6,7

ASCO is pulling these ideas together at the national level with its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model, which is similar to Medicare’s alternative payment model. The PCOP model focuses on high-value, quality care. Higher upfront payments would cover the additional diagnostic services, care planning, and management to improve compliance and adherence as well as clinical trial evaluations. The model was developed and vetted by the ASCO Clinical Practice Committee and practicing oncologists, and is supported by staff and consultants. It is currently in its second year of operation with a commercial payer and will be submitted for review to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee of the Health and Human Services. The results of the review are expected in 2018. If the model is approved, it could provide a uniform approach for payers that would align incentives for high-quality cancer care and allow for better predictive modeling for practices, irrespective of size, to invest in infrastructure and staffing to meet the growing demand for high-quality, value-based cancer care.

Better science: the promise of more cures

The FDA approved a record number drugs and biologics in 2017 for various cancers,⁸ including the landmark approval of the first CART therapy for cancer, tisagenlecleucel, which targets CD19 on B cells in the treatment of acute leukemia. That approval was rapidly followed by a second anti-CD19 CART therapy, axicabtagene ciloluecel, for refractory, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.^9,10 Although these therapies can achieve remarkable response and even complete response rates in otherwise refractory patients, only some achieve a long-term remission, and the costs are an order of magnitude above most other cancer therapies. That raises the question of what duration of benefit we should expect for treatments that cost in the range of $500,000 for the therapy alone, along with the additional costs for care, hospitalization, monitoring, expensive biologics (eg, tocilizumab, for the severe and potentially life-threatening cytokine-release syndrome associated with CART therapies), and significant neurologic and other therapy-related toxicities.

Novel arrangements between pharmaceutical companies and payers are currently being discussed so that only patients who meet specific response criteria would be charged for the therapy. In addition, we await findings from ongoing research to see if new approaches can find specific targetable sites on solid tumors that could spare the healthy organ tissues while eliminating highly resistant or heterogeneous populations of mutations in patients with advanced solid tumors. Such development of highly specific targets for CART therapies would improve their efficacy and safety, and with defined protocols in place to address toxicities and efforts to reduce the costs of the therapies, we can hopefully ensure broader access for patients to this potentially transformative therapeutic tool.

In addition to the excitement around the CART therapies, many of the years other new approvals will bring incremental but meaningful improvement in outcomes for patients with common cancers. The approval of neratinib, the first agent approved as extended adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer, is welcome, given the current 30% recurrence risk that extends past 10 years for women in that disease population who have completed standard adjuvant HER2-directed therapies. The 34% reduction in recurrence risk with a year of extended oral adjuvant therapy, as reported by Martin and colleagues,¹¹ with benefits sustained out to 5 years and with controllable diarrhea as the major toxicity, are encouraging. This oral therapy may be especially beneficial for hormone-receptor–positive women in whom blocking the HER2/neu pathway may enhance cell signaling through the hormone pathways, which can be blocked with oral agents at the same time to provide significant reduction of recurrence risk.

Diagnostics

The concept of personalized medicine is based on identifying biomarkers that are predictive of a patient’s response to treatment. There has been much progress toward applying NGS of tumors for use in the clinic, but we are still awaiting evidence from randomized clinical trials that such approaches prolong overall or progression-free survival.¹² Dr Julie Lange, an associate professor of clinical surgery and director of the Breast Cancer Program at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, provided me with the references to key studies in this field in which she is a leading researcher.¹³ However, she pointed out that in the absence of effective therapies, advanced biomarker testing may be less helpful, as is the case in heavily pretreated patients,¹⁴ unless a molecular test can pinpoint a potentially clinically actionable mutation. With the plethora of available assays and the high costs of molecular testing, clinicians are challenged in knowing what testing is best for which patients. Findings from a number of key ongoing national trials may eventually help us understand which tumor mutations in which tumor types can be most effectively targeted when multiple targetable mutations are found (TAPUR,¹⁵ MATCH,¹⁶ and QUILT¹⁷ and other basket trials¹⁸). The complexity of molecular testing has led to the development of institutional, trial-based, or co-operative group molecular tumor boards to provide guidance on specific targeted therapies for specific tumor mutations.

ASCO has launched a monthly series called Molecular Oncology Tumor Boards¹⁹ to expand the knowledge base in this field. It is presented as user-driven discussions designed to help providers integrate the use of the new genetic and genomic tests and their results into the day-to-day clinical care of patients with cancer.²⁰

Liquid biopsies

As busy clinicians, we need to understand the differences in liquid biopsy tests and their correlation with actionable targets, especially given the rapid progress in this field. Again, Dr Lange offered clarity on those differences. Liquid biopsy, refers to using a blood draw to isolate circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to assess tumor biomarkers.²¹ Both CTCs and ctDNA tests have been shown to be prognostic of worse survival.^22-24 Liquid biopsies are currently supplemental to direct tumor biopsies, not replacements for them. The theoretical advantage of liquid biopsies is that they may reflect tumor heterogeneity by examining the repertoire of mutations contributed by diverse metastatic sites that shed CTCs or ctDNA into the circulation. The question is which type of testing can best inform therapy decisions.

Assays for ctDNA using droplet digital PCR [polymerase chain reaction], a digital PCR method based on water-oil emulsion droplet technology, require a priori knowledge of the specific mutation associated with response or lack of response to a specific therapy.^25,26 Technical issues related to the detection of rare alleles present within a mixed population of leukocytes, and ctDNA remains a challenge for many ctDNA assays. However, there is evidence to suggest that whole-exome sequencing of ctDNA is concordant with mutations in metastases,²⁷ however benchmarking ctDNA against tissue biopsies of metastases was not possible in all studies because tumor blocks were not available or because of the failure of tumor NGS assays. ^28,29

Newer generations of CTC assays take advantage of the circulating tumor cell as a functional assay for mutational status, gene expression, proteomics, epigenetics, and/or chemosensitivity of cultured cells. The relationship between CTCs and ctDNA remains uncertain as to whether CTCs are the cell of origin for ctDNA or if ctDNA may reflect responding or resistant tumor populations. The use of NGS on tumor specimens, ctDNA, and CTCs as a discovery tool is advancing the field by improving the understanding of disease heterogeneity and potential treatment targets. These results require correlation with patterns of response to therapy, and ultimately require validation in randomized clinical trials to provide strong evidence justifying their use outside of clinical trials. We can look forward to a time in the not distant future when specific liquid biopsy assays will reflect the array of mutations in different metastatic sites with validation that they correlate with efficacy of targeting those mutations that have targetable therapies.

From the FDA

New approvals

• Trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri, Mylan; Dec 1) was approved as a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech) for the treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing breast or metastatic stomach cancer (gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma).
• Sunitinib malate (Sutent, Pfizer; Nov 16) was approved for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.
• Obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Genentech; Nov 16) received regular approval in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy in patients achieving partial remission, for adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III, or IV follicular lymphoma.
• Emicizumab-kxwh (Hemlibra, Genentech; Nov 16) was approved for routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes in adult and pediatric patients with hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.
• Dasatinib (Sprycel, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Nov 9) was approved for the treatment of pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase.
• Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris, Seattle Genetics; Nov 9) for the treatment of previously treated adult patients with primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides.
• Alectinib (Alecensa, Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; Nov 6) was approved for treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Vemurafenib (Zelboraf, Hoffmann-La Roche; Nov 6) received approval for the treatment of Acalabrutinib (Calquence, AstraZeneca/Acerta; Oct 31) was granted accelerated approval for treatment of adult patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have received at least one previous therapy.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta, Kite; Oct 18), a CART therapy, was approved for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma. The complete remission rate reviewed by the FDA for trial patients was 51%.³⁰ It was the second CART therapy this year to receive approval (see tisagenlecleucel; Aug 30). The agency granted orphan drug designation and priority review to therapy for this indication.
• Abemaciclib (Verzenio, Eli Lilly; Sep 28) was approved in combination with fulvestrant for women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy.
• Copanlisib (Aliqopa, Bayer; Sep 14) got accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
• Bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi, Amgen; Sep 14) was approved as a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) for treating multiple types of cancer. It was the first biosimilar approved in the US for the treatment of cancer.
• Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg, Pfizer; Sep 1) was approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults and of relapsed/refractory CD33-positive AML in adults and pediatric patients aged 2 or older. It can be used in combination with daunorubicin and cytarabine for adults with newly diagnosed AML, or as a standalone treatment for certain adult and pediatric patients. The drug was originally approved in 2000 as a standalone treatment for CD33-positive AML in patients older than 60 years, but was withdrawn in 2010 because of safety concerns and postmarketing trials could not confirm benefit. The current approval is for a lower recommended dose and schedule.³¹
• Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah, Novartis; Aug 30) was approved for the treatment of patients up to age 25 years with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory or in second or later relapse. It is the first CART immunotherapy approved by the agency.
• Inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa, Wyeth; Aug 17) was approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL.
• A liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine (Vyxeos, Jazz; Aug 3) was approved for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), two types of AML having a poor prognosis.
• Enasidenib (Idhifa, Celgene; Aug 1) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Neratinib (Nerlynx, Puma; Jul 17) was approved as the first extended adjuvant therapy for adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, to follow adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.
• Blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen; Jul 11) was approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults and children.
• L-glutamine oral powder (Endari, Emmaus; Jul 7) was approved for oral administration to reduce the acute complications of sickle cell disease in adult and pediatric patients 5 years and older.
• Betrixaban (Bevyxxa, Portola; Jun 23) was approved for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness who are at risk for thromboembolic complications because of moderate or severe restricted mobility and other risk factors for VTE.
• The combination of rituximab and hyaluronidase human (Rituxan Hycela, Genentech; Jun 22) was approved for adult patients with follicular lymphoma, DLBCL, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Hyaluronidase human is an enzyme that helps deliver the rituximab. This formulation allows subcutaneous administration of the combination, which will shorten patient visit times and potentially even allow at-home therapy delivery.
• Ceritinib (Zykadia, Novartis; May 26) was approved for patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive as detected by an FDA-approved test.
• Avelumab (Bavencio, EMD Serono; May 9) got accelerated approval for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Durvalumab (ImfinzI, AstraZeneca; May 1) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Brigatinib (Alunbrig tablets, Takeda through Ariad; Apr 28) got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib.
• Midostaurin (Rydapt, Novartis; Apr 28) was approved for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed AML who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test, in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction and cytarabine consolidation.
• Osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca; Mar 30) got regular approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive NSCLC, as detected by an FDA-approved test, whose disease has progressed on or after EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy.
• Niraparib (Zejula, Tesaro; Mar 27), a poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, was approved for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Avelumab (Mar 23), a PD-L1–blocking human IgG1 lambda monoclonal antibody, got accelerated approval for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. It is the first FDA-approved product to treat this type of cancer.
• Ribociclib (Kisqali, Novartis; Mar 13), a CDK4/6 inhibitor, was approved as a breakthrough therapy after priority review for use in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine-based therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Expanded/additional indications

• Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients previously treated with sorafenib.
• Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck; Sep 22) got accelerated expanded indication approval for recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• DigniCap Scalp Cooling System (Dignitana Inc; Jul 3) was cleared for expanded use for reducing hair loss during chemotherapy for all solid tumors. Marketing authorization for the cooling cap had been granted in 2015 for patients with breast cancer.
• Olaparib tablets (Lynparza, AstraZeneca; Aug 17) got approval for an expanded indication as maintenance treatment of adult patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, who are in a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
• Ibrutinib (Imbruvica, Pharmacyclics; Aug 2) got expanded indication approval for the treatment of adult patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy. It was the first FDA-approved therapy for the treatment of cGVHD. (Ibrutinib was previously approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma with 17p deletion, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, marginal zone lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma).
• Nivolumab (Aug 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for the treatment of patients 12 years and older with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Dabrafenib and trametinib (Tafinlar and Mekinist, Novartis; Jun 22) were approved for the expanded indication in combination for patients with metastatic NSCLC with BRAF V600E mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination demonstrated superior efficacy compared with dabrafenib alone (overall response rate: 61% and 27%, respectively).³²
• Pembrolizumab (May 23) got approved for expanded indication for adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic, MSI-H or dMMR solid tumors that have progressed after treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options or with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.
• Pembrolizumab (May 18) got approval for expanded indication for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab (May 10) got accelerated expanded indication for use combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin for the treatment of patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.
• Regorafenib (Stivarga, Bayer; Apr 27) got an additional indication for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
• Palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer; Mar 31) got an expanded indication that includes first-line therapy for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine based therapy in postmenopausal women.
• Pembrolizumab (Mar 15) got an accelerated additional indication approval for treatment of adult and pediatric patients with refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, or those who have relapsed after three or more previous lines of therapy.
• Lenalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene; Feb 22) got an additional indication as maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant.
• Nivolumab (Feb 2) got an accelerated expanded indication for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Modified use

• Cabazitaxel (Jevtana, Sanofi-Aventis; Sep 14) in combination with prednisone was approved at a lower dose of 20 mg/m² every 3 weeks for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It had been approved at 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks for this indication in 2010.

Tests/diagnostics

• Marketing approval was given to the FoundationOne CDx (Foundation Medicine; Nov 30), an NGS-based in vitro diagnostic to detect genetic mutations in 324 genes and 2 genomic signatures in any solid tumor type.
• Marketing approval was given to the Praxis Extended RAS Panel (Illumina; Jun 29), a next generation sequencing test to detect certain genetic mutations in RAS genes in tumor samples of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The test is used to aid in the identification of patients who may be eligible for treatment with panitumumab (Vectibix, Amgen).
• Marketing was approved for ipsogen JAK2 RGQ PCR Kit (Qiagen ; Mar 27) to detect mutations affecting the Janus tyrosine kinase 2 gene. This is the first FDA-authorized test intended to help physicians in evaluating patients for suspected polycythemia vera.

Imaging and pathology aids

• Aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride, known as ALA HCl (Gleolan, NX; Jun 6) was approved as an optical imaging agent indicated in patients with gliomas (suspected World Health Organization grades III or IV on preoperative imaging) as an adjunct for the visualization of malignant tissue during surgery.
• Marketing was approved for the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution (PIPS, Philips Medical Systems Nederland; Apr 17), as an aid to the pathologist to review and interpret digital images of surgical pathology slides prepared from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue.
   

Challenges and uncertainties

The current administration’s initiatives to reduce administrative burdens is underway with the Patients Over Paperwork initiative. Eliminating and streamlining regulations to increase efficiency and improve beneficiary experience could be helpful to both oncologists and patients. For now, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) program, allows you to “pick your pace” in the 2017 performance year and report on at least one measure to avoid a payment reduction penalty on your Medicare payments in 2019. In the final rule for 2018, the CMS finalized a proposal to apply the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System] adjustment to all Part B items and services, which will include Part B drugs. This would be unfair to oncologists who treat on the basis of evidence-based guidelines and pathways and have no control over the costs of the drugs they prescribe.

In addition, more requirements will be imposed in 2018 in a move toward full MACRA implementation. All four composite categories (Quality – 60% for 2017; Advancing Care Information (ACI, renamed from Meaningful Use) – 25% for 2017; Improvement Activities (IA) – 15% for 2017; and Cost – 0% for 2017, but weighted in the future) will be scored, including resource use (cost) at 10%. CMS will collect data to assess the total cost of care and the Medicare Spend per Beneficiary to assess use. Full program implementation, with cost being assessed at 30% of your score is expected in the 2019 performance year. ASCO’s clinical affairs and policy experts have studied the implications of Part B chemotherapy drugs being included in the cost component of the MIPS scoring and will continue advocating for policies that hold clinicians responsible only for the aspects of care they can control, such as providing high-quality care based on the patient’s disease, biomarkers, comorbidities, and preferences, and not the costs of the evidence-based therapies needed by patients.
 

Toward a better 2018 for ourselves and our patients

As an eternal optimist, I remain enthusiastic that despite the many challenges, we will find effective ways to bring standard as well as newer, cell-based and targeted therapies to our patients and cover the costs of highly effective therapies. I also remain hopeful that improving technological capabilities and payment reforms will be used by innovative clinical and administrative care teams to give clinicians more time to improve the care and health of patients while validating the methodologies so that real world data can help us further craft therapies to improve the health of each individual who needs our care. As we close this 15th year of our journal, we hope our presentations of practical science and implementation content has helped support your work while freeing some time for you to enjoy the journey. Our best wishes for a joyful holiday season celebrated with friends and family and the patients who entrust us to help them face and live beyond their cancer diagnoses.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

© Phil McCarten 2017

ATLANTA—The first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat children and young adults with leukemia is also producing high response rates in lymphoma, according to investigators of the JULIET trial.

They reported that tisagenlecleucel (formerly CTL019) produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 53% and a complete response (CR) rate of 40% in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Additionally, researchers say the stability in the response rate at 3 and 6 months—38% and 37%, respectively—indicates the durability of the therapy.

At 3 months, 32% of patients who achieved CR remained in CR. At 6 months, 30% remained in CR.

Researchers believe these results confirm the durable clinical benefit reported previously.

Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented the JULIET data at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 577).

“Only about half of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients are eligible for transplant,” Dr Schuster said. “[O]f those patients, only about a half respond to salvage chemotherapy, and a significant number of patients relapse post-transplant. So there is really a large unmet need for these patients, and CAR T-cell therapy is a potential agent [for them].”

The JULIET trial was a global, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluating tisagenlecleucel in DLBCL patients. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™) consists of CAR T cells with a CD19 antigen-binding domain, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta signaling domain.

The trial was conducted at 27 sites in 10 countries across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. There were 2 centralized manufacturing sites, one in Europe and one in the US.

Patients had to be 18 years or older, have had 2 or more prior lines of therapy for DLBCL, and have progressive disease or be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). They could not have had any prior anti-CD19 therapy, and they could not have any central nervous system involvement.

The primary endpoint was best ORR using Lugano criteria with assessment by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.

Study design and enrollment

Patients were screened and underwent apheresis with cryopreservation of their leukapheresis products during screening, which “allowed for enrollment of all eligible patients,” Dr Schuster said.

Patients could receive bridging chemotherapy while they awaited the manufacture of the CAR T cells.

“What’s important to note is that, early on in the trial, there was a shortage of manufacturing capacity, and this led to a longer-than-anticipated interval between enrollment and treatment,” Dr Schuster said. “This interval decreased as manufacturing capacity improved throughout the trial.”

When their CAR T cells were ready, patients were restaged, lymphodepleted, and received the tisagenlecleucel infusion. The dose ranged from 0.6 x 10⁸ to 6.0 x 10⁸ CAR-positive T cells.

The infusion could be conducted on an inpatient or outpatient basis at the investigator’s discretion, Dr Schuster said.

As of the data cutoff in March 2017, investigators enrolled 147 patients and infused 99 with tisagenlecleucel.

Forty-three patients discontinued before infusion, 9 because of an inability to manufacture the T-cell product and 34 due to death (n=16), physician decision (n=12), patient decision (n=3), adverse event (n=2), and protocol deviation (n=1). Five patients were pending infusion.

There were 81 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up or earlier disease progression evaluable for response.

Patient characteristics

Patients were a median age of 56 (range, 22–76), and 23% were 65 or older. All had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 80% had DLBCL, and 19% had transformed follicular lymphoma.

Fifteen percent had double or triple hits in CMYC, BCL2, and BCL6 genes, and 52% had germinal center B-cell type disease.

Forty-four percent had 2 prior lines of therapy, 31% had 3 prior lines of therapy, and 19% had 4 to 6 prior lines of therapy. All were either refractory to or relapsed from their last therapy.

Forty-seven percent had undergone prior auto-SCT.

Eighty-nine of the 99 patients infused with tisagenlecleucel received bridging therapy, and 92 received lymphodepleting therapy.

Twenty-six patients were infused as outpatients, and 20 remained as outpatients for 3 or more days after the infusion.

Efficacy

The trial met its primary endpoint with an ORR of 53% tested against the null hypothesis of 20% or less. Forty percent of patients achieved a CR, and 14% had a partial response.

The ORR was consistent across all subgroups, including age, sex, lines of prior antineoplastic therapy, cell of origin, and rearranged MYC/BCL2/BCL6.

“The durability of response, however, which is really the message, is shown by the stability between 3- and 6-month response rates, 38% and 37%, respectively,” Dr Schuster said. “The response rate at 3 months is really indicative of the long-term benefit of this treatment approach.”

The investigators observed no apparent relationship between tumor response at month 3 and dose. And they observed responses at all dose levels.

The very early response may be due, to a certain extent, to the chemotherapy, according to Dr Schuster.

“The effect of the T cells becomes evident as you follow these patients over time,” he said.

The median duration of response and overall response have not been reached. And 74% of patients were relapse-free at 6 months.

“Importantly, almost all the complete responders at month 3 remained in complete response,” Dr Schuster said.

Safety

Adverse events of special interest that occurred within 8 weeks of the infusion included:

• Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)—58% all grades, 15% grade 3, 8% grade 4
• Neurologic events—21% all grades, 8% grade 3, 4% grade 4
• Prolonged cytopenia—36% all grades, 15% grade 3, 12% grade 4
• Infections—34% all grades, 18% grade 3, 2% grade 4
• Febrile neutropenia—13% all grades, 11% grade 3, 2% grade 4

No deaths occurred due to tisagenlecleucel, CRS, or cerebral edema.

Fifty-seven patients developed CRS. The median time to onset of CRS was 3 days (range, 1–9), and the median duration of CRS was 7 days (range, 2–30).

Twenty-eight percent of patients developed hypotension that required intervention, 6% requiring high-dose vasopressors. Eight percent were intubated, and 16% received anticytokine therapy—15% with tocilizumab and 11% with corticosteroids.

Investigators did not observe a relationship between dose and neurological events. However, they did detect a higher probability of CRS with the higher doses of tisagenlecleucel.

They also noted that dose and exposure were independent.

Dr Schuster indicated that these data are the basis for global regulatory submissions.

Manufacture of tisagenlecleucel was centralized, and investigators believe the trial shows the feasibility of global distribution of CAR T-cell therapy using cryopreserved apheresis and centralized manufacturing.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the sponsor of the trial, is now able to commercially manufacture the CAR T cells in 22 days.

Dr Schuster disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Novartis and Celgene.

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – In the ZUMA-1 trial, more than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta; axi-cel) had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion.

Updated combined phase 1 and 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, or transformed follicular lymphoma showed an objective response rate of 82% of patients – including 58% showing complete responses – after a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses the use of CAR T cells directed against the CD19 antigen in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas and describes efforts to improve responses while managing adverse events common to CAR T-cell therapies, notably cytokine release syndrome.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma, which developed axicabtagene ciloleucel, and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company.

ATLANTA – In the ZUMA-1 trial, more than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta; axi-cel) had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion.

Updated combined phase 1 and 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, or transformed follicular lymphoma showed an objective response rate of 82% of patients – including 58% showing complete responses – after a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses the use of CAR T cells directed against the CD19 antigen in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas and describes efforts to improve responses while managing adverse events common to CAR T-cell therapies, notably cytokine release syndrome.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma, which developed axicabtagene ciloleucel, and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company.

ATLANTA – In the ZUMA-1 trial, more than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta; axi-cel) had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion.

Updated combined phase 1 and 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, or transformed follicular lymphoma showed an objective response rate of 82% of patients – including 58% showing complete responses – after a median follow-up of 15.4 months.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses the use of CAR T cells directed against the CD19 antigen in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas and describes efforts to improve responses while managing adverse events common to CAR T-cell therapies, notably cytokine release syndrome.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma, which developed axicabtagene ciloleucel, and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company.

ATLANTA – More than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), often called axi-cel, had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion, according to investigators in the ZUMA-1 trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

Updated combined phase 1 and phase 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL) showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 82%, including 58% complete responses, after a median follow-up of 15.4 months, reported Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Axi-cel is highly effective in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise have no curative treatment options,” he said in a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, prior to his presentation of the data in an oral session.

The trial results were also published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.As previously reported, in the multicenter phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial, 111 patients with treatment refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, or TFL were enrolled and treated with axi-cel at a target dose of 2 x 10⁶ cells/kg, following a conditioning regimen with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine.

The median patient age was 58 years. Patients had stage III or IV disease, 48% had International Prognostic Index scores of 3-4, 76% had disease that was refractory to third-line therapies or beyond, and 21% had disease that relapsed within 12 months of an autologous bone marrow transplant

Axi-cel was successfully manufactured with sufficient cells for transfusion in all but one of the 111 patients, and 101 patients eventually received infusions in phase 2 (modified intention-to-treat population). The average turnaround time from apheresis to the clinical site was 17 days.

Dr. Neelapu also presented data on seven patients enrolled in phase 1; the data were combined with the phase 2 results for an updated analysis of those patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up.

The phase 2 trial met its primary endpoint at the time of the primary analysis, with an 82% ORR, consisting of 54% complete responses and 28% partial responses at a median follow-up of 8.7 months.

In the updated analysis, the ORR and respective remission rates were 82%, 58%, and 34%, at a median of 15.4 months follow-up.

The median duration of response in the updated analysis was 11.1 months. The median duration of complete responses had not been reached at the time of data cutoff in August 2017. The median duration of partial responses was 1.9 months.

At the 15.4-month mark, 42% of patients remained free of disease progression, and 56% were alive, with the median overall survival not yet reached.

The treatment had generally acceptable toxicities, with only 13% of patients in phase 2 experiencing grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although one patient with CRS died from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and one with CRS died from cardiac arrest. Grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred in 28% of patients, and included encephalopathy, confusional state, aphasia, and somnolence.

The events were generally reversible, and the rates of each declined over time. The use of tocilizumab or steroids to control adverse events did not have a negative effect on responses.

Since the primary analysis with at least 6 months of follow-up, there have been no new axi-cel–related cases of CRS, neurologic events, or deaths.

Dr. Neelapu also presented safety data on serious adverse events occurring more than 6 months after therapy in 10 patients who developed symptoms after the data cutoff.

Grade 3 events in these patients included lung infection, recurrent upper respiratory viral infection, and rotavirus infection, pneumonias, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and influenza B infection. One patient had grade 4 sepsis.

In an editorial accompanying the study in the New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Tran, PhD, and Walter J. Urba, MD, PhD, from the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute and the Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center, and Dan L. Longo, MD, deputy editor of the journal, praised ZUMA-1 as “a landmark study because it involved 22 institutions and showed that a personalized gene-engineered T-cell product could be rapidly generated at a centralized cell-manufacturing facility and safely administered to patients at transplantation-capable medical centers.”

They noted, however, that about half of all patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas will not have durable responses to CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD19, and that new strategies will be needed to improve responses (N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 10; doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1714680).

In the question and answer session at the end of the briefing, Dr. Neelapu said the preliminary observations of mechanisms of relapse or disease progression in some patients may be related to the loss of the CD19 antigen, which occurs in about one-third of patients who experience relapse, and to high expression of the programmed death ligand-1, which can potentially inhibit CAR-T cell function. A clinical trial is currently underway to evaluate potential strategies for improving response rates to CAR-T therapies, he said.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company. Myriad coauthors also reported financial relationship with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Neelapu S et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 578.

ATLANTA – More than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), often called axi-cel, had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion, according to investigators in the ZUMA-1 trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

Updated combined phase 1 and phase 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL) showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 82%, including 58% complete responses, after a median follow-up of 15.4 months, reported Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Axi-cel is highly effective in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise have no curative treatment options,” he said in a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, prior to his presentation of the data in an oral session.

The trial results were also published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.As previously reported, in the multicenter phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial, 111 patients with treatment refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, or TFL were enrolled and treated with axi-cel at a target dose of 2 x 10⁶ cells/kg, following a conditioning regimen with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine.

The median patient age was 58 years. Patients had stage III or IV disease, 48% had International Prognostic Index scores of 3-4, 76% had disease that was refractory to third-line therapies or beyond, and 21% had disease that relapsed within 12 months of an autologous bone marrow transplant

Axi-cel was successfully manufactured with sufficient cells for transfusion in all but one of the 111 patients, and 101 patients eventually received infusions in phase 2 (modified intention-to-treat population). The average turnaround time from apheresis to the clinical site was 17 days.

Dr. Neelapu also presented data on seven patients enrolled in phase 1; the data were combined with the phase 2 results for an updated analysis of those patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up.

The phase 2 trial met its primary endpoint at the time of the primary analysis, with an 82% ORR, consisting of 54% complete responses and 28% partial responses at a median follow-up of 8.7 months.

In the updated analysis, the ORR and respective remission rates were 82%, 58%, and 34%, at a median of 15.4 months follow-up.

The median duration of response in the updated analysis was 11.1 months. The median duration of complete responses had not been reached at the time of data cutoff in August 2017. The median duration of partial responses was 1.9 months.

At the 15.4-month mark, 42% of patients remained free of disease progression, and 56% were alive, with the median overall survival not yet reached.

The treatment had generally acceptable toxicities, with only 13% of patients in phase 2 experiencing grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although one patient with CRS died from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and one with CRS died from cardiac arrest. Grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred in 28% of patients, and included encephalopathy, confusional state, aphasia, and somnolence.

The events were generally reversible, and the rates of each declined over time. The use of tocilizumab or steroids to control adverse events did not have a negative effect on responses.

Since the primary analysis with at least 6 months of follow-up, there have been no new axi-cel–related cases of CRS, neurologic events, or deaths.

Dr. Neelapu also presented safety data on serious adverse events occurring more than 6 months after therapy in 10 patients who developed symptoms after the data cutoff.

Grade 3 events in these patients included lung infection, recurrent upper respiratory viral infection, and rotavirus infection, pneumonias, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and influenza B infection. One patient had grade 4 sepsis.

In an editorial accompanying the study in the New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Tran, PhD, and Walter J. Urba, MD, PhD, from the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute and the Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center, and Dan L. Longo, MD, deputy editor of the journal, praised ZUMA-1 as “a landmark study because it involved 22 institutions and showed that a personalized gene-engineered T-cell product could be rapidly generated at a centralized cell-manufacturing facility and safely administered to patients at transplantation-capable medical centers.”

They noted, however, that about half of all patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas will not have durable responses to CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD19, and that new strategies will be needed to improve responses (N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 10; doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1714680).

In the question and answer session at the end of the briefing, Dr. Neelapu said the preliminary observations of mechanisms of relapse or disease progression in some patients may be related to the loss of the CD19 antigen, which occurs in about one-third of patients who experience relapse, and to high expression of the programmed death ligand-1, which can potentially inhibit CAR-T cell function. A clinical trial is currently underway to evaluate potential strategies for improving response rates to CAR-T therapies, he said.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company. Myriad coauthors also reported financial relationship with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Neelapu S et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 578.

ATLANTA – More than one-third of patients with refractory large B-cell lymphomas treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), often called axi-cel, had durable responses, with some patients having complete responses lasting more than 1 year after a single infusion, according to investigators in the ZUMA-1 trial.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

Updated combined phase 1 and phase 2 results in 108 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), or transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL) showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 82%, including 58% complete responses, after a median follow-up of 15.4 months, reported Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Axi-cel is highly effective in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise have no curative treatment options,” he said in a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, prior to his presentation of the data in an oral session.

The trial results were also published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.As previously reported, in the multicenter phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial, 111 patients with treatment refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, or TFL were enrolled and treated with axi-cel at a target dose of 2 x 10⁶ cells/kg, following a conditioning regimen with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine.

The median patient age was 58 years. Patients had stage III or IV disease, 48% had International Prognostic Index scores of 3-4, 76% had disease that was refractory to third-line therapies or beyond, and 21% had disease that relapsed within 12 months of an autologous bone marrow transplant

Axi-cel was successfully manufactured with sufficient cells for transfusion in all but one of the 111 patients, and 101 patients eventually received infusions in phase 2 (modified intention-to-treat population). The average turnaround time from apheresis to the clinical site was 17 days.

Dr. Neelapu also presented data on seven patients enrolled in phase 1; the data were combined with the phase 2 results for an updated analysis of those patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up.

The phase 2 trial met its primary endpoint at the time of the primary analysis, with an 82% ORR, consisting of 54% complete responses and 28% partial responses at a median follow-up of 8.7 months.

In the updated analysis, the ORR and respective remission rates were 82%, 58%, and 34%, at a median of 15.4 months follow-up.

The median duration of response in the updated analysis was 11.1 months. The median duration of complete responses had not been reached at the time of data cutoff in August 2017. The median duration of partial responses was 1.9 months.

At the 15.4-month mark, 42% of patients remained free of disease progression, and 56% were alive, with the median overall survival not yet reached.

The treatment had generally acceptable toxicities, with only 13% of patients in phase 2 experiencing grade 3 or greater cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although one patient with CRS died from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and one with CRS died from cardiac arrest. Grade 3 or greater neurologic events occurred in 28% of patients, and included encephalopathy, confusional state, aphasia, and somnolence.

The events were generally reversible, and the rates of each declined over time. The use of tocilizumab or steroids to control adverse events did not have a negative effect on responses.

Since the primary analysis with at least 6 months of follow-up, there have been no new axi-cel–related cases of CRS, neurologic events, or deaths.

Dr. Neelapu also presented safety data on serious adverse events occurring more than 6 months after therapy in 10 patients who developed symptoms after the data cutoff.

Grade 3 events in these patients included lung infection, recurrent upper respiratory viral infection, and rotavirus infection, pneumonias, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and influenza B infection. One patient had grade 4 sepsis.

In an editorial accompanying the study in the New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Tran, PhD, and Walter J. Urba, MD, PhD, from the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute and the Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center, and Dan L. Longo, MD, deputy editor of the journal, praised ZUMA-1 as “a landmark study because it involved 22 institutions and showed that a personalized gene-engineered T-cell product could be rapidly generated at a centralized cell-manufacturing facility and safely administered to patients at transplantation-capable medical centers.”

They noted, however, that about half of all patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas will not have durable responses to CAR T-cell therapy directed against CD19, and that new strategies will be needed to improve responses (N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 10; doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1714680).

In the question and answer session at the end of the briefing, Dr. Neelapu said the preliminary observations of mechanisms of relapse or disease progression in some patients may be related to the loss of the CD19 antigen, which occurs in about one-third of patients who experience relapse, and to high expression of the programmed death ligand-1, which can potentially inhibit CAR-T cell function. A clinical trial is currently underway to evaluate potential strategies for improving response rates to CAR-T therapies, he said.

ZUMA-1 is supported by Kite Pharma and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program. Dr. Neelapu reported receiving advisory board fees from the company. Myriad coauthors also reported financial relationship with multiple companies.

SOURCE: Neelapu S et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 578.