User login
Democratic Lawmakers Press Pfizer on Chemotherapy Drug Shortages
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CAR T-Cell: Do Benefits Still Outweigh Risks?
Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.
“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement
Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).
“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.
The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.
“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”
The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.
The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.
In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.
With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”
Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.
“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
Life-Long Monitoring Recommended
In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.
“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”
In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
T-Cell Malignancy Case Report
In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.
As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.
The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.
“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients
With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”
In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.
“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.
Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.
“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.
“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers
In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.
With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.
“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”
Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.
Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.
“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement
Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).
“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.
The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.
“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”
The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.
The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.
In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.
With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”
Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.
“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
Life-Long Monitoring Recommended
In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.
“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”
In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
T-Cell Malignancy Case Report
In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.
As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.
The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.
“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients
With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”
In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.
“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.
Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.
“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.
“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers
In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.
With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.
“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”
Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.
Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.
“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.
While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement
Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).
“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.
The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.
“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”
The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.
The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.
In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.
With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”
Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.
“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
Life-Long Monitoring Recommended
In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.
“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”
In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
T-Cell Malignancy Case Report
In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.
As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.
The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.
“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients
With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”
In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.
“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.
Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.
“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.
“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers
In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.
With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.
“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”
Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.
CAR T-Cell Therapy: Cure for Systemic Autoimmune Diseases?
A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.
The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”
Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021.
Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.”
All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said.
The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies.
The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.
After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs.
Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency.
However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment.
During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers.
Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.
“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.
For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.
Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.
The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”
Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021.
Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.”
All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said.
The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies.
The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.
After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs.
Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency.
However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment.
During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers.
Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.
“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.
For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.
Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.
The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”
Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021.
Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.”
All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said.
The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies.
The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.
After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs.
Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency.
However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment.
During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers.
Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.
“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.
For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.
Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
FDA OKs new agent to block chemotherapy-induced neutropenia
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.
The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.
The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.
During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.
The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.
The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA investigates secondary cancers from CAR T-cell therapies
Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.
Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.
Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.
Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.
Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.
Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.
Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.
Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.
Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.
Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.
Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.
Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).
“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.
Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel voices concerns over 2 lymphoma accelerated approvals
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.
“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.
Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.
The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.
Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.
Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.
The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.
The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.
For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.
At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.
“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
‘Dangerous precedent’
The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.
For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.
But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.
And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.
“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.
The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.
The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.
Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.
ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.
“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.
Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.
Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.
Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”
T-cell cancers: CAR T therapy to the rescue?
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
As Baylor College of Medicine’s Max Mamonkin, PhD, noted in a presentation, patients with conditions such as T-cell lymphoma and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have limited treatment options and grim prognoses. “This is an area with huge unmet need,” he said. “They don’t have options that patients with B-cell malignancies have, like [CAR T-cell therapy] and bispecifics.”
One big challenge is that CAR-targeted antigens in T-cell blood cancers are shared by both normal and malignant T-cells, he said. That poses a risk during therapy that the engineered cells will target each other with “disastrous consequences.”
Research by his team and others have shown that gene editing can help the cells to stop engaging in “fratricide,” Dr. Mamonkin said.
The problem is “it’s much easier to do gene editing on the bench and much harder to translate it into the clinic,” especially in light of limitations posed by the Food and Drug administration, he said. “We started to think about alternative methods to get this approach to the clinic.”
One strategy is to use pharmacologic inhibition via the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and dasatinib to mute the tendency of CAR T toward self-destruction. When tested in mice, “the unedited cells not just persisted, they expanded with sustained anti-leukemic activity and significantly prolonged their lives even more than the knock-out [gene-edited] cells.”
The research has now moved to human subjects. In 2021, researchers at Texas Children’s Hospital and Houston Methodist Hospital launched a clinical trial to test CD7 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in 21 patients with CD7-positive T-cell lymphoma. The initial part of the transplant-enabling CRIMSON-NE study is expected to be completed by mid-2024, and patients will be followed for 15 years.
Early results show that CD7 CAR T-cells have persisted in the blood of patients over weeks and months, Dr. Mamonkin said. In eight patients, “we’re seeing good evidence of activity,” with two patients reaching complete remissions.
The findings suggest that CD7 can be targeted in T-cell malignancies, he said. What about CD5? A similar study known as MAGENTA is testing CD5 CAR T-cell therapy with CD28 in T-cell leukemia and lymphoma in 42 patients. The phase 1 trial began in 2017. It’s expected to be completed by 2024 and to track patients for 15 years.
Results so far have been positive with complete remission achieved in three of nine patients with T-cell lymphoma; two remained in remission for more than 4 years.
Results in T-cell ALL improved after researchers adjusted the manufacturing of the cells. As for durability in these patients, “we try to bridge them to transplantation as soon as possible.”
As for side effects overall, there wasn’t much immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and the CD7 approach seems to be more inflammatory, he said.
The presentation didn’t address the potential cost of the therapies. CAR T-cell therapy can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Medicare covers it, but Medicaid may not depending on the state, and insurers may refuse to pay for it.
Dr. Mamonkin disclosed ties with Allogene, Amgen, Fate, Galapagos, March Bio, and NKILT.
FROM SITC 2023
PD-1 inhibitor improves outcomes in NHL subtype
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.
“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.
However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.
“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.
In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.
Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.
The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.
Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.
The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.
For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.
Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.
With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.
Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.
In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.
Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
Genetic factors
Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.
The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.
Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.
Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.
Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.
Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).
“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.
“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.
“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.
“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”
The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.
The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.
FROM ESMO 2023
Rare lymphomas: Desperately seeking new txs
“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.
Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.
One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.
“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”
There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.
Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.
Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”
Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.
Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.
One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.
“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”
There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.
Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.
Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”
Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.
Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.
One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.
“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”
There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.
Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.
Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”
Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
AT LLM CONGRESS 2023