Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

Photo from Business Wire

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a safety communication warning that cases of  differentiation syndrome are going unnoticed in patients treated with the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa).

Enasidenib is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and an IDH2 mutation.

The drug is known to be associated with differentiation syndrome, and the prescribing information contains a boxed warning about this life-threatening condition.

However, the FDA has found that patients and healthcare providers are missing the signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome, and some patients are not receiving the necessary treatment in time.

The FDA is also warning that differentiation syndrome has been observed in AML patients taking the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

However, the agency has not provided many details on cases related to this drug, which is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory AML who have an IDH1 mutation.

Recognizing differentiation syndrome

The FDA says differentiation syndrome may occur anywhere from 10 days to 5 months after starting enasidenib.

The agency is advising healthcare providers to describe the symptoms of differentiation syndrome to patients, both when starting them on enasidenib and at follow-up visits.

Symptoms of differentiation syndrome include:

• Acute respiratory distress represented by dyspnea and/or hypoxia and a need for supplemental oxygen
• Pulmonary infiltrates and pleural effusion
• Fever
• Lymphadenopathy
• Bone pain
• Peripheral edema with rapid weight gain
• Pericardial effusion
• Hepatic, renal, and multiorgan dysfunction.

The FDA notes that differentiation syndrome may be mistaken for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, or sepsis.

Treatment

If healthcare providers suspect differentiation syndrome, they should promptly administer oral or intravenous corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone at 10 mg every 12 hours, according to the FDA.

Providers should also monitor hemodynamics until improvement and provide supportive care as necessary.

If patients continue to experience renal dysfunction or severe pulmonary symptoms requiring intubation or ventilator support for more than 48 hours after starting corticosteroids, enasidenib should be stopped until signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome are no longer severe.

Corticosteroids should be tapered only after the symptoms resolve completely, as differentiation syndrome may recur if treatment is stopped too soon.

Cases of differentiation syndrome

The FDA notes that, in the phase 1/2 trial that supported the U.S. approval of enasidenib, at least 14% of patients experienced differentiation syndrome.

The manufacturer’s latest safety report includes 5 deaths (from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018) associated with differentiation syndrome in patients taking enasidenib.

Differentiation syndrome was listed as the only cause of death in two cases. In the remaining three cases, patients also had hemorrhagic stroke, pneumonia and sepsis, and sepsis alone.

One patient received systemic corticosteroids promptly but may have died of sepsis during hospitalization. In another patient, differentiation syndrome was not diagnosed or treated promptly. Treatment details are not available for the remaining three patients, according to the FDA.

The FDA has also performed a systematic analysis of differentiation syndrome in 293 patients treated with enasidenib (n=214) or ivosidenib (n=179).

With both drugs, the incidence of differentiation syndrome was 19%. The condition was fatal in 6% (n=2) of ivosidenib-treated patients and 5% (n=2) of enasidenib-treated patients.

Additional results from this analysis are scheduled to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 288).

Photo from Business Wire

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a safety communication warning that cases of  differentiation syndrome are going unnoticed in patients treated with the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa).

Enasidenib is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and an IDH2 mutation.

The drug is known to be associated with differentiation syndrome, and the prescribing information contains a boxed warning about this life-threatening condition.

However, the FDA has found that patients and healthcare providers are missing the signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome, and some patients are not receiving the necessary treatment in time.

The FDA is also warning that differentiation syndrome has been observed in AML patients taking the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

However, the agency has not provided many details on cases related to this drug, which is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory AML who have an IDH1 mutation.

Recognizing differentiation syndrome

The FDA says differentiation syndrome may occur anywhere from 10 days to 5 months after starting enasidenib.

The agency is advising healthcare providers to describe the symptoms of differentiation syndrome to patients, both when starting them on enasidenib and at follow-up visits.

Symptoms of differentiation syndrome include:

• Acute respiratory distress represented by dyspnea and/or hypoxia and a need for supplemental oxygen
• Pulmonary infiltrates and pleural effusion
• Fever
• Lymphadenopathy
• Bone pain
• Peripheral edema with rapid weight gain
• Pericardial effusion
• Hepatic, renal, and multiorgan dysfunction.

The FDA notes that differentiation syndrome may be mistaken for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, or sepsis.

Treatment

If healthcare providers suspect differentiation syndrome, they should promptly administer oral or intravenous corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone at 10 mg every 12 hours, according to the FDA.

Providers should also monitor hemodynamics until improvement and provide supportive care as necessary.

If patients continue to experience renal dysfunction or severe pulmonary symptoms requiring intubation or ventilator support for more than 48 hours after starting corticosteroids, enasidenib should be stopped until signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome are no longer severe.

Corticosteroids should be tapered only after the symptoms resolve completely, as differentiation syndrome may recur if treatment is stopped too soon.

Cases of differentiation syndrome

The FDA notes that, in the phase 1/2 trial that supported the U.S. approval of enasidenib, at least 14% of patients experienced differentiation syndrome.

The manufacturer’s latest safety report includes 5 deaths (from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018) associated with differentiation syndrome in patients taking enasidenib.

Differentiation syndrome was listed as the only cause of death in two cases. In the remaining three cases, patients also had hemorrhagic stroke, pneumonia and sepsis, and sepsis alone.

One patient received systemic corticosteroids promptly but may have died of sepsis during hospitalization. In another patient, differentiation syndrome was not diagnosed or treated promptly. Treatment details are not available for the remaining three patients, according to the FDA.

The FDA has also performed a systematic analysis of differentiation syndrome in 293 patients treated with enasidenib (n=214) or ivosidenib (n=179).

With both drugs, the incidence of differentiation syndrome was 19%. The condition was fatal in 6% (n=2) of ivosidenib-treated patients and 5% (n=2) of enasidenib-treated patients.

Additional results from this analysis are scheduled to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 288).

Photo from Business Wire

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a safety communication warning that cases of  differentiation syndrome are going unnoticed in patients treated with the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa).

Enasidenib is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and an IDH2 mutation.

The drug is known to be associated with differentiation syndrome, and the prescribing information contains a boxed warning about this life-threatening condition.

However, the FDA has found that patients and healthcare providers are missing the signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome, and some patients are not receiving the necessary treatment in time.

The FDA is also warning that differentiation syndrome has been observed in AML patients taking the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

However, the agency has not provided many details on cases related to this drug, which is FDA-approved to treat adults with relapsed or refractory AML who have an IDH1 mutation.

Recognizing differentiation syndrome

The FDA says differentiation syndrome may occur anywhere from 10 days to 5 months after starting enasidenib.

The agency is advising healthcare providers to describe the symptoms of differentiation syndrome to patients, both when starting them on enasidenib and at follow-up visits.

Symptoms of differentiation syndrome include:

• Acute respiratory distress represented by dyspnea and/or hypoxia and a need for supplemental oxygen
• Pulmonary infiltrates and pleural effusion
• Fever
• Lymphadenopathy
• Bone pain
• Peripheral edema with rapid weight gain
• Pericardial effusion
• Hepatic, renal, and multiorgan dysfunction.

The FDA notes that differentiation syndrome may be mistaken for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, or sepsis.

Treatment

If healthcare providers suspect differentiation syndrome, they should promptly administer oral or intravenous corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone at 10 mg every 12 hours, according to the FDA.

Providers should also monitor hemodynamics until improvement and provide supportive care as necessary.

If patients continue to experience renal dysfunction or severe pulmonary symptoms requiring intubation or ventilator support for more than 48 hours after starting corticosteroids, enasidenib should be stopped until signs and symptoms of differentiation syndrome are no longer severe.

Corticosteroids should be tapered only after the symptoms resolve completely, as differentiation syndrome may recur if treatment is stopped too soon.

Cases of differentiation syndrome

The FDA notes that, in the phase 1/2 trial that supported the U.S. approval of enasidenib, at least 14% of patients experienced differentiation syndrome.

The manufacturer’s latest safety report includes 5 deaths (from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018) associated with differentiation syndrome in patients taking enasidenib.

Differentiation syndrome was listed as the only cause of death in two cases. In the remaining three cases, patients also had hemorrhagic stroke, pneumonia and sepsis, and sepsis alone.

One patient received systemic corticosteroids promptly but may have died of sepsis during hospitalization. In another patient, differentiation syndrome was not diagnosed or treated promptly. Treatment details are not available for the remaining three patients, according to the FDA.

The FDA has also performed a systematic analysis of differentiation syndrome in 293 patients treated with enasidenib (n=214) or ivosidenib (n=179).

With both drugs, the incidence of differentiation syndrome was 19%. The condition was fatal in 6% (n=2) of ivosidenib-treated patients and 5% (n=2) of enasidenib-treated patients.

Additional results from this analysis are scheduled to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 288).

Astellas Pharma

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib.

The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc., is used to detect FLT3 mutations in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939).

The trial enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835, or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit.

Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range, 2.8 to 15.8).

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the rate of CR/CRh was 21% (29/138).

The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion-dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion-independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion-independent at baseline remained transfusion-independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months (range, 0.1 to 42.8).

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia (42%), transaminase increase (41%), fatigue/malaise (40%), fever (35%), noninfectious diarrhea (34%), dyspnea (34%), edema (34%), rash (30%), pneumonia (30%), nausea (27%), constipation (27%), stomatitis (26%), cough (25%), headache (21%), hypotension (21%), dizziness (20%), and vomiting (20%).

Eight percent of patients (n=22) discontinued gilteritinib due to adverse events. The most common were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).

For more details on the ADMIRAL trial and gilteritinib, see the full prescribing information.

Astellas Pharma

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib.

The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc., is used to detect FLT3 mutations in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939).

The trial enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835, or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit.

Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range, 2.8 to 15.8).

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the rate of CR/CRh was 21% (29/138).

The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion-dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion-independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion-independent at baseline remained transfusion-independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months (range, 0.1 to 42.8).

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia (42%), transaminase increase (41%), fatigue/malaise (40%), fever (35%), noninfectious diarrhea (34%), dyspnea (34%), edema (34%), rash (30%), pneumonia (30%), nausea (27%), constipation (27%), stomatitis (26%), cough (25%), headache (21%), hypotension (21%), dizziness (20%), and vomiting (20%).

Eight percent of patients (n=22) discontinued gilteritinib due to adverse events. The most common were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).

For more details on the ADMIRAL trial and gilteritinib, see the full prescribing information.

Astellas Pharma

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib.

The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc., is used to detect FLT3 mutations in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939).

The trial enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835, or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit.

Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range, 2.8 to 15.8).

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the rate of CR/CRh was 21% (29/138).

The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion-dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion-independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion-independent at baseline remained transfusion-independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months (range, 0.1 to 42.8).

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia (42%), transaminase increase (41%), fatigue/malaise (40%), fever (35%), noninfectious diarrhea (34%), dyspnea (34%), edema (34%), rash (30%), pneumonia (30%), nausea (27%), constipation (27%), stomatitis (26%), cough (25%), headache (21%), hypotension (21%), dizziness (20%), and vomiting (20%).

Eight percent of patients (n=22) discontinued gilteritinib due to adverse events. The most common were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).

For more details on the ADMIRAL trial and gilteritinib, see the full prescribing information.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib. The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe, is used to detect the FLT3 mutation in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial, which enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835 or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit. Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months.

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the CR rate with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the CR/CRh rate was 21% (29/138). The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion independent at baseline remained transfusion independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months.

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia, transaminase increase, fatigue/malaise, fever, noninfectious diarrhea, dyspnea, edema, rash, pneumonia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, cough, headache, hypotension, dizziness, and vomiting.

A total of 8% of patients (n = 22) discontinued gilteritinib because of adverse events, the most common of which were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib. The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe, is used to detect the FLT3 mutation in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial, which enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835 or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit. Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months.

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the CR rate with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the CR/CRh rate was 21% (29/138). The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion independent at baseline remained transfusion independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months.

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia, transaminase increase, fatigue/malaise, fever, noninfectious diarrhea, dyspnea, edema, rash, pneumonia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, cough, headache, hypotension, dizziness, and vomiting.

A total of 8% of patients (n = 22) discontinued gilteritinib because of adverse events, the most common of which were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved gilteritinib (Xospata) for use in adults who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test.

The FDA also expanded the approved indication for the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to include use with gilteritinib. The LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, developed by Invivoscribe, is used to detect the FLT3 mutation in patients with AML.

Gilteritinib, developed by Astellas Pharma, has demonstrated inhibitory activity against FLT3 internal tandem duplication and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain.

The FDA’s approval of gilteritinib was based on an interim analysis of the ADMIRAL trial, which enrolled adults with relapsed or refractory AML who had a FLT3 ITD, D835 or I836 mutation, according to the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay.

Patients received gilteritinib at 120 mg daily until they developed unacceptable toxicity or did not show a clinical benefit. Efficacy results are available for 138 patients, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months.

The complete response (CR) rate was 11.6% (16/138), the CR rate with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) was 9.4% (13/138), and the CR/CRh rate was 21% (29/138). The median duration of CR/CRh was 4.6 months.

There were 106 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, and 33 of these patients (31.1%) became transfusion independent during the post-baseline period.

Seventeen of the 32 patients (53.1%) who were transfusion independent at baseline remained transfusion independent.

Safety results are available for 292 patients. The median duration of exposure to gilteritinib in this group was 3 months.

The most common adverse events were myalgia/arthralgia, transaminase increase, fatigue/malaise, fever, noninfectious diarrhea, dyspnea, edema, rash, pneumonia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, cough, headache, hypotension, dizziness, and vomiting.

A total of 8% of patients (n = 22) discontinued gilteritinib because of adverse events, the most common of which were pneumonia (2%), sepsis (2%), and dyspnea (1%).
 

[email protected]

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for Sandoz’s pegfilgrastim product Ziextenzo®, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Ziextenzo is approved for the same use as the reference medicine—to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval was based on research suggesting Ziextenzo is comparable to Neulasta in terms of safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.^1,2,3,4

1. Blackwell K. et al. Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 28, 2272-2277 (2017).

2. Nakov R. et al. Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, abstract P3-14-10.

3. Blackwell K. et al. A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Oncologist 21, 789-794 (2016).

4. Harbeck N. et al. Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol 12, 1359-1367 (2016).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for Sandoz’s pegfilgrastim product Ziextenzo®, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Ziextenzo is approved for the same use as the reference medicine—to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval was based on research suggesting Ziextenzo is comparable to Neulasta in terms of safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.^1,2,3,4

1. Blackwell K. et al. Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 28, 2272-2277 (2017).

2. Nakov R. et al. Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, abstract P3-14-10.

3. Blackwell K. et al. A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Oncologist 21, 789-794 (2016).

4. Harbeck N. et al. Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol 12, 1359-1367 (2016).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for Sandoz’s pegfilgrastim product Ziextenzo®, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Ziextenzo is approved for the same use as the reference medicine—to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval was based on research suggesting Ziextenzo is comparable to Neulasta in terms of safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.^1,2,3,4

1. Blackwell K. et al. Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 28, 2272-2277 (2017).

2. Nakov R. et al. Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, abstract P3-14-10.

3. Blackwell K. et al. A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar LA-EP2006 and Reference Pegfilgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2), a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Oncologist 21, 789-794 (2016).

4. Harbeck N. et al. Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol 12, 1359-1367 (2016).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has approved Mundipharma’s pegfilgrastim product Pelmeg, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Pelmeg is approved for use in reducing the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults who receive cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exceptions of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval of Pelmeg was supported by research showing pharmacokinetic comparability between Pelmeg and Neulasta at a dose of 6 mg, pharmacodynamic comparability at doses of 6 mg and 3 mg, and no clinically meaningful differences in the safety and immunogenicity profiles of Pelmeg and Neulasta.^1,2,3

1. Roth K. et al. Demonstration of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability in healthy volunteers for B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ECCO 2017, abstract 241.

2. Roth K. et al. Comparability of pharmacodynamics and immunogenicity of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar to Neulasta®. ASH 2017, abstract 1002.

3. Roth K. et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ESMO 2017, poster 1573.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has approved Mundipharma’s pegfilgrastim product Pelmeg, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Pelmeg is approved for use in reducing the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults who receive cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exceptions of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval of Pelmeg was supported by research showing pharmacokinetic comparability between Pelmeg and Neulasta at a dose of 6 mg, pharmacodynamic comparability at doses of 6 mg and 3 mg, and no clinically meaningful differences in the safety and immunogenicity profiles of Pelmeg and Neulasta.^1,2,3

1. Roth K. et al. Demonstration of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability in healthy volunteers for B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ECCO 2017, abstract 241.

2. Roth K. et al. Comparability of pharmacodynamics and immunogenicity of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar to Neulasta®. ASH 2017, abstract 1002.

3. Roth K. et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ESMO 2017, poster 1573.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Commission (EC) has approved Mundipharma’s pegfilgrastim product Pelmeg, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta.

Pelmeg is approved for use in reducing the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults who receive cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exceptions of chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s approval of Pelmeg was supported by research showing pharmacokinetic comparability between Pelmeg and Neulasta at a dose of 6 mg, pharmacodynamic comparability at doses of 6 mg and 3 mg, and no clinically meaningful differences in the safety and immunogenicity profiles of Pelmeg and Neulasta.^1,2,3

1. Roth K. et al. Demonstration of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability in healthy volunteers for B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ECCO 2017, abstract 241.

2. Roth K. et al. Comparability of pharmacodynamics and immunogenicity of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar to Neulasta®. ASH 2017, abstract 1002.

3. Roth K. et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparability of B12019, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. ESMO 2017, poster 1573.

Henrique Orlandi Mourao

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for the FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib.

With this NDA, Daiichi Sankyo is seeking approval for quizartinib to treat adults with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the quizartinib NDA by May 25, 2019.

In addition to priority review, quizartinib has breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation from the FDA.

Trial results

The NDA for quizartinib is supported by results from the phase 3 QuANTUM-R study. Topline results from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June, and new analyses are set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting in December (abstract 563).

QuANTUM-R enrolled adults with FLT3-ITD AML (at least 3% FLT3-ITD allelic ratio) who had refractory disease or had relapsed within 6 months of their first complete response (CR).

Patients were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with quizartinib (n=245) or a salvage chemotherapy regimen (n=122)—low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC, n=29); combination mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC, n=40); or combination fludarabine, cytarabine, and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA, n=53).

Patients who responded to treatment could proceed to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), and those in the quizartinib arm could resume quizartinib after HSCT.

In all, 241 patients received quizartinib, and 94 received salvage chemotherapy—LoDAC (n=22), MEC (n=25), and FLAG-IDA (n=47). Of the 28 patients in the chemotherapy group who were not treated, most withdrew consent.

Thirty-two percent of quizartinib-treated patients and 12% of the chemotherapy group went on to HSCT.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 23.5 months. The efficacy results include all randomized patients.

The overall response rate was 69% in the quizartinib arm and 30% in the chemotherapy arm. The composite CR rate was 48% in the quizartinib arm and 27% in the chemotherapy arm. This includes:

• The CR rate (4% and 1%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete platelet recovery (4% and 0%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (40% and 26%, respectively).

The median event-free survival was 6.0 weeks in the quizartinib arm and 3.7 weeks in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.90, P=0.1071).

The median overall survival was 6.2 months in the quizartinib arm and 4.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.76, P=0.0177). The 1-year overall survival rate was 27% and 20%, respectively.

Safety

The safety results include only patients who received their assigned treatment.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Thrombocytopenia (35% and 34%)
• Anemia (30% and 29%)
• Neutropenia (32% and 25%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%)
• Leukopenia (17% and 16%).

Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Sepsis/septic shock (16% and 18%)
• Hypokalemia (12% and 9%)
• Pneumonia (12% and 9%)
• Fatigue (8% and 1%)
• Dyspnea (5% for both)
• Hypophosphatemia (5% for both).

Henrique Orlandi Mourao

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for the FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib.

With this NDA, Daiichi Sankyo is seeking approval for quizartinib to treat adults with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the quizartinib NDA by May 25, 2019.

In addition to priority review, quizartinib has breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation from the FDA.

Trial results

The NDA for quizartinib is supported by results from the phase 3 QuANTUM-R study. Topline results from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June, and new analyses are set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting in December (abstract 563).

QuANTUM-R enrolled adults with FLT3-ITD AML (at least 3% FLT3-ITD allelic ratio) who had refractory disease or had relapsed within 6 months of their first complete response (CR).

Patients were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with quizartinib (n=245) or a salvage chemotherapy regimen (n=122)—low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC, n=29); combination mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC, n=40); or combination fludarabine, cytarabine, and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA, n=53).

Patients who responded to treatment could proceed to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), and those in the quizartinib arm could resume quizartinib after HSCT.

In all, 241 patients received quizartinib, and 94 received salvage chemotherapy—LoDAC (n=22), MEC (n=25), and FLAG-IDA (n=47). Of the 28 patients in the chemotherapy group who were not treated, most withdrew consent.

Thirty-two percent of quizartinib-treated patients and 12% of the chemotherapy group went on to HSCT.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 23.5 months. The efficacy results include all randomized patients.

The overall response rate was 69% in the quizartinib arm and 30% in the chemotherapy arm. The composite CR rate was 48% in the quizartinib arm and 27% in the chemotherapy arm. This includes:

• The CR rate (4% and 1%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete platelet recovery (4% and 0%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (40% and 26%, respectively).

The median event-free survival was 6.0 weeks in the quizartinib arm and 3.7 weeks in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.90, P=0.1071).

The median overall survival was 6.2 months in the quizartinib arm and 4.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.76, P=0.0177). The 1-year overall survival rate was 27% and 20%, respectively.

Safety

The safety results include only patients who received their assigned treatment.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Thrombocytopenia (35% and 34%)
• Anemia (30% and 29%)
• Neutropenia (32% and 25%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%)
• Leukopenia (17% and 16%).

Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Sepsis/septic shock (16% and 18%)
• Hypokalemia (12% and 9%)
• Pneumonia (12% and 9%)
• Fatigue (8% and 1%)
• Dyspnea (5% for both)
• Hypophosphatemia (5% for both).

Henrique Orlandi Mourao

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a new drug application (NDA) for the FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib.

With this NDA, Daiichi Sankyo is seeking approval for quizartinib to treat adults with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the quizartinib NDA by May 25, 2019.

In addition to priority review, quizartinib has breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation from the FDA.

Trial results

The NDA for quizartinib is supported by results from the phase 3 QuANTUM-R study. Topline results from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June, and new analyses are set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting in December (abstract 563).

QuANTUM-R enrolled adults with FLT3-ITD AML (at least 3% FLT3-ITD allelic ratio) who had refractory disease or had relapsed within 6 months of their first complete response (CR).

Patients were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with quizartinib (n=245) or a salvage chemotherapy regimen (n=122)—low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC, n=29); combination mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC, n=40); or combination fludarabine, cytarabine, and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA, n=53).

Patients who responded to treatment could proceed to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), and those in the quizartinib arm could resume quizartinib after HSCT.

In all, 241 patients received quizartinib, and 94 received salvage chemotherapy—LoDAC (n=22), MEC (n=25), and FLAG-IDA (n=47). Of the 28 patients in the chemotherapy group who were not treated, most withdrew consent.

Thirty-two percent of quizartinib-treated patients and 12% of the chemotherapy group went on to HSCT.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 23.5 months. The efficacy results include all randomized patients.

The overall response rate was 69% in the quizartinib arm and 30% in the chemotherapy arm. The composite CR rate was 48% in the quizartinib arm and 27% in the chemotherapy arm. This includes:

• The CR rate (4% and 1%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete platelet recovery (4% and 0%, respectively)
• The rate of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (40% and 26%, respectively).

The median event-free survival was 6.0 weeks in the quizartinib arm and 3.7 weeks in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.90, P=0.1071).

The median overall survival was 6.2 months in the quizartinib arm and 4.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio=0.76, P=0.0177). The 1-year overall survival rate was 27% and 20%, respectively.

Safety

The safety results include only patients who received their assigned treatment.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Thrombocytopenia (35% and 34%)
• Anemia (30% and 29%)
• Neutropenia (32% and 25%)
• Febrile neutropenia (31% and 21%)
• Leukopenia (17% and 16%).

Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients (in the quizartinib and chemotherapy groups, respectively) included:

• Sepsis/septic shock (16% and 18%)
• Hypokalemia (12% and 9%)
• Pneumonia (12% and 9%)
• Fatigue (8% and 1%)
• Dyspnea (5% for both)
• Hypophosphatemia (5% for both).

Infection with certain viruses has been causally linked to the development of cancer. In recent years, an improved understanding of the unique pathology and molecular underpinnings of these virally associated cancers has prompted the development of more personalized treatment strategies, with a particular focus on immunotherapy. Here, we describe some of the latest developments.

The link between viruses and cancer

Suspicions about a possible role of viral infections in the development of cancer were first aroused in the early 1900s. The seminal discovery is traced back to Peyton Rous, who showed that a malignant tumor growing in a chicken could be transferred to a healthy bird by injecting it with tumor extracts that contained no actual tumor cells.¹

The infectious etiology of human cancer, however, remained controversial until many years later when the first cancer-causing virus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), was identified in cell cultures from patients with Burkitt lymphoma. Shortly afterward, the Rous sarcoma virus was unveiled as the oncogenic agent behind Rous’ observations.²Seven viruses have now been linked to the development of cancers and are thought to be responsible for around 12% of all cancer cases worldwide. The burden is likely to increase as technological advancements make it easier to establish a causal link between viruses and cancer development.³

In addition to making these links, researchers have also made significant headway in understanding how viruses cause cancer. Cancerous transformation of host cells occurs in only a minority of those who are infected with oncogenic viruses and often occurs in the setting of chronic infection.

Viruses can mediate carcinogenesis by direct and/or indirect mechanisms (Figure 1). Many of the hallmarks of cancer, the key attributes that drive the transformation from a normal cell to a malignant one, are compatible with the virus’s needs, such as needing to avoid cell death, increasing cell proliferation, and avoiding detection by the immune system.

Vaccines lead the charge in HPV-driven cancers

German virologist Harald zur Hausen received the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of the oncogenic role of human papillomaviruses (HPVs), a large family of more than 100 DNA viruses that infect the epithelial cells of the skin and mucous membranes. They are responsible for the largest number of virally associated cancer cases globally – around 5% (Table 1).

A number of different cancer types are linked to HPV infection, but it is best known as the cause of cervical cancer. The development of diagnostic blood tests and prophylactic vaccines for prevention and early intervention in HPV infection has helped to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Conversely, another type of HPV-associated cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), has seen increased incidence in recent years.

HPVs are categorized according to their oncogenic potential as high, intermediate, or low risk. The high-risk HPV16 and HPV18 strains are most commonly associated with cancer. They are thought to cause cancer predominantly through integration into the host genome. The HPV genome is composed of 8 genes encoding proteins that regulate viral replication and assembly. The E6 and E7 genes are the most highly oncogenic; as the HPV DNA is inserted into the host genome, the transcriptional regulator of E6/E7 is lost, leading to their increased expression. These genes have significant oncogenic potential because of their interaction with 2 tumor suppressor proteins, p53 and pRb.^6,7

The largest investment in therapeutic development for HPV-positive cancers has been in the realm of immunotherapy in an effort to boost the anti-tumor immune response. In particular, there has been a focus on the development of therapeutic vaccines, designed to prime the anti-tumor immune response to recognize viral antigens. A variety of different types of vaccines are being developed, including live, attenuated and inactivated vaccines that are protein, DNA, or peptide based. Most developed to date target the E6/E7 proteins from the HPV16/18 strains (Table 2).^8,9

Hepatocellular carcinoma: a tale of two viruses

The hepatitis viruses are a group of 5 unrelated viruses that causes inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis B (HBV), a DNA virus, and hepatitis C (HCV), an RNA virus, are also oncoviruses; HBV in particular is one of the main causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.

The highly inflammatory environment fostered by HBV and HCV infection causes liver damage that often leads to cirrhosis. Continued infection can drive permanent damage to the hepatocytes, leading to genetic and epigenetic damage and driving oncogenesis. As an RNA virus, HCV doesn’t integrate into the genome and no confirmed viral oncoproteins have been identified to date, therefore it mostly drives cancer through these indirect mechanisms, which is also reflected in the fact that HCV-associated HCC predominantly occurs against a backdrop of liver cirrhosis.

HBV does integrate into the host genome. Genome sequencing studies revealed hundreds of integration sites, but most commonly they disrupted host genes involved in telomere stability and cell cycle regulation, providing some insight into the mechanisms by which HBV-associated HCC develops. In addition, HBV produces several oncoproteins, including HBx, which disrupts gene transcription, cell signaling pathways, cell cycle progress, apoptosis and other cellular processes.^15,16

Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the focal point of therapeutic development in HCC. However, following the approval of sorafenib in 2008, there was a dearth of effective new treatment options despite substantial efforts and numerous phase 3 trials. More recently, immunotherapy has also come to the forefront, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Last year marked the first new drug approvals in nearly a decade – the TKI regorafenib (Stivarga) and immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), both in the second-line setting after failure of sorafenib. Treatment options in this setting may continue to expand, with the TKIs cabozantinib and lenvatinib and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab and the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab hot on their heels.^17-20 Many of these drugs are also being evaluated in the front-line setting in comparison with sorafenib (Table 3).

Adoptive cell therapy promising in EBV-positive cancers

More than 90% of the global population is infected with EBV, making it one of the most common human viruses. It is a member of the herpesvirus family that is probably best known as the cause of infectious mononucleosis. On rare occasions, however, EBV can cause tumor development, though our understanding of its exact pathogenic role in cancer is still incomplete.

EBV is a DNA virus that doesn’t tend to integrate into the host genome, but instead remains in the nucleus in the form of episomes and produces several oncoproteins, including latent membrane protein-1. It is associated with a range of different cancer types, including Burkitt lymphoma and other B-cell malignancies. It also infects epithelial cells and can cause nasopharyngeal carcinoma and gastric cancer, however, much less is known about the molecular underpinnings of these EBV-positive cancer types.^26,27Gastric cancers actually comprise the largest group of EBV-associated tumors because of the global incidence of this cancer type. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network recently characterized gastric cancer on a molecular level and identified an EBV-positive subgroup as a distinct clinical entity with unique molecular characteristics.²⁹

The focus of therapeutic development has again been on immunotherapy, however in this case the idea of collecting the patients T cells, engineering them to recognize EBV, and then reinfusing them into the patient – adoptive cell therapy – has gained the most traction (Table 4).

Newest oncovirus on the block

The most recently discovered cancer-associated virus is Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV), a DNA virus that was identified in 2008. Like EBV, virtually the whole global adult population is infected with MCV. It is linked to the development of a highly aggressive and lethal, though rare, form of skin cancer – Merkel cell carcinoma.

MCV is found in around 80% of MCC cases and in fewer than 10% of melanomas and other skin cancers. Thus far, several direct mechanisms of oncogenesis have been described, including integration of MCV into the host genome and the production of viral oncogenes, though their precise function is as yet unclear.^32-34

The American Cancer Society estimates that only 1500 cases of MCC are diagnosed each year in the United States.³⁵ Its rarity makes it difficult to conduct clinical trials with sufficient power, yet some headway has still been made.

Around half of MCCs express the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their surface, making them a logical candidate for immune checkpoint inhibition. In 2017, avelumab became the first FDA-approved drug for the treatment of MCC. Approval was based on the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study in which 88 patients received avelumab. After 1 year of follow-up the ORR was 31.8%, with a CR rate of 9%.³⁶

Genome sequencing studies suggest that the mutational profile of MCV-positive tumors is quite different to those that are MCV-negative, which could have therapeutic implications. To date, these implications have not been delineated, given the challenge of small patient numbers, however an ongoing phase 1/2 trial is evaluating the combination of avelumab and radiation therapy or recombinant interferon beta, with or without MCV-specific cytotoxic T cells in patients with MCC and MCV infection.

The 2 other known cancer-causing viruses are human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1), a retrovirus associated with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATL) and Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV). The latter is the causative agent of Kaposi sarcoma, often in combination with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a rare skin tumor that became renowned in the 1980s as an AIDS-defining illness.

The incidence of HTLV-1- and KSHV-positive tumors is substantially lower than the other virally associated cancers and, like MCC, this makes studying them and conducting clinical trials of novel therapeutic options a challenge. Nonetheless, several trials of targeted therapies and immunotherapies are underway.

Infection with certain viruses has been causally linked to the development of cancer. In recent years, an improved understanding of the unique pathology and molecular underpinnings of these virally associated cancers has prompted the development of more personalized treatment strategies, with a particular focus on immunotherapy. Here, we describe some of the latest developments.

The link between viruses and cancer

Suspicions about a possible role of viral infections in the development of cancer were first aroused in the early 1900s. The seminal discovery is traced back to Peyton Rous, who showed that a malignant tumor growing in a chicken could be transferred to a healthy bird by injecting it with tumor extracts that contained no actual tumor cells.¹

The infectious etiology of human cancer, however, remained controversial until many years later when the first cancer-causing virus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), was identified in cell cultures from patients with Burkitt lymphoma. Shortly afterward, the Rous sarcoma virus was unveiled as the oncogenic agent behind Rous’ observations.²Seven viruses have now been linked to the development of cancers and are thought to be responsible for around 12% of all cancer cases worldwide. The burden is likely to increase as technological advancements make it easier to establish a causal link between viruses and cancer development.³

In addition to making these links, researchers have also made significant headway in understanding how viruses cause cancer. Cancerous transformation of host cells occurs in only a minority of those who are infected with oncogenic viruses and often occurs in the setting of chronic infection.

Viruses can mediate carcinogenesis by direct and/or indirect mechanisms (Figure 1). Many of the hallmarks of cancer, the key attributes that drive the transformation from a normal cell to a malignant one, are compatible with the virus’s needs, such as needing to avoid cell death, increasing cell proliferation, and avoiding detection by the immune system.

Vaccines lead the charge in HPV-driven cancers

German virologist Harald zur Hausen received the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of the oncogenic role of human papillomaviruses (HPVs), a large family of more than 100 DNA viruses that infect the epithelial cells of the skin and mucous membranes. They are responsible for the largest number of virally associated cancer cases globally – around 5% (Table 1).

A number of different cancer types are linked to HPV infection, but it is best known as the cause of cervical cancer. The development of diagnostic blood tests and prophylactic vaccines for prevention and early intervention in HPV infection has helped to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Conversely, another type of HPV-associated cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), has seen increased incidence in recent years.

HPVs are categorized according to their oncogenic potential as high, intermediate, or low risk. The high-risk HPV16 and HPV18 strains are most commonly associated with cancer. They are thought to cause cancer predominantly through integration into the host genome. The HPV genome is composed of 8 genes encoding proteins that regulate viral replication and assembly. The E6 and E7 genes are the most highly oncogenic; as the HPV DNA is inserted into the host genome, the transcriptional regulator of E6/E7 is lost, leading to their increased expression. These genes have significant oncogenic potential because of their interaction with 2 tumor suppressor proteins, p53 and pRb.^6,7

The largest investment in therapeutic development for HPV-positive cancers has been in the realm of immunotherapy in an effort to boost the anti-tumor immune response. In particular, there has been a focus on the development of therapeutic vaccines, designed to prime the anti-tumor immune response to recognize viral antigens. A variety of different types of vaccines are being developed, including live, attenuated and inactivated vaccines that are protein, DNA, or peptide based. Most developed to date target the E6/E7 proteins from the HPV16/18 strains (Table 2).^8,9

Hepatocellular carcinoma: a tale of two viruses

The hepatitis viruses are a group of 5 unrelated viruses that causes inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis B (HBV), a DNA virus, and hepatitis C (HCV), an RNA virus, are also oncoviruses; HBV in particular is one of the main causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.

The highly inflammatory environment fostered by HBV and HCV infection causes liver damage that often leads to cirrhosis. Continued infection can drive permanent damage to the hepatocytes, leading to genetic and epigenetic damage and driving oncogenesis. As an RNA virus, HCV doesn’t integrate into the genome and no confirmed viral oncoproteins have been identified to date, therefore it mostly drives cancer through these indirect mechanisms, which is also reflected in the fact that HCV-associated HCC predominantly occurs against a backdrop of liver cirrhosis.

HBV does integrate into the host genome. Genome sequencing studies revealed hundreds of integration sites, but most commonly they disrupted host genes involved in telomere stability and cell cycle regulation, providing some insight into the mechanisms by which HBV-associated HCC develops. In addition, HBV produces several oncoproteins, including HBx, which disrupts gene transcription, cell signaling pathways, cell cycle progress, apoptosis and other cellular processes.^15,16

Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the focal point of therapeutic development in HCC. However, following the approval of sorafenib in 2008, there was a dearth of effective new treatment options despite substantial efforts and numerous phase 3 trials. More recently, immunotherapy has also come to the forefront, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Last year marked the first new drug approvals in nearly a decade – the TKI regorafenib (Stivarga) and immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), both in the second-line setting after failure of sorafenib. Treatment options in this setting may continue to expand, with the TKIs cabozantinib and lenvatinib and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab and the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab hot on their heels.^17-20 Many of these drugs are also being evaluated in the front-line setting in comparison with sorafenib (Table 3).

Adoptive cell therapy promising in EBV-positive cancers

More than 90% of the global population is infected with EBV, making it one of the most common human viruses. It is a member of the herpesvirus family that is probably best known as the cause of infectious mononucleosis. On rare occasions, however, EBV can cause tumor development, though our understanding of its exact pathogenic role in cancer is still incomplete.

EBV is a DNA virus that doesn’t tend to integrate into the host genome, but instead remains in the nucleus in the form of episomes and produces several oncoproteins, including latent membrane protein-1. It is associated with a range of different cancer types, including Burkitt lymphoma and other B-cell malignancies. It also infects epithelial cells and can cause nasopharyngeal carcinoma and gastric cancer, however, much less is known about the molecular underpinnings of these EBV-positive cancer types.^26,27Gastric cancers actually comprise the largest group of EBV-associated tumors because of the global incidence of this cancer type. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network recently characterized gastric cancer on a molecular level and identified an EBV-positive subgroup as a distinct clinical entity with unique molecular characteristics.²⁹

The focus of therapeutic development has again been on immunotherapy, however in this case the idea of collecting the patients T cells, engineering them to recognize EBV, and then reinfusing them into the patient – adoptive cell therapy – has gained the most traction (Table 4).

Newest oncovirus on the block

The most recently discovered cancer-associated virus is Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV), a DNA virus that was identified in 2008. Like EBV, virtually the whole global adult population is infected with MCV. It is linked to the development of a highly aggressive and lethal, though rare, form of skin cancer – Merkel cell carcinoma.

MCV is found in around 80% of MCC cases and in fewer than 10% of melanomas and other skin cancers. Thus far, several direct mechanisms of oncogenesis have been described, including integration of MCV into the host genome and the production of viral oncogenes, though their precise function is as yet unclear.^32-34

The American Cancer Society estimates that only 1500 cases of MCC are diagnosed each year in the United States.³⁵ Its rarity makes it difficult to conduct clinical trials with sufficient power, yet some headway has still been made.

Around half of MCCs express the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their surface, making them a logical candidate for immune checkpoint inhibition. In 2017, avelumab became the first FDA-approved drug for the treatment of MCC. Approval was based on the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study in which 88 patients received avelumab. After 1 year of follow-up the ORR was 31.8%, with a CR rate of 9%.³⁶

Genome sequencing studies suggest that the mutational profile of MCV-positive tumors is quite different to those that are MCV-negative, which could have therapeutic implications. To date, these implications have not been delineated, given the challenge of small patient numbers, however an ongoing phase 1/2 trial is evaluating the combination of avelumab and radiation therapy or recombinant interferon beta, with or without MCV-specific cytotoxic T cells in patients with MCC and MCV infection.

The 2 other known cancer-causing viruses are human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1), a retrovirus associated with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATL) and Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV). The latter is the causative agent of Kaposi sarcoma, often in combination with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a rare skin tumor that became renowned in the 1980s as an AIDS-defining illness.

The incidence of HTLV-1- and KSHV-positive tumors is substantially lower than the other virally associated cancers and, like MCC, this makes studying them and conducting clinical trials of novel therapeutic options a challenge. Nonetheless, several trials of targeted therapies and immunotherapies are underway.

Infection with certain viruses has been causally linked to the development of cancer. In recent years, an improved understanding of the unique pathology and molecular underpinnings of these virally associated cancers has prompted the development of more personalized treatment strategies, with a particular focus on immunotherapy. Here, we describe some of the latest developments.

The link between viruses and cancer

Suspicions about a possible role of viral infections in the development of cancer were first aroused in the early 1900s. The seminal discovery is traced back to Peyton Rous, who showed that a malignant tumor growing in a chicken could be transferred to a healthy bird by injecting it with tumor extracts that contained no actual tumor cells.¹

The infectious etiology of human cancer, however, remained controversial until many years later when the first cancer-causing virus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), was identified in cell cultures from patients with Burkitt lymphoma. Shortly afterward, the Rous sarcoma virus was unveiled as the oncogenic agent behind Rous’ observations.²Seven viruses have now been linked to the development of cancers and are thought to be responsible for around 12% of all cancer cases worldwide. The burden is likely to increase as technological advancements make it easier to establish a causal link between viruses and cancer development.³

In addition to making these links, researchers have also made significant headway in understanding how viruses cause cancer. Cancerous transformation of host cells occurs in only a minority of those who are infected with oncogenic viruses and often occurs in the setting of chronic infection.

Viruses can mediate carcinogenesis by direct and/or indirect mechanisms (Figure 1). Many of the hallmarks of cancer, the key attributes that drive the transformation from a normal cell to a malignant one, are compatible with the virus’s needs, such as needing to avoid cell death, increasing cell proliferation, and avoiding detection by the immune system.

Vaccines lead the charge in HPV-driven cancers

German virologist Harald zur Hausen received the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of the oncogenic role of human papillomaviruses (HPVs), a large family of more than 100 DNA viruses that infect the epithelial cells of the skin and mucous membranes. They are responsible for the largest number of virally associated cancer cases globally – around 5% (Table 1).

A number of different cancer types are linked to HPV infection, but it is best known as the cause of cervical cancer. The development of diagnostic blood tests and prophylactic vaccines for prevention and early intervention in HPV infection has helped to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Conversely, another type of HPV-associated cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), has seen increased incidence in recent years.

HPVs are categorized according to their oncogenic potential as high, intermediate, or low risk. The high-risk HPV16 and HPV18 strains are most commonly associated with cancer. They are thought to cause cancer predominantly through integration into the host genome. The HPV genome is composed of 8 genes encoding proteins that regulate viral replication and assembly. The E6 and E7 genes are the most highly oncogenic; as the HPV DNA is inserted into the host genome, the transcriptional regulator of E6/E7 is lost, leading to their increased expression. These genes have significant oncogenic potential because of their interaction with 2 tumor suppressor proteins, p53 and pRb.^6,7

The largest investment in therapeutic development for HPV-positive cancers has been in the realm of immunotherapy in an effort to boost the anti-tumor immune response. In particular, there has been a focus on the development of therapeutic vaccines, designed to prime the anti-tumor immune response to recognize viral antigens. A variety of different types of vaccines are being developed, including live, attenuated and inactivated vaccines that are protein, DNA, or peptide based. Most developed to date target the E6/E7 proteins from the HPV16/18 strains (Table 2).^8,9

Hepatocellular carcinoma: a tale of two viruses

The hepatitis viruses are a group of 5 unrelated viruses that causes inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis B (HBV), a DNA virus, and hepatitis C (HCV), an RNA virus, are also oncoviruses; HBV in particular is one of the main causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer.

The highly inflammatory environment fostered by HBV and HCV infection causes liver damage that often leads to cirrhosis. Continued infection can drive permanent damage to the hepatocytes, leading to genetic and epigenetic damage and driving oncogenesis. As an RNA virus, HCV doesn’t integrate into the genome and no confirmed viral oncoproteins have been identified to date, therefore it mostly drives cancer through these indirect mechanisms, which is also reflected in the fact that HCV-associated HCC predominantly occurs against a backdrop of liver cirrhosis.

HBV does integrate into the host genome. Genome sequencing studies revealed hundreds of integration sites, but most commonly they disrupted host genes involved in telomere stability and cell cycle regulation, providing some insight into the mechanisms by which HBV-associated HCC develops. In addition, HBV produces several oncoproteins, including HBx, which disrupts gene transcription, cell signaling pathways, cell cycle progress, apoptosis and other cellular processes.^15,16

Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the focal point of therapeutic development in HCC. However, following the approval of sorafenib in 2008, there was a dearth of effective new treatment options despite substantial efforts and numerous phase 3 trials. More recently, immunotherapy has also come to the forefront, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Last year marked the first new drug approvals in nearly a decade – the TKI regorafenib (Stivarga) and immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo), both in the second-line setting after failure of sorafenib. Treatment options in this setting may continue to expand, with the TKIs cabozantinib and lenvatinib and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab and the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab hot on their heels.^17-20 Many of these drugs are also being evaluated in the front-line setting in comparison with sorafenib (Table 3).

Adoptive cell therapy promising in EBV-positive cancers

More than 90% of the global population is infected with EBV, making it one of the most common human viruses. It is a member of the herpesvirus family that is probably best known as the cause of infectious mononucleosis. On rare occasions, however, EBV can cause tumor development, though our understanding of its exact pathogenic role in cancer is still incomplete.

EBV is a DNA virus that doesn’t tend to integrate into the host genome, but instead remains in the nucleus in the form of episomes and produces several oncoproteins, including latent membrane protein-1. It is associated with a range of different cancer types, including Burkitt lymphoma and other B-cell malignancies. It also infects epithelial cells and can cause nasopharyngeal carcinoma and gastric cancer, however, much less is known about the molecular underpinnings of these EBV-positive cancer types.^26,27Gastric cancers actually comprise the largest group of EBV-associated tumors because of the global incidence of this cancer type. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network recently characterized gastric cancer on a molecular level and identified an EBV-positive subgroup as a distinct clinical entity with unique molecular characteristics.²⁹

The focus of therapeutic development has again been on immunotherapy, however in this case the idea of collecting the patients T cells, engineering them to recognize EBV, and then reinfusing them into the patient – adoptive cell therapy – has gained the most traction (Table 4).

Newest oncovirus on the block

The most recently discovered cancer-associated virus is Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV), a DNA virus that was identified in 2008. Like EBV, virtually the whole global adult population is infected with MCV. It is linked to the development of a highly aggressive and lethal, though rare, form of skin cancer – Merkel cell carcinoma.

MCV is found in around 80% of MCC cases and in fewer than 10% of melanomas and other skin cancers. Thus far, several direct mechanisms of oncogenesis have been described, including integration of MCV into the host genome and the production of viral oncogenes, though their precise function is as yet unclear.^32-34

The American Cancer Society estimates that only 1500 cases of MCC are diagnosed each year in the United States.³⁵ Its rarity makes it difficult to conduct clinical trials with sufficient power, yet some headway has still been made.

Around half of MCCs express the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on their surface, making them a logical candidate for immune checkpoint inhibition. In 2017, avelumab became the first FDA-approved drug for the treatment of MCC. Approval was based on the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study in which 88 patients received avelumab. After 1 year of follow-up the ORR was 31.8%, with a CR rate of 9%.³⁶

Genome sequencing studies suggest that the mutational profile of MCV-positive tumors is quite different to those that are MCV-negative, which could have therapeutic implications. To date, these implications have not been delineated, given the challenge of small patient numbers, however an ongoing phase 1/2 trial is evaluating the combination of avelumab and radiation therapy or recombinant interferon beta, with or without MCV-specific cytotoxic T cells in patients with MCC and MCV infection.

The 2 other known cancer-causing viruses are human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1), a retrovirus associated with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATL) and Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV). The latter is the causative agent of Kaposi sarcoma, often in combination with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a rare skin tumor that became renowned in the 1980s as an AIDS-defining illness.

The incidence of HTLV-1- and KSHV-positive tumors is substantially lower than the other virally associated cancers and, like MCC, this makes studying them and conducting clinical trials of novel therapeutic options a challenge. Nonetheless, several trials of targeted therapies and immunotherapies are underway.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Several studies set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting provide new insights regarding chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

One study suggests ibrutinib may enhance CAR T-cell therapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and another suggests checkpoint inhibitors can augment CAR T-cell therapy in certain patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Two additional studies indicate that responses to tisagenlecleucel are durable in both ALL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

A fifth study suggests hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) may reduce the risk of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy.

ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, discussed these studies during a media briefing ahead of the ASH Annual Meeting.

Ibrutinib

In the ibrutinib study (abstract 299), patients received the BTK inhibitor starting 2 weeks prior to leukapheresis and continued until 3 months after treatment with JCAR014.

Data suggest this strategy may improve responses and decrease the incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

Responses occurred in 88% of patients who received ibrutinib and 56% of those who did not.

Grade 3-5 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 5 of 19 patients (26%) in the no-ibrutinib cohort and 0 of 17 patients in the ibrutinib cohort.

These findings are “early and preliminary but very exciting” Dr. Brodsky said.

Checkpoint inhibitors

Early results of the checkpoint inhibitor study (abstract 556) suggest that pembrolizumab or nivolumab may augment CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy.

The 14 patients studied had early CAR T-cell loss, partial response, or no response to CAR T-cell therapy. Thirteen patients had B-cell ALL, and one had B lymphoblastic lymphoma.

CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy consisted of tisagenlecleucel in four patients and CTL119 in 10. Thirteen patients received pembrolizumab, and one received nivolumab.

Three of six patients who had early B-cell recovery re-established B-cell aplasia with the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor. In two patients, B-cell aplasia persists with ongoing pembrolizumab.

Four patients who did not respond to or relapsed after their initial CAR T-cell therapy had a partial (n=2) or complete response (n=2) with the addition of pembrolizumab.

There were additional partial responses in the remaining four patients. However, one of these patients (with CD19-dim/negative disease) progressed.

“The idea was if you can give pembrolizumab, you can take the brakes off, and maybe you can reinitiate the immune attack,” Dr. Brodsky said.

“[This is a] very small [study with] preliminary data but very exciting that it is safe to give checkpoint inhibitors with CAR T cells, and it may be efficacious at getting the immune response back.”

Tisagenlecleucel follow-up

One of the two tisagenlecleucel updates (abstract 895) consists of data from the ELIANA trial, which includes pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL.

The overall response rate was 82% (65/79). Of the 65 responders, 29 were still in response at follow-up.

The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 12 months and 18 months.

“These are some very fast-growing tumors, and these are refractory, resistant patients, so, as we get further and further out, it’s more encouraging to see that there are durable responses,” Dr. Brodsky said.

The other tisagenlecleucel update (abstract 1684) is from the JULIET trial, which includes adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL (n=99).

The overall response rate was 54%. The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 6 months and 64% at both 12 months and 18 months.

HSCT consolidation

Dr. Brodsky also discussed long-term follow-up from a phase 1/2 trial of SCRI-CAR19v1, a CD19-specific CAR T-cell product, in patients with relapsed/refractory ALL (abstract 967).

Of the 50 evaluable patients, 17 had no history of HSCT prior to CAR T-cell therapy.

Three of the 17 patients did not proceed to HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, and two of these patients relapsed. Of the 14 patients who did undergo HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, two relapsed.

There were 33 patients with a prior history of HSCT, and 10 of them had another HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy. Five of them are still alive and in remission.

Of the 23 patients who did not undergo another HSCT, eight are still in remission.

“This study is very small, and it’s retrospective, but it suggests that bone marrow transplant is a good way to consolidate the remission after CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Brodsky said.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Several studies set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting provide new insights regarding chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

One study suggests ibrutinib may enhance CAR T-cell therapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and another suggests checkpoint inhibitors can augment CAR T-cell therapy in certain patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Two additional studies indicate that responses to tisagenlecleucel are durable in both ALL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

A fifth study suggests hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) may reduce the risk of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy.

ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, discussed these studies during a media briefing ahead of the ASH Annual Meeting.

Ibrutinib

In the ibrutinib study (abstract 299), patients received the BTK inhibitor starting 2 weeks prior to leukapheresis and continued until 3 months after treatment with JCAR014.

Data suggest this strategy may improve responses and decrease the incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

Responses occurred in 88% of patients who received ibrutinib and 56% of those who did not.

Grade 3-5 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 5 of 19 patients (26%) in the no-ibrutinib cohort and 0 of 17 patients in the ibrutinib cohort.

These findings are “early and preliminary but very exciting” Dr. Brodsky said.

Checkpoint inhibitors

Early results of the checkpoint inhibitor study (abstract 556) suggest that pembrolizumab or nivolumab may augment CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy.

The 14 patients studied had early CAR T-cell loss, partial response, or no response to CAR T-cell therapy. Thirteen patients had B-cell ALL, and one had B lymphoblastic lymphoma.

CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy consisted of tisagenlecleucel in four patients and CTL119 in 10. Thirteen patients received pembrolizumab, and one received nivolumab.

Three of six patients who had early B-cell recovery re-established B-cell aplasia with the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor. In two patients, B-cell aplasia persists with ongoing pembrolizumab.

Four patients who did not respond to or relapsed after their initial CAR T-cell therapy had a partial (n=2) or complete response (n=2) with the addition of pembrolizumab.

There were additional partial responses in the remaining four patients. However, one of these patients (with CD19-dim/negative disease) progressed.

“The idea was if you can give pembrolizumab, you can take the brakes off, and maybe you can reinitiate the immune attack,” Dr. Brodsky said.

“[This is a] very small [study with] preliminary data but very exciting that it is safe to give checkpoint inhibitors with CAR T cells, and it may be efficacious at getting the immune response back.”

Tisagenlecleucel follow-up

One of the two tisagenlecleucel updates (abstract 895) consists of data from the ELIANA trial, which includes pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL.

The overall response rate was 82% (65/79). Of the 65 responders, 29 were still in response at follow-up.

The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 12 months and 18 months.

“These are some very fast-growing tumors, and these are refractory, resistant patients, so, as we get further and further out, it’s more encouraging to see that there are durable responses,” Dr. Brodsky said.

The other tisagenlecleucel update (abstract 1684) is from the JULIET trial, which includes adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL (n=99).

The overall response rate was 54%. The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 6 months and 64% at both 12 months and 18 months.

HSCT consolidation

Dr. Brodsky also discussed long-term follow-up from a phase 1/2 trial of SCRI-CAR19v1, a CD19-specific CAR T-cell product, in patients with relapsed/refractory ALL (abstract 967).

Of the 50 evaluable patients, 17 had no history of HSCT prior to CAR T-cell therapy.

Three of the 17 patients did not proceed to HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, and two of these patients relapsed. Of the 14 patients who did undergo HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, two relapsed.

There were 33 patients with a prior history of HSCT, and 10 of them had another HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy. Five of them are still alive and in remission.

Of the 23 patients who did not undergo another HSCT, eight are still in remission.

“This study is very small, and it’s retrospective, but it suggests that bone marrow transplant is a good way to consolidate the remission after CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Brodsky said.

Photo from Penn Medicine

Several studies set to be presented at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting provide new insights regarding chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies.

One study suggests ibrutinib may enhance CAR T-cell therapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and another suggests checkpoint inhibitors can augment CAR T-cell therapy in certain patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Two additional studies indicate that responses to tisagenlecleucel are durable in both ALL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

A fifth study suggests hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) may reduce the risk of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy.

ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, discussed these studies during a media briefing ahead of the ASH Annual Meeting.

Ibrutinib

In the ibrutinib study (abstract 299), patients received the BTK inhibitor starting 2 weeks prior to leukapheresis and continued until 3 months after treatment with JCAR014.

Data suggest this strategy may improve responses and decrease the incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL.

Responses occurred in 88% of patients who received ibrutinib and 56% of those who did not.

Grade 3-5 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 5 of 19 patients (26%) in the no-ibrutinib cohort and 0 of 17 patients in the ibrutinib cohort.

These findings are “early and preliminary but very exciting” Dr. Brodsky said.

Checkpoint inhibitors

Early results of the checkpoint inhibitor study (abstract 556) suggest that pembrolizumab or nivolumab may augment CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy.

The 14 patients studied had early CAR T-cell loss, partial response, or no response to CAR T-cell therapy. Thirteen patients had B-cell ALL, and one had B lymphoblastic lymphoma.

CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy consisted of tisagenlecleucel in four patients and CTL119 in 10. Thirteen patients received pembrolizumab, and one received nivolumab.

Three of six patients who had early B-cell recovery re-established B-cell aplasia with the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor. In two patients, B-cell aplasia persists with ongoing pembrolizumab.

Four patients who did not respond to or relapsed after their initial CAR T-cell therapy had a partial (n=2) or complete response (n=2) with the addition of pembrolizumab.

There were additional partial responses in the remaining four patients. However, one of these patients (with CD19-dim/negative disease) progressed.

“The idea was if you can give pembrolizumab, you can take the brakes off, and maybe you can reinitiate the immune attack,” Dr. Brodsky said.

“[This is a] very small [study with] preliminary data but very exciting that it is safe to give checkpoint inhibitors with CAR T cells, and it may be efficacious at getting the immune response back.”

Tisagenlecleucel follow-up

One of the two tisagenlecleucel updates (abstract 895) consists of data from the ELIANA trial, which includes pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL.

The overall response rate was 82% (65/79). Of the 65 responders, 29 were still in response at follow-up.

The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 12 months and 18 months.

“These are some very fast-growing tumors, and these are refractory, resistant patients, so, as we get further and further out, it’s more encouraging to see that there are durable responses,” Dr. Brodsky said.

The other tisagenlecleucel update (abstract 1684) is from the JULIET trial, which includes adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL (n=99).

The overall response rate was 54%. The probability of relapse-free survival was 66% at 6 months and 64% at both 12 months and 18 months.

HSCT consolidation

Dr. Brodsky also discussed long-term follow-up from a phase 1/2 trial of SCRI-CAR19v1, a CD19-specific CAR T-cell product, in patients with relapsed/refractory ALL (abstract 967).

Of the 50 evaluable patients, 17 had no history of HSCT prior to CAR T-cell therapy.

Three of the 17 patients did not proceed to HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, and two of these patients relapsed. Of the 14 patients who did undergo HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy, two relapsed.

There were 33 patients with a prior history of HSCT, and 10 of them had another HSCT after CAR T-cell therapy. Five of them are still alive and in remission.

Of the 23 patients who did not undergo another HSCT, eight are still in remission.

“This study is very small, and it’s retrospective, but it suggests that bone marrow transplant is a good way to consolidate the remission after CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Brodsky said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib (Daurismo) for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) to treat adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who are aged 75 years and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.

Photo courtesy of Abbvie

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to venetoclax (Venclexta®) for use in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The BCL-2 inhibitor is now approved for use in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly diagnosed AML who are age 75 and older or who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

The FDA grants accelerated approval based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Therefore, continued approval of venetoclax in AML may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The approval is based on data from two studies—the phase 1 b M14-358 trial (NCT02203773) and the phase 1/2 M14-387 trial (NCT02287233).

M14-358 trial

In M14-358, newly diagnosed AML patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (n=84) or decitabine (n=31). There were 67 patients in the azacitidine arm and 13 in the decitabine arm who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via a daily ramp-up to a final dose of 400 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

They received azacitidine at 75 mg/m² on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle or decitabine at 20 mg/m² on days 1-5 of each cycle. Patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The median follow-up was 7.9 months for the azacitidine arm and 11 months for the decitabine arm.

The complete response (CR) rate was 37% (25/67) in the azacitidine arm and 54% (7/13) in the decitabine arm. The rates of CR with partial hematologic recovery were 24% (16/67) and 7.7% (1/13), respectively.

The most common adverse events (AEs)—occurring in at least 30% of patients in both arms—were nausea, diarrhea, constipation, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, peripheral edema, vomiting, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, rash, and anemia.

The incidence of serious AEs was 75% overall. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, pneumonia (excluding fungal), sepsis (excluding fungal), respiratory failure, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 1.5% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

M14-387 trial

The M14-387 trial included 82 AML patients who received venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine. Patients were newly diagnosed with AML, but some had previous exposure to a hypomethylating agent for an antecedent hematologic disorder.

There were 61 patients who were 75 or older or were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.

Patients received venetoclax via daily ramp-up to a final dose of 600 mg once daily. They received prophylaxis for tumor lysis syndrome and were hospitalized for monitoring during the ramp-up.

Cytarabine was given at 20 mg/m² on days 1-10 of each 28-day cycle. Patients continued to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the CR rate was 21% (13/61), and the rate of CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21% (13/61).

The most common AEs (occurring in at least 30% of patients) were nausea, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, constipation, and dyspnea.

The incidence of serious AEs was 95%. The most frequent serious AEs (occurring in at least 5% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, sepsis (excluding fungal), hemorrhage, pneumonia (excluding fungal), and device-related infection.

The incidence of fatal AEs was 4.9% within 30 days of treatment initiation.

Additional details from the M14-358 and M14-387 trials are available in the prescribing information for venetoclax.

Venetoclax is being developed by AbbVie and Roche. It is jointly commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, in the United States and by AbbVie elsewhere.