User login
AVAHO
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Neoadjuvant-adjuvant erlotinib shows promise in locally advanced NSCLC
, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.
Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.
Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).
None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.
With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.
Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.
“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”
“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”
Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.
SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.
, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.
Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.
Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).
None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.
With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.
Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.
“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”
“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”
Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.
SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.
, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.
Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.
Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).
None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.
With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.
Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.
“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”
“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”
Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.
SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Skin plus GI adverse events with checkpoint inhibitors linked to risk of additional adverse events
MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.
The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.
“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.
The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.
The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.
The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.
In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.
This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.
Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”
While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.
“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.
Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.
MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.
The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.
“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.
The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.
The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.
The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.
In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.
This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.
Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”
While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.
“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.
Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.
MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.
The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.
“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.
The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.
The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.
The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.
In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.
This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.
Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”
While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.
“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.
Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM WCD2019
EULAR issues guidelines on managing rheumatic complications of cancer immunotherapies
MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.
“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.
The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.
“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.
The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.
“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.
In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.
The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”
The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.
“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.
The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.
MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.
“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.
The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.
“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.
The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.
“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.
In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.
The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”
The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.
“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.
The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.
MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.
“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.
The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.
“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.
The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.
“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.
In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.
The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”
The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.
“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.
The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
R2 appears active in high-risk FL and MZL
CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.
R2 produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.
David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.
For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R2 induction are randomized to maintenance with R2 or rituximab alone.
Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R2 induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.
The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.
Results
At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.
The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.
The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.
“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R2] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).
The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.
CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.
R2 produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.
David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.
For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R2 induction are randomized to maintenance with R2 or rituximab alone.
Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R2 induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.
The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.
Results
At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.
The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.
The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.
“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R2] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).
The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.
CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.
R2 produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.
David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.
For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R2 induction are randomized to maintenance with R2 or rituximab alone.
Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R2 induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.
The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.
Results
At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.
The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.
The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.
“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R2] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.
The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).
The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.
SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
FDA approves trastuzumab-anns for HER2-positive breast, gastric cancer
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.
This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.
Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.
In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.
Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.
Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.
The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.
This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.
Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.
In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.
Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.
Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.
The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.
This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.
Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.
In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.
Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.
Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.
The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.
Breast cancer linked to 23% higher risk for new diabetes
SAN FRANCISCO – a new Danish study finds.
The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”
He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.
Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).
For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.
In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.
Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.
Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).
It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”
A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).
Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”
No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN FRANCISCO – a new Danish study finds.
The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”
He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.
Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).
For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.
In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.
Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.
Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).
It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”
A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).
Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”
No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN FRANCISCO – a new Danish study finds.
The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”
He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.
Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).
For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.
In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.
Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.
Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).
It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”
A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).
Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”
No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM ADA 2019
Adding ipilimumab to nivolumab provides no benefit in SCC trial
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.
Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.
Patients and treatment
The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks (n = 138).
The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.
The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.
Efficacy
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.
The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.
The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.
There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.
The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the ipi + nivo arm, compared with 1.7 months in the TMB-high/PD-L1-low patients in the nivo arm. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and 10.3 months, respectively.
“It is slightly challenging to interpret the results without knowing the PD-L1 data of all patients in the cohort, and biomarker selection remains crucial for this combination,” Dr. Arbour said.
Safety
There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.
The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.
The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.
There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.
There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.
Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Key clinical point: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab appears no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.
Major finding: The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab arm and 2.9 months in the nivolumab arm (P = .19). The median overall survival was 10.0 months and 11.0 months, respectively (P = .82).
Study details: A phase 3 trial of 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research. The researchers reported relationships with a range of companies. Source: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.
Pregnancy deemed safe in BRCA-mutated breast cancer survivors
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
CHICAGO – Pregnancy after breast cancer is safe in BRCA-mutated patients, according to a retrospective study.
Pregnancy did not affect disease-free or overall survival in a cohort of BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Additionally, fetal and pregnancy complications in this cohort were similar to complications observed in the general population.
“We believe that our findings provide reassurance for counseling young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients inquiring about the feasibility and safety of future conception,” said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genova, Italy.
Dr. Lambertini presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
He and his colleagues conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1,252 patients. The patients had been diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2012 at age 40 years or younger. All patients had BRCA mutations – 811 with BRCA1 alone, 430 with BRCA2 alone, and 11 with both.
Pregnant versus nonpregnant patients
At a median of 4.5 years after diagnosis, 195 patients (16%) had experienced a pregnancy.
Compared with the nonpregnant women, pregnant patients were younger (P less than .001), more likely to have a BRCA1 mutation (P = .01), have smaller tumors (P = .04), have node-negative disease (P = .003), and have hormone receptor–negative tumors (P = .002). Roughly 95% of patients in both cohorts had received chemotherapy, and the most common regimens were anthracycline or taxane based.
Compared with patients in the nonpregnancy cohort, those in the pregnancy cohort were less likely to receive tamoxifen alone as endocrine therapy (P = .002), were more likely to have a shorter duration of endocrine therapy (P less than .001), and were less likely to undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (P less than .001).
Pregnancy outcomes
“In terms of pregnancy, fetal, and obstetrical outcomes, no alarming signals were observed,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Most pregnant patients had a spontaneous pregnancy (82.1%), completed the pregnancy (76.9%), delivered at term (90.8%), and had no complications (86.6%). However, 10.3% of patients had a spontaneous abortion, 9.2% of pregnancies were pre term, and 1.8% of babies had congenital abnormalities.
“All these rates were highly comparable to rates that are expected in the general healthy population,” Dr. Lambertini said.
Survival analyses
The researchers performed two survival analyses. The first was a case-control approach in which they matched each pregnant patient with three controls (patients without pregnancy) according to the following:
- Disease-free interval from breast cancer diagnosis (equal to or longer than that of pregnant patients).
- Year at diagnosis (plus or minus 2.5 years).
- Nodal status (negative vs. positive).
- Hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative).
- Type of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 vs. BRCA2).
The second survival analysis was an extended Cox model with pregnancy as a time-varying covariate.
Survival outcomes
At a median follow-up of 8.3 years, pregnant patients had better disease-free survival than nonpregnant patients in the case-control analysis, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (P = .045). With the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.87 (P = .41). The analysis was adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, type of endocrine therapy, hormone receptor status, breast surgery, and BRCA mutation.
There was a significant interaction between type of BRCA mutation and pregnancy, with better disease-free survival observed in the BRCA1-mutated cohort. The HR was 0.53 in the BRCA1 cohort and 1.60 in the BRCA2 cohort (P less than .01). However, as Dr. Lambertini pointed out, only 44 pregnant patients had a BRCA1 mutation.
There was no significant interaction between hormone receptor status and pregnancy (P = .28).
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the pregnant and nonpregnant cohorts. In the case-control analysis, the HR was 0.86 (P = .65). In the extended Cox model, the adjusted HR was 0.88 (P = .66).
Dr. Lambertini disclosed a relationship with Teva.
SOURCE: Lambertini M et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 11506.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Adjuvant immunotherapy results ‘encouraging’ in early NSCLC
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
CHICAGO – Neoadjuvant monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is associated with “encouraging” responses with no new safety signals for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an interim analysis of a multicenter phase 2 trial suggests.
Among 77 of a planned 180 patients with resectable NSCLC enrolled in the LCMC3 (Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium 3) trial, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate following two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and surgery was 5%, and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 19%, reported David J. Kwiatkowski, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
“Pathological regression moderately correlated with target lesions’ measurements by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors] and MPR was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression, although there was some correlation,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was designed to test whether preoperative immunotherapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor could have additional clinical benefits for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
Investigators are enrolling patients with stage IB, II, IIIA, or selected IIIB resectable, previously untreated NSCLC. Patients receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab on days 1 and 22 (two cycles), followed by surgery on or about day 40.
The primary endpoint, MPR, “means that at the time of surgical resection, all of the samples of the tumor that are cut into sections are reviewed by a pathologist, and an aggregate score of a percent of viable tumor cells is determined based on a comparison of viable tumor cells and necrotic tumor cells and stroma,” Dr. Kwiatkowski said.
The threshold for MPR was 10% or fewer viable tumor cells at the time of resection.
Following surgery, patients received standard-of-care adjuvant chemotherapy and could receive optional continued atezolizumab for an additional 12 months.
At the time of this interim analysis, with a data cutoff of Sept. 5, 2018, 101 patients had been enrolled and were included in the interim safety analysis. Of this group, 11 did not undergo surgery, because of progressive disease, withdrawal of consent, failed echocardiogram (1 patient), or pulmonary artery involvement (1) patient.
Of the 10 patients with either progressive disease and no surgery or unresectable disease at surgery, 8 had stage IIIA tumors and 2 had stage IIIB tumors. All patients with stage I or II disease underwent resection.
Dr. Kwiatkowski presented interim data on 90 patients intended for surgery, of whom 84 had assessment of the primary endpoint, including 7 positive for EGFR and/or ALK, and 77 whose tumors were either EGFR/ALK negative or had unknown status. These 77 patients were the primary efficacy population.
As noted before, among the 77 in the primary efficacy population, 15 (19%) had a MPR, and 4 patients (5%) had a pCR. In addition, 38 patients (49%) had pathological regression of tumor of 50% or greater. Pathological regression correlated significantly with change in tumor lesion size (P less than .001).
Tumor mutational burden, however, was not significantly correlated with MPR or pathological regression.
Among the 101 patients in the safety population, there were two deaths deemed not related to study treatment: one cardiac death post surgical resection, and one from disease progression. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of patients, including 6% that were grade 3 or greater. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 5% of patients.
The efficacy interim analysis passed the prespecified futility boundary, and investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
Invited discussant Maximilian Diehn, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University commented that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC is promising, but added that the MPR endpoint still needs validation.
“Currently, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint for survival and therefore is not currently used for drug approvals. Secondly, the optimal cut point may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. And this has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both histologies. And, third, there are some emerging data that MPR may need to measured somewhat differently after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy,” he said.
The study is supported by Genentech. Dr. Kwiatkowski disclosed research funding and a consulting or advisory role for the company. Dr. Diehn reported stock ownership, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from various companies.
SOURCE: Kwiatkowski DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8503.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
Rituximab serious infection risk predicted by immunoglobulin levels
Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.
“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.
Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.
“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.
Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.
Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).
One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.
Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.
The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.
Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.
Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.
“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.
In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).
Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.
Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.
“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.
They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.
They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”
The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.
Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.
“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.
Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.
“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.
Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.
Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).
One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.
Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.
The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.
Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.
Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.
“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.
In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).
Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.
Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.
“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.
They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.
They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”
The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.
Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.
“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.
Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.
“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.
Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.
Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).
One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.
Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.
The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.
Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.
Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.
“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.
In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).
Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.
Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.
“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.
They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.
They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”
The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Immunoglobulin should be monitored at baseline and before each rituximab cycle to identify patients at risk of serious infection events (SIEs).
Major finding: SIE rates per 100 patient-years were 16.4 and 21.3 in patients with low (less than 6 g/L) IgG at baseline and during rituximab cycles versus 9.7 for patients with normal (6–16 g/L) IgG levels.
Study details: A retrospective, single-center, longitudinal study involving 700 rituximab-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
Disclosures: The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in the United Kingdom. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.
Source: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.
