Immunotherapy

MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.

Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.

Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.

Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.

“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.

The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.

In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.

A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.

Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.

To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.

Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.

This article was updated on 7/8/2019

CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.

Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.

Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.

Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.

“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.

The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.

In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.

A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.

Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.

To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.

Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.

This article was updated on 7/8/2019

CHICAGO – A bispecific anti-CD19, anti-CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell approach is safe and produced complete responses in the majority of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a phase 1 study, an investigator reported.

Eleven of 17 assessable patients had a response to treatment with the bispecific lentiviral CAR T cell (LV20.19CAR) at day 28, and of those 11 patients, 9 had complete responses, all of which are ongoing, said Nirav Niranjan Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

“To date, there’s no dose-limiting toxicity, no ICU-level care, no deaths attributed to treatment, no grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome, and only two patients had reversible grade 3 neurotoxicity,” Dr. Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Patients who did relapse or progress on treatment maintained CD19 or CD20 positivity, with no observed downregulation of target receptors, he reported in an oral abstract session.

Of note, the CAR T cells were produced locally at the point of care, with a 100% success rate and a set 14-day manufacturing time, he added.

Bispecific targeting of CD19 and CD20 is a new approach being investigated at a time when there are already two CD19-specific CAR T cell therapies approved for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, Dr. Shah told attendees.

“Despite the great promise of CD19 CAR T cell therapies, very quickly after the development of these therapies, we discovered mechanisms of resistance—specifically, the development of a CD19 negative relapse,” he said.

The hypothesis that targeting more than one B-cell antigen could potentially mitigate that effect stemmed from preclinical studies showing that targeting both CD19 and CD20 decreased downregulation of CD19 but not other B-cell antigens, he added.

In the present phase 1 study of the first-in-human, bispecific tandem CAR T cell against CD19 and CD20, patients have been treated at several dose levels, some with a split infusion over 2 days to evaluate safety, and some with a single infusion, Dr. Shah said.

A total of 17 patients have been treated with a lymphodepletion regimen followed by LV20.19CAR: 8 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 6 with mantle cell lymphoma, 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 1 with follicular lymphoma, according to the investigator. The median age of patients is 59 years, and patients had received at least 3 and up to 11 prior lines of therapy.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities to date with dosing up to the target of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, Dr. Shah reported, adding that there has been no grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and no grade 4 neurotoxicity. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome has been seen in 11 patients, while grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in 2 patients.

Fourteen of 17 patients had a response, including 11 complete responses and 3 partial responses. Eleven patients were treated at the target dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, and of those, 9 had a complete response and 1 had a partial response (overall response rate, Dr. Shah said.

To date, all patients in complete response have remained in a complete response, with durations of response of 1 to 18 months.

Next, investigators plan to conduct phase 2 studies in more specific cohorts, including patients with mantle cell lymphoma, and patients who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T cell therapy, Dr. Shah said.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Cidara Therapeutics, Exelixis, Geron, Oncosec, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Miltenyi Biotec.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 2510.

This article was updated on 7/8/2019

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.

The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.

The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.

Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.

At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.

Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.

Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.

As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).

Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.

Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.

The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.

“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.

The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.

SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.

An immune-related adverse event during initial treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor does not necessarily preclude a rechallenge, based on a review of outcomes in 93 patients with a variety of cancers who were part of a cohort study.

Rechallenge resulted in the recurrence of a grade 2 or higher immune-related adverse event (irAE) in 55% of rechallenged patients, but no deaths occurred, according to Audrey Simonaggio, MD, of the department of drug development at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In those rechallenged patients who had a second irAE, the second event was not more severe than the first. “The rechallenge should first be assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting with regard to each patient’s individual risk-reward ratio. ... We recommend close monitoring,” the researchers wrote in a study published in JAMA Oncology.

As there are no specific recommendations to guide the decision to rechallenge, the usefulness of the rechallenge was considered. The readministration could be delayed if the patient was in complete or excellent partial response. The existence of other therapeutic alternatives was also important as was the patient’s clinical state. Rechallenge was considered possible only after the grade of the initial irAE returned to 0 or 1.

“Because of life-threatening risk, we did not support rechallenge for cardiac (myocarditis) and neurologic irAEs [such] as Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalitis, and severe myositis,” they said. CT scans were used to guide the decision to rechallenge in those with initial lung adverse events.

The cohort study included 93 consecutive adult patients who were referred over an 18-month period to the ImmunoTOX assessment board at the Gustave Roussy cancer center and followed for at least 1 year. The cohort was balanced for gender and ranged in age from 33 to 85 years, with a median age of 62.5 years. Melanoma was the predominant tumor (33%), followed by lung (16%), colorectal (9%), and lymphoma (9%).

The initial immune-related adverse event was a grade 2 event in 46% of patients, grade 3 in 39%, and grade 4 in 15%. Events included hepatitis (18%), skin toxicity (15%), pneumonitis (14%), colitis (12%), and arthralgia (7.5%). A rechallenge with the same anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 was conducted in 43% of patients.

When compared with patients who were not rechallenged, there was no difference in median patient age, time to initial immune-related adverse event (five vs. three treatment cycles), event severity, or steroid use. With a median follow-up period of 14 months, the same or a different immune-related adverse event occurred in 22 patients (55%). A shorter time to the initial event was linked to the occurrence of a second event (9 vs. 15 weeks; P = .04).

“However, we did observe a trend toward a higher recurrence rate after a more severe initial irAE and a trend toward more frequent recurrence in patients treated with corticosteroids after the initial irAE,” the researchers wrote. “An anti–PD-1or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge after a grade 4 irAE should always be considered with caution.” Three of the five patients with these events were being treated for lymphoma, they said.

“As long as patients are closely monitored, anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge appears to have an acceptable toxic effect profile. Myocarditis and neurologic toxic effect should remain a contraindication. Rechallenge conditions require further investigation in a prospective clinical trial. ... Well-powered, prospective studies with a larger number of patients would be required to generate information on putative risk factors for the recurrence of irAEs. Our results highlighted the value of a review board, like ImmunoTOX, with intention to build a large irAE database and then establish evidence-based guidelines on the safety of a rechallenge,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Gustave Roussy cancer center and the Gustave Roussy immunotherapy program. Dr. Simonaggio had no relevant disclosures; several coauthors reported consultancy fees and research support from multiple drug companies.

SOURCE: Simonaggio A et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jun 6. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1022.

An immune-related adverse event during initial treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor does not necessarily preclude a rechallenge, based on a review of outcomes in 93 patients with a variety of cancers who were part of a cohort study.

Rechallenge resulted in the recurrence of a grade 2 or higher immune-related adverse event (irAE) in 55% of rechallenged patients, but no deaths occurred, according to Audrey Simonaggio, MD, of the department of drug development at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In those rechallenged patients who had a second irAE, the second event was not more severe than the first. “The rechallenge should first be assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting with regard to each patient’s individual risk-reward ratio. ... We recommend close monitoring,” the researchers wrote in a study published in JAMA Oncology.

As there are no specific recommendations to guide the decision to rechallenge, the usefulness of the rechallenge was considered. The readministration could be delayed if the patient was in complete or excellent partial response. The existence of other therapeutic alternatives was also important as was the patient’s clinical state. Rechallenge was considered possible only after the grade of the initial irAE returned to 0 or 1.

“Because of life-threatening risk, we did not support rechallenge for cardiac (myocarditis) and neurologic irAEs [such] as Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalitis, and severe myositis,” they said. CT scans were used to guide the decision to rechallenge in those with initial lung adverse events.

The cohort study included 93 consecutive adult patients who were referred over an 18-month period to the ImmunoTOX assessment board at the Gustave Roussy cancer center and followed for at least 1 year. The cohort was balanced for gender and ranged in age from 33 to 85 years, with a median age of 62.5 years. Melanoma was the predominant tumor (33%), followed by lung (16%), colorectal (9%), and lymphoma (9%).

The initial immune-related adverse event was a grade 2 event in 46% of patients, grade 3 in 39%, and grade 4 in 15%. Events included hepatitis (18%), skin toxicity (15%), pneumonitis (14%), colitis (12%), and arthralgia (7.5%). A rechallenge with the same anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 was conducted in 43% of patients.

When compared with patients who were not rechallenged, there was no difference in median patient age, time to initial immune-related adverse event (five vs. three treatment cycles), event severity, or steroid use. With a median follow-up period of 14 months, the same or a different immune-related adverse event occurred in 22 patients (55%). A shorter time to the initial event was linked to the occurrence of a second event (9 vs. 15 weeks; P = .04).

“However, we did observe a trend toward a higher recurrence rate after a more severe initial irAE and a trend toward more frequent recurrence in patients treated with corticosteroids after the initial irAE,” the researchers wrote. “An anti–PD-1or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge after a grade 4 irAE should always be considered with caution.” Three of the five patients with these events were being treated for lymphoma, they said.

“As long as patients are closely monitored, anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge appears to have an acceptable toxic effect profile. Myocarditis and neurologic toxic effect should remain a contraindication. Rechallenge conditions require further investigation in a prospective clinical trial. ... Well-powered, prospective studies with a larger number of patients would be required to generate information on putative risk factors for the recurrence of irAEs. Our results highlighted the value of a review board, like ImmunoTOX, with intention to build a large irAE database and then establish evidence-based guidelines on the safety of a rechallenge,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Gustave Roussy cancer center and the Gustave Roussy immunotherapy program. Dr. Simonaggio had no relevant disclosures; several coauthors reported consultancy fees and research support from multiple drug companies.

SOURCE: Simonaggio A et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jun 6. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1022.

An immune-related adverse event during initial treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor does not necessarily preclude a rechallenge, based on a review of outcomes in 93 patients with a variety of cancers who were part of a cohort study.

Rechallenge resulted in the recurrence of a grade 2 or higher immune-related adverse event (irAE) in 55% of rechallenged patients, but no deaths occurred, according to Audrey Simonaggio, MD, of the department of drug development at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In those rechallenged patients who had a second irAE, the second event was not more severe than the first. “The rechallenge should first be assessed in a multidisciplinary team meeting with regard to each patient’s individual risk-reward ratio. ... We recommend close monitoring,” the researchers wrote in a study published in JAMA Oncology.

As there are no specific recommendations to guide the decision to rechallenge, the usefulness of the rechallenge was considered. The readministration could be delayed if the patient was in complete or excellent partial response. The existence of other therapeutic alternatives was also important as was the patient’s clinical state. Rechallenge was considered possible only after the grade of the initial irAE returned to 0 or 1.

“Because of life-threatening risk, we did not support rechallenge for cardiac (myocarditis) and neurologic irAEs [such] as Guillain-Barré syndrome, encephalitis, and severe myositis,” they said. CT scans were used to guide the decision to rechallenge in those with initial lung adverse events.

The cohort study included 93 consecutive adult patients who were referred over an 18-month period to the ImmunoTOX assessment board at the Gustave Roussy cancer center and followed for at least 1 year. The cohort was balanced for gender and ranged in age from 33 to 85 years, with a median age of 62.5 years. Melanoma was the predominant tumor (33%), followed by lung (16%), colorectal (9%), and lymphoma (9%).

The initial immune-related adverse event was a grade 2 event in 46% of patients, grade 3 in 39%, and grade 4 in 15%. Events included hepatitis (18%), skin toxicity (15%), pneumonitis (14%), colitis (12%), and arthralgia (7.5%). A rechallenge with the same anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 was conducted in 43% of patients.

When compared with patients who were not rechallenged, there was no difference in median patient age, time to initial immune-related adverse event (five vs. three treatment cycles), event severity, or steroid use. With a median follow-up period of 14 months, the same or a different immune-related adverse event occurred in 22 patients (55%). A shorter time to the initial event was linked to the occurrence of a second event (9 vs. 15 weeks; P = .04).

“However, we did observe a trend toward a higher recurrence rate after a more severe initial irAE and a trend toward more frequent recurrence in patients treated with corticosteroids after the initial irAE,” the researchers wrote. “An anti–PD-1or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge after a grade 4 irAE should always be considered with caution.” Three of the five patients with these events were being treated for lymphoma, they said.

“As long as patients are closely monitored, anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 rechallenge appears to have an acceptable toxic effect profile. Myocarditis and neurologic toxic effect should remain a contraindication. Rechallenge conditions require further investigation in a prospective clinical trial. ... Well-powered, prospective studies with a larger number of patients would be required to generate information on putative risk factors for the recurrence of irAEs. Our results highlighted the value of a review board, like ImmunoTOX, with intention to build a large irAE database and then establish evidence-based guidelines on the safety of a rechallenge,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Gustave Roussy cancer center and the Gustave Roussy immunotherapy program. Dr. Simonaggio had no relevant disclosures; several coauthors reported consultancy fees and research support from multiple drug companies.

SOURCE: Simonaggio A et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jun 6. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1022.

CHICAGO – A low intensity chemotherapy regimen may be the best approach to bridge patients waiting for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, according to a retrospective analysis of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Investigators found that high intensity bridging regimens provided no clear outcome benefit, but did produce a greater number of infections.

But the decision on the type of regimen is very much dependent on the individual patient, Karlo Perica, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Mary Ellen Schneider/MDedge News

Dr. Perica and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering examined the effectiveness and toxicity of bridging therapies provided to relapsed or refractory ALL patients waiting to receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy as part of a phase 1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:449-59).

Bridging therapy was defined as any therapy given from leukapheresis to cell infusion.

The low-intensity regimens included POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, and prednisone, or combinations), liposomal vincristine, mini-hyper CVD (reduced cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, methotrexate, Ara-C), blinatumomab, inotuzumab, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens, or hydroxyurea.

The high-intensity regimens included hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone), high-dose cytarabine, attenuated FLAG/FLAG-IDA (reduced fludarabine, cytarabine, G-CSF plus or minus idarubicin), and pediatric-type induction.

Of the 53 patients who were ultimately infused with CAR T cells, 19 received some type of high intensity regimen, 29 received low intensity regimens, and 5 received no bridging treatment. The group overall was heavily pretreated. Nearly a third of the low intensity and no bridging patients and 42% of the high intensity patients had previously undergone transplant. More than 40% of the low intensity and no bridging patients and about a quarter of the high intensity bridging group had four or more prior lines of therapy.

The use of high intensity bridging therapy was not associated with improved overall response or relapse-free survival to CAR T-cell therapy, the investigators reported. In a subgroup with 23 high disease burden patients with greater than 20% blasts, there was no difference in MRD-negative complete response by intensity (75% versus 60%, Fisher’s P = .65).

High intensity bridging was also not associated with successful CAR T-cell infusion, versus low intensity regimens (63% versus 79%, P greater than .05) or a combined endpoint of CAR T-cell infusion plus transplant or alternative treatment (80% versus 86%, P greater than .05).

In terms of toxicity, the high intensity bridging regimens were associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 infections – 15 versus 11 infections (Fisher’s P = .002). But there was no association with post-infusion grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.

Dr. Perica said the results reflect that the real goal of bridging is not to reduce disease burden but instead to successfully bring patients to the next phase of their treatment. “The goal of the bridging therapy is to get the patient to the CAR infusion,” he said.

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, Dr. Perica said he can’t recommend any single bridging regimen and he emphasized that the decisions are patient-specific.

The original study was funded by several foundations and Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Perica reported royalties from technology licensed to Neximmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perica K et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 2520.

CHICAGO – A low intensity chemotherapy regimen may be the best approach to bridge patients waiting for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, according to a retrospective analysis of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Investigators found that high intensity bridging regimens provided no clear outcome benefit, but did produce a greater number of infections.

But the decision on the type of regimen is very much dependent on the individual patient, Karlo Perica, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Mary Ellen Schneider/MDedge News

Dr. Perica and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering examined the effectiveness and toxicity of bridging therapies provided to relapsed or refractory ALL patients waiting to receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy as part of a phase 1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:449-59).

Bridging therapy was defined as any therapy given from leukapheresis to cell infusion.

The low-intensity regimens included POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, and prednisone, or combinations), liposomal vincristine, mini-hyper CVD (reduced cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, methotrexate, Ara-C), blinatumomab, inotuzumab, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens, or hydroxyurea.

The high-intensity regimens included hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone), high-dose cytarabine, attenuated FLAG/FLAG-IDA (reduced fludarabine, cytarabine, G-CSF plus or minus idarubicin), and pediatric-type induction.

Of the 53 patients who were ultimately infused with CAR T cells, 19 received some type of high intensity regimen, 29 received low intensity regimens, and 5 received no bridging treatment. The group overall was heavily pretreated. Nearly a third of the low intensity and no bridging patients and 42% of the high intensity patients had previously undergone transplant. More than 40% of the low intensity and no bridging patients and about a quarter of the high intensity bridging group had four or more prior lines of therapy.

The use of high intensity bridging therapy was not associated with improved overall response or relapse-free survival to CAR T-cell therapy, the investigators reported. In a subgroup with 23 high disease burden patients with greater than 20% blasts, there was no difference in MRD-negative complete response by intensity (75% versus 60%, Fisher’s P = .65).

High intensity bridging was also not associated with successful CAR T-cell infusion, versus low intensity regimens (63% versus 79%, P greater than .05) or a combined endpoint of CAR T-cell infusion plus transplant or alternative treatment (80% versus 86%, P greater than .05).

In terms of toxicity, the high intensity bridging regimens were associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 infections – 15 versus 11 infections (Fisher’s P = .002). But there was no association with post-infusion grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.

Dr. Perica said the results reflect that the real goal of bridging is not to reduce disease burden but instead to successfully bring patients to the next phase of their treatment. “The goal of the bridging therapy is to get the patient to the CAR infusion,” he said.

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, Dr. Perica said he can’t recommend any single bridging regimen and he emphasized that the decisions are patient-specific.

The original study was funded by several foundations and Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Perica reported royalties from technology licensed to Neximmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perica K et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 2520.

CHICAGO – A low intensity chemotherapy regimen may be the best approach to bridge patients waiting for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, according to a retrospective analysis of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Investigators found that high intensity bridging regimens provided no clear outcome benefit, but did produce a greater number of infections.

But the decision on the type of regimen is very much dependent on the individual patient, Karlo Perica, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Mary Ellen Schneider/MDedge News

Dr. Perica and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering examined the effectiveness and toxicity of bridging therapies provided to relapsed or refractory ALL patients waiting to receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy as part of a phase 1 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:449-59).

Bridging therapy was defined as any therapy given from leukapheresis to cell infusion.

The low-intensity regimens included POMP (6-mercaptopurine, vincristine, methotrexate, and prednisone, or combinations), liposomal vincristine, mini-hyper CVD (reduced cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, methotrexate, Ara-C), blinatumomab, inotuzumab, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens, or hydroxyurea.

The high-intensity regimens included hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone), high-dose cytarabine, attenuated FLAG/FLAG-IDA (reduced fludarabine, cytarabine, G-CSF plus or minus idarubicin), and pediatric-type induction.

Of the 53 patients who were ultimately infused with CAR T cells, 19 received some type of high intensity regimen, 29 received low intensity regimens, and 5 received no bridging treatment. The group overall was heavily pretreated. Nearly a third of the low intensity and no bridging patients and 42% of the high intensity patients had previously undergone transplant. More than 40% of the low intensity and no bridging patients and about a quarter of the high intensity bridging group had four or more prior lines of therapy.

The use of high intensity bridging therapy was not associated with improved overall response or relapse-free survival to CAR T-cell therapy, the investigators reported. In a subgroup with 23 high disease burden patients with greater than 20% blasts, there was no difference in MRD-negative complete response by intensity (75% versus 60%, Fisher’s P = .65).

High intensity bridging was also not associated with successful CAR T-cell infusion, versus low intensity regimens (63% versus 79%, P greater than .05) or a combined endpoint of CAR T-cell infusion plus transplant or alternative treatment (80% versus 86%, P greater than .05).

In terms of toxicity, the high intensity bridging regimens were associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 infections – 15 versus 11 infections (Fisher’s P = .002). But there was no association with post-infusion grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.

Dr. Perica said the results reflect that the real goal of bridging is not to reduce disease burden but instead to successfully bring patients to the next phase of their treatment. “The goal of the bridging therapy is to get the patient to the CAR infusion,” he said.

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, Dr. Perica said he can’t recommend any single bridging regimen and he emphasized that the decisions are patient-specific.

The original study was funded by several foundations and Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Perica reported royalties from technology licensed to Neximmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perica K et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 2520.

The novel anti–programmed cell death antibody PF-06801591 had tolerable safety and efficacy outcomes when given subcutaneously to patients with advanced solid tumors, based on results from an ongoing phase 1 trial.

“We assessed feasibility of monthly subcutaneous administration of PF-06801591, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed cell death [PD-1] receptor,” Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology. “Subcutaneous administration of an anti-PD-1 antibody in patients with advanced solid tumors appears to be feasible.”

The researchers evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the novel anti-PD-1 therapy in a group of 40 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The antibody was administered in both subcutaneous and intravenous forms.

Study participants were administered the subcutaneous form of the antibody at 300 mg every 4 weeks or the intravenous form at 0.5, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

“Dose escalation occurred after two to four patients were enrolled per dose level, with additional patients enrolled in each cohort for further assessment,” the researchers wrote.

The primary endpoints were safety and dose-limiting adverse effects. Efficacy, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and PD-1 receptor occupancy were secondary endpoints.

After analysis, Dr. Johnson and colleagues reported that the overall response rate was 18.4%. In addition, no dose-limiting toxicities were detected in both intravenous and subcutaneous groups, but grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 6.7% and 16% of patients treated with subcutaneous and intravenous dosage forms, respectively.

“No dose–adverse event associations were observed during intravenous dose escalation, and no serious skin toxic effects occurred with subcutaneous delivery,” they reported.

Based on the findings, the team selected the subcutaneous form (300 mg) of the therapy for additional assessment in the second half of this ongoing trial.

The study was funded by Pfizer. The authors reported financial affiliations with BerGenBio, EMD Serono, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Johnson ML et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 May 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0836.

The novel anti–programmed cell death antibody PF-06801591 had tolerable safety and efficacy outcomes when given subcutaneously to patients with advanced solid tumors, based on results from an ongoing phase 1 trial.

“We assessed feasibility of monthly subcutaneous administration of PF-06801591, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed cell death [PD-1] receptor,” Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology. “Subcutaneous administration of an anti-PD-1 antibody in patients with advanced solid tumors appears to be feasible.”

The researchers evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the novel anti-PD-1 therapy in a group of 40 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The antibody was administered in both subcutaneous and intravenous forms.

Study participants were administered the subcutaneous form of the antibody at 300 mg every 4 weeks or the intravenous form at 0.5, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

“Dose escalation occurred after two to four patients were enrolled per dose level, with additional patients enrolled in each cohort for further assessment,” the researchers wrote.

The primary endpoints were safety and dose-limiting adverse effects. Efficacy, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and PD-1 receptor occupancy were secondary endpoints.

After analysis, Dr. Johnson and colleagues reported that the overall response rate was 18.4%. In addition, no dose-limiting toxicities were detected in both intravenous and subcutaneous groups, but grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 6.7% and 16% of patients treated with subcutaneous and intravenous dosage forms, respectively.

“No dose–adverse event associations were observed during intravenous dose escalation, and no serious skin toxic effects occurred with subcutaneous delivery,” they reported.

Based on the findings, the team selected the subcutaneous form (300 mg) of the therapy for additional assessment in the second half of this ongoing trial.

The study was funded by Pfizer. The authors reported financial affiliations with BerGenBio, EMD Serono, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Johnson ML et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 May 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0836.

The novel anti–programmed cell death antibody PF-06801591 had tolerable safety and efficacy outcomes when given subcutaneously to patients with advanced solid tumors, based on results from an ongoing phase 1 trial.

“We assessed feasibility of monthly subcutaneous administration of PF-06801591, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed cell death [PD-1] receptor,” Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology. “Subcutaneous administration of an anti-PD-1 antibody in patients with advanced solid tumors appears to be feasible.”

The researchers evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the novel anti-PD-1 therapy in a group of 40 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The antibody was administered in both subcutaneous and intravenous forms.

Study participants were administered the subcutaneous form of the antibody at 300 mg every 4 weeks or the intravenous form at 0.5, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

“Dose escalation occurred after two to four patients were enrolled per dose level, with additional patients enrolled in each cohort for further assessment,” the researchers wrote.

The primary endpoints were safety and dose-limiting adverse effects. Efficacy, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and PD-1 receptor occupancy were secondary endpoints.

After analysis, Dr. Johnson and colleagues reported that the overall response rate was 18.4%. In addition, no dose-limiting toxicities were detected in both intravenous and subcutaneous groups, but grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 6.7% and 16% of patients treated with subcutaneous and intravenous dosage forms, respectively.

“No dose–adverse event associations were observed during intravenous dose escalation, and no serious skin toxic effects occurred with subcutaneous delivery,” they reported.

Based on the findings, the team selected the subcutaneous form (300 mg) of the therapy for additional assessment in the second half of this ongoing trial.

The study was funded by Pfizer. The authors reported financial affiliations with BerGenBio, EMD Serono, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, and several others.

SOURCE: Johnson ML et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 May 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0836.