Conference Coverage

The “remarkable” efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma as observed in recent trials supports its evaluation earlier in the course of treatment, according to Roch Houot, MD, PhD.

Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who progress after treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) have poor clinical outcomes, Dr. Houot, professor of hematology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, explained at the 3rd European CAR T-cell meeting.

Objective response rates in patients who relapse after BTKi therapy range from 25% to 42%, and median overall survival (OS) is less than 10 months with standard therapies, he said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

The recent ZUMA-2 and TRANSCEND NHL 001 trials evaluating the CD19 CAR T-cell products brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel; Tecartus) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi), respectively, in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL after BTKi therapy, showed dramatically improved outcomes, compared with outcomes seen previously with standard salvage therapies.

The ORR in 68 patients treated with brexu-cel in ZUMA-2 was 92%, including complete response (CR) in 40 patients (67%) and partial response (PR) in 15 patients (25%) with the rare, aggressive subtype of B-cell lymphoma.

“Interestingly, among patients who achieved a CR, 70% remained in remission after a median follow-up of 17.5 months,” he said.

Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not reached at that time, and ongoing responses were consistent across prognostic subgroups, he added.

The ZUMA-2 findings led to accelerated approval of brexu-cel by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020, as well as priority medicine designation by the European Medicines Agency in December 2020, for the treatment of MCL after two or more prior lines of systemic therapy including a BTKi.

The TRANSCEND study also included patients with MCL who were relapsed or refractory after two or more lines of therapy.

The ORR was 84% in 32 patients who completed treatment – including CRs in 66% and PRs in 19%. An additional 3% had stable disease and 9% of patients progressed, Dr. Houot said.

“The follow-up of the TRANSCEND study is still very short – the median is 5.9 months – so we don’t have survival data yet for these patients,” he noted.

Still, the efficacy in these studies is excellent, particularly considering the challenges of treating MCL patients who relapse or are refractory after BTKi treatment, he said, noting that most patients in both studies had poor prognostic factors.

Toxicities in both studies were similar to those seen in studies of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas who were treated with these drugs, he added.

“Longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate long-term efficacy,” he said, concluding that the results nonetheless “support evaluation of CAR T-cell therapy earlier in the therapeutic strategy of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr. Houot reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The “remarkable” efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma as observed in recent trials supports its evaluation earlier in the course of treatment, according to Roch Houot, MD, PhD.

Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who progress after treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) have poor clinical outcomes, Dr. Houot, professor of hematology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, explained at the 3rd European CAR T-cell meeting.

Objective response rates in patients who relapse after BTKi therapy range from 25% to 42%, and median overall survival (OS) is less than 10 months with standard therapies, he said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

The recent ZUMA-2 and TRANSCEND NHL 001 trials evaluating the CD19 CAR T-cell products brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel; Tecartus) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi), respectively, in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL after BTKi therapy, showed dramatically improved outcomes, compared with outcomes seen previously with standard salvage therapies.

The ORR in 68 patients treated with brexu-cel in ZUMA-2 was 92%, including complete response (CR) in 40 patients (67%) and partial response (PR) in 15 patients (25%) with the rare, aggressive subtype of B-cell lymphoma.

“Interestingly, among patients who achieved a CR, 70% remained in remission after a median follow-up of 17.5 months,” he said.

Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not reached at that time, and ongoing responses were consistent across prognostic subgroups, he added.

The ZUMA-2 findings led to accelerated approval of brexu-cel by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020, as well as priority medicine designation by the European Medicines Agency in December 2020, for the treatment of MCL after two or more prior lines of systemic therapy including a BTKi.

The TRANSCEND study also included patients with MCL who were relapsed or refractory after two or more lines of therapy.

The ORR was 84% in 32 patients who completed treatment – including CRs in 66% and PRs in 19%. An additional 3% had stable disease and 9% of patients progressed, Dr. Houot said.

“The follow-up of the TRANSCEND study is still very short – the median is 5.9 months – so we don’t have survival data yet for these patients,” he noted.

Still, the efficacy in these studies is excellent, particularly considering the challenges of treating MCL patients who relapse or are refractory after BTKi treatment, he said, noting that most patients in both studies had poor prognostic factors.

Toxicities in both studies were similar to those seen in studies of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas who were treated with these drugs, he added.

“Longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate long-term efficacy,” he said, concluding that the results nonetheless “support evaluation of CAR T-cell therapy earlier in the therapeutic strategy of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr. Houot reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The “remarkable” efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma as observed in recent trials supports its evaluation earlier in the course of treatment, according to Roch Houot, MD, PhD.

Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who progress after treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) have poor clinical outcomes, Dr. Houot, professor of hematology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, explained at the 3rd European CAR T-cell meeting.

Objective response rates in patients who relapse after BTKi therapy range from 25% to 42%, and median overall survival (OS) is less than 10 months with standard therapies, he said at the meeting, which is jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

The recent ZUMA-2 and TRANSCEND NHL 001 trials evaluating the CD19 CAR T-cell products brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel; Tecartus) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi), respectively, in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL after BTKi therapy, showed dramatically improved outcomes, compared with outcomes seen previously with standard salvage therapies.

The ORR in 68 patients treated with brexu-cel in ZUMA-2 was 92%, including complete response (CR) in 40 patients (67%) and partial response (PR) in 15 patients (25%) with the rare, aggressive subtype of B-cell lymphoma.

“Interestingly, among patients who achieved a CR, 70% remained in remission after a median follow-up of 17.5 months,” he said.

Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not reached at that time, and ongoing responses were consistent across prognostic subgroups, he added.

The ZUMA-2 findings led to accelerated approval of brexu-cel by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020, as well as priority medicine designation by the European Medicines Agency in December 2020, for the treatment of MCL after two or more prior lines of systemic therapy including a BTKi.

The TRANSCEND study also included patients with MCL who were relapsed or refractory after two or more lines of therapy.

The ORR was 84% in 32 patients who completed treatment – including CRs in 66% and PRs in 19%. An additional 3% had stable disease and 9% of patients progressed, Dr. Houot said.

“The follow-up of the TRANSCEND study is still very short – the median is 5.9 months – so we don’t have survival data yet for these patients,” he noted.

Still, the efficacy in these studies is excellent, particularly considering the challenges of treating MCL patients who relapse or are refractory after BTKi treatment, he said, noting that most patients in both studies had poor prognostic factors.

Toxicities in both studies were similar to those seen in studies of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas who were treated with these drugs, he added.

“Longer follow-up is needed to better evaluate long-term efficacy,” he said, concluding that the results nonetheless “support evaluation of CAR T-cell therapy earlier in the therapeutic strategy of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr. Houot reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Adhering to a healthy lifestyle may offset the heightened risk of lethal prostate cancer in patients with adverse genetic risk factors, according to results of a large U.S. study.

In men at the highest risk of dying from prostate cancer, having the highest healthy lifestyle scores cut the risk of fatal disease in half, said study author Anna Plym, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. She presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract 822).

Dr. Plym noted that about 58% of the variability in prostate cancer risk is accounted for by genetic factors, with common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) accounting for a substantial proportion of prostate cancer susceptibility.

A recent study showed that a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived by combining information from 269 SNPs was “highly predictive” of prostate cancer, Dr. Plym said. There was a 10-fold gradient in disease risk between the lowest and highest genetic risk deciles, and the pattern was consistent across ethnic groups.

In addition, Dr. Plym noted, previous studies have suggested that a healthy lifestyle reduces lethal prostate cancer risk.

What has remained unclear is whether the risk for both developing prostate cancer and experiencing progression to lethal disease can be offset by adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

To investigate, Dr. Plym and colleagues used the 269-SNP PRS to quantify the genetic risk of prostate cancer in 10,443 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The men were divided into quartiles according to genetic risk.

The investigators also classified the men using a validated lifestyle score. For this score, one point was given for each of the following: not currently smoking or having quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m², high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat. Patients with 1-2 points were considered the least healthy, those with 3 points were moderately healthy, and those with 4-6 points were the most healthy.

The outcomes assessed were overall prostate cancer and lethal prostate cancer (i.e., metastatic disease or prostate cancer–specific death).
 

No overall benefit of healthy lifestyle

At a median follow-up of 18 years, 2,111 cases of prostate cancer were observed. And at a median follow-up of 22 years, 238 lethal prostate cancer events occurred.

Men in the highest genetic risk quartile were five times more likely to develop prostate cancer (hazard ratio, 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.59-6.34) and three times more likely to develop lethal prostate cancer (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.29-5.14), when compared with men in the lowest genetic risk quartile.

Adherence to a healthy lifestyle did not decrease the risk of prostate cancer overall (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.22), nor did it affect men in the lower genetic risk quartiles.

However, healthy lifestyle did appear to affect men in the highest genetic risk quartile. Men with the highest healthy lifestyle scores had roughly half the risk of lethal prostate cancer, compared to men with the lowest lifestyle scores (3% vs. 6%).
 

A counterbalance to genetic risk

Dr. Plym observed that the rate of lethal disease in men with the best lifestyle scores matched the rate for the study population as a whole (3%), suggesting that healthy lifestyle may counterbalance high genetic risk.

She added that previous research has confirmed physical activity as a protective factor, but more study is needed to shed light on the relative benefit of the healthy lifestyle components.

In addition, further research is necessary to explain why the benefit was limited to lethal prostate cancer risk in men with the highest genetic risk.

Dr. Plym speculated that the genetic variants contributing to a high PRS may also be the variants that have the strongest interaction with lifestyle factors. For men with a genetic predisposition to prostate cancer, she added, these findings underscore the potential value of surveillance.

“Our findings add to current evidence suggesting that men with a high genetic risk may benefit from a targeted prostate cancer screening program, aiming at detecting a potentially lethal prostate cancer while it is still curable,” she said.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, raised the possibility that competing risk issues could be at play.

If a healthy lifestyle leads to longer life, he asked, does that make it more likely that patients will live long enough to die from their prostate cancer because they are not dying from cardiovascular disease, complications of diabetes, etc.? In that case, is the healthy lifestyle really affecting prostate cancer at all?

Dr. Plym responded that, among those in the highest genetic risk group with an unhealthy lifestyle, the increased risk for prostate cancer exceeded the risk for other illnesses.

This study was funded by the DiNovi Family Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the William Casey Foundation, the Swedish Society for Medical Research, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Dr. Plym declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Adhering to a healthy lifestyle may offset the heightened risk of lethal prostate cancer in patients with adverse genetic risk factors, according to results of a large U.S. study.

In men at the highest risk of dying from prostate cancer, having the highest healthy lifestyle scores cut the risk of fatal disease in half, said study author Anna Plym, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. She presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract 822).

Dr. Plym noted that about 58% of the variability in prostate cancer risk is accounted for by genetic factors, with common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) accounting for a substantial proportion of prostate cancer susceptibility.

A recent study showed that a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived by combining information from 269 SNPs was “highly predictive” of prostate cancer, Dr. Plym said. There was a 10-fold gradient in disease risk between the lowest and highest genetic risk deciles, and the pattern was consistent across ethnic groups.

In addition, Dr. Plym noted, previous studies have suggested that a healthy lifestyle reduces lethal prostate cancer risk.

What has remained unclear is whether the risk for both developing prostate cancer and experiencing progression to lethal disease can be offset by adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

To investigate, Dr. Plym and colleagues used the 269-SNP PRS to quantify the genetic risk of prostate cancer in 10,443 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The men were divided into quartiles according to genetic risk.

The investigators also classified the men using a validated lifestyle score. For this score, one point was given for each of the following: not currently smoking or having quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m², high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat. Patients with 1-2 points were considered the least healthy, those with 3 points were moderately healthy, and those with 4-6 points were the most healthy.

The outcomes assessed were overall prostate cancer and lethal prostate cancer (i.e., metastatic disease or prostate cancer–specific death).
 

No overall benefit of healthy lifestyle

At a median follow-up of 18 years, 2,111 cases of prostate cancer were observed. And at a median follow-up of 22 years, 238 lethal prostate cancer events occurred.

Men in the highest genetic risk quartile were five times more likely to develop prostate cancer (hazard ratio, 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.59-6.34) and three times more likely to develop lethal prostate cancer (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.29-5.14), when compared with men in the lowest genetic risk quartile.

Adherence to a healthy lifestyle did not decrease the risk of prostate cancer overall (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.22), nor did it affect men in the lower genetic risk quartiles.

However, healthy lifestyle did appear to affect men in the highest genetic risk quartile. Men with the highest healthy lifestyle scores had roughly half the risk of lethal prostate cancer, compared to men with the lowest lifestyle scores (3% vs. 6%).
 

A counterbalance to genetic risk

Dr. Plym observed that the rate of lethal disease in men with the best lifestyle scores matched the rate for the study population as a whole (3%), suggesting that healthy lifestyle may counterbalance high genetic risk.

She added that previous research has confirmed physical activity as a protective factor, but more study is needed to shed light on the relative benefit of the healthy lifestyle components.

In addition, further research is necessary to explain why the benefit was limited to lethal prostate cancer risk in men with the highest genetic risk.

Dr. Plym speculated that the genetic variants contributing to a high PRS may also be the variants that have the strongest interaction with lifestyle factors. For men with a genetic predisposition to prostate cancer, she added, these findings underscore the potential value of surveillance.

“Our findings add to current evidence suggesting that men with a high genetic risk may benefit from a targeted prostate cancer screening program, aiming at detecting a potentially lethal prostate cancer while it is still curable,” she said.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, raised the possibility that competing risk issues could be at play.

If a healthy lifestyle leads to longer life, he asked, does that make it more likely that patients will live long enough to die from their prostate cancer because they are not dying from cardiovascular disease, complications of diabetes, etc.? In that case, is the healthy lifestyle really affecting prostate cancer at all?

Dr. Plym responded that, among those in the highest genetic risk group with an unhealthy lifestyle, the increased risk for prostate cancer exceeded the risk for other illnesses.

This study was funded by the DiNovi Family Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the William Casey Foundation, the Swedish Society for Medical Research, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Dr. Plym declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Adhering to a healthy lifestyle may offset the heightened risk of lethal prostate cancer in patients with adverse genetic risk factors, according to results of a large U.S. study.

In men at the highest risk of dying from prostate cancer, having the highest healthy lifestyle scores cut the risk of fatal disease in half, said study author Anna Plym, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. She presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract 822).

Dr. Plym noted that about 58% of the variability in prostate cancer risk is accounted for by genetic factors, with common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) accounting for a substantial proportion of prostate cancer susceptibility.

A recent study showed that a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived by combining information from 269 SNPs was “highly predictive” of prostate cancer, Dr. Plym said. There was a 10-fold gradient in disease risk between the lowest and highest genetic risk deciles, and the pattern was consistent across ethnic groups.

In addition, Dr. Plym noted, previous studies have suggested that a healthy lifestyle reduces lethal prostate cancer risk.

What has remained unclear is whether the risk for both developing prostate cancer and experiencing progression to lethal disease can be offset by adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

To investigate, Dr. Plym and colleagues used the 269-SNP PRS to quantify the genetic risk of prostate cancer in 10,443 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The men were divided into quartiles according to genetic risk.

The investigators also classified the men using a validated lifestyle score. For this score, one point was given for each of the following: not currently smoking or having quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m², high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat. Patients with 1-2 points were considered the least healthy, those with 3 points were moderately healthy, and those with 4-6 points were the most healthy.

The outcomes assessed were overall prostate cancer and lethal prostate cancer (i.e., metastatic disease or prostate cancer–specific death).
 

No overall benefit of healthy lifestyle

At a median follow-up of 18 years, 2,111 cases of prostate cancer were observed. And at a median follow-up of 22 years, 238 lethal prostate cancer events occurred.

Men in the highest genetic risk quartile were five times more likely to develop prostate cancer (hazard ratio, 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 4.59-6.34) and three times more likely to develop lethal prostate cancer (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.29-5.14), when compared with men in the lowest genetic risk quartile.

Adherence to a healthy lifestyle did not decrease the risk of prostate cancer overall (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.22), nor did it affect men in the lower genetic risk quartiles.

However, healthy lifestyle did appear to affect men in the highest genetic risk quartile. Men with the highest healthy lifestyle scores had roughly half the risk of lethal prostate cancer, compared to men with the lowest lifestyle scores (3% vs. 6%).
 

A counterbalance to genetic risk

Dr. Plym observed that the rate of lethal disease in men with the best lifestyle scores matched the rate for the study population as a whole (3%), suggesting that healthy lifestyle may counterbalance high genetic risk.

She added that previous research has confirmed physical activity as a protective factor, but more study is needed to shed light on the relative benefit of the healthy lifestyle components.

In addition, further research is necessary to explain why the benefit was limited to lethal prostate cancer risk in men with the highest genetic risk.

Dr. Plym speculated that the genetic variants contributing to a high PRS may also be the variants that have the strongest interaction with lifestyle factors. For men with a genetic predisposition to prostate cancer, she added, these findings underscore the potential value of surveillance.

“Our findings add to current evidence suggesting that men with a high genetic risk may benefit from a targeted prostate cancer screening program, aiming at detecting a potentially lethal prostate cancer while it is still curable,” she said.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, raised the possibility that competing risk issues could be at play.

If a healthy lifestyle leads to longer life, he asked, does that make it more likely that patients will live long enough to die from their prostate cancer because they are not dying from cardiovascular disease, complications of diabetes, etc.? In that case, is the healthy lifestyle really affecting prostate cancer at all?

Dr. Plym responded that, among those in the highest genetic risk group with an unhealthy lifestyle, the increased risk for prostate cancer exceeded the risk for other illnesses.

This study was funded by the DiNovi Family Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the William Casey Foundation, the Swedish Society for Medical Research, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Dr. Plym declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

An experimental immunotherapy that contains a genetically altered version of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) was associated with a doubling in median overall survival for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.

The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.

They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.

“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
 

Engineered virus

G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.

The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.

One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.

In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.

“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”

In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.

The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
 

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.

The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.

For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.

Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.

Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.

Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.

No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.

There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
 

Radiation effect?

Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.

“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.

Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”

The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.

“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental immunotherapy that contains a genetically altered version of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) was associated with a doubling in median overall survival for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.

The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.

They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.

“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
 

Engineered virus

G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.

The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.

One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.

In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.

“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”

In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.

The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
 

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.

The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.

For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.

Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.

Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.

Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.

No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.

There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
 

Radiation effect?

Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.

“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.

Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”

The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.

“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental immunotherapy that contains a genetically altered version of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) was associated with a doubling in median overall survival for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

This is a rapidly fatal form of brain cancer. Among historical control patients, the median overall survival was only 5.3 months.

The new results show a median overall survival of 12.2 months.

They come from a phase 1 trial conducted in 12 patients aged 7-18 years who had high-grade gliomas. All of the patients received the experimental therapy, dubbed G207, which was infused directly into the brain tumors.

“In our secondary objectives, we saw promising overall survival data ... [and] we saw that G207 turned immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot,’ ” said lead investigator Gregory K. Friedman, MD, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Dr. Friedman presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT018). The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the number of patients in the study was small, the data from this early trial look promising, commented Howard Kaufman, MD, director of the Oncolytic Virus Research Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This is just a horrendous disease that hasn’t really responded to anything, so seeing some signs of benefit as well as a pretty tolerable safety profile is a very important observation that I think merits further investigation,” he said in an interview.
 

Engineered virus

G207 is an oncolytic form of HSV-1 created through genetic engineering in which a neurovirulence gene was deleted and viral nucleotide reductase was disabled. The engineered mutations prevent HSV-1 from infecting normal cells while allowing the virus to replicate in tumor cells.

The oncolytic virus product can be inoculated directly into tumors to circumvent the blood-brain barrier, and it preferentially infects neural tissue, making it ideal for treating brain tumors, the investigators explain.

One example of this type of product is already on the market. Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic HSV-1 therapy that was approved in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration for local treatment (i.e., injection directly into the skin lesion) of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma that recurs after initial surgery.

In their article, Dr. Friedman and colleagues summarized some of the data with G207 that “provided a strong rationale for conducting a trial involving children and adolescents.

“In addition to infecting and lysing tumor cells directly, G207 can reverse tumor immune evasion, increase cross-presentation of tumor antigens, and promote an antitumor immune response even in the absence of virus permissivity,” they wrote. “A single radiation dose enhances G207 efficacy in animal models by increasing viral replication and spread.”

In preclinical studies using tumor xenografts, pediatric brain tumors were 11-fold more sensitive to G207, compared with glioblastomas in adults.

The researchers hypothesized that intratumoral G207 would increase the amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and thereby convert immunologically “cold” pediatric brain tumors to “hot” and “inflamed” tumors.
 

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial included four dose cohorts of children and adolescents with a pathologically proven malignant supratentorial brain tumor of at least 1 cm in diameter that had progressed after surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

There were three patients in each dose cohort. One cohort received 107 plaque-forming units, the second received 108 PFU, the third received 107 PFU with 5 Gy of radiation, and the fourth received 108 PFU with 5 Gy radiation.

The patients first underwent stereotactic placement of up to four intratumoral catheters. The next day, they underwent infusion of the assigned PFU doses by controlled-rate infusion over 6 hours.

For the patients who received radiation, 5 Gy were administered to the gross tumor volume within 24 hours following G207 administration.

Among the 12 patients, tumors included 10 glioblastomas, one anaplastic astrocytoma, and one high-grade glioma not otherwise specified.

Responses (radiographic, neuropathologic, or clinical) occurred in 11 of the 12 patients.

Four patients were still alive 18 months after treatment, “which exceeds the life expectancy for newly diagnosed patients,” Dr. Friedman noted. Most patients die within 1 year of being diagnosed with pediatric glioma.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that survival may be improved for patients who experience seroconversion after exposure to HSV-1 in comparison to patients with HSV-1 antibodies from prior HSV-1 infection. The median overall survival was 18.3 months for patients who experienced seroconversion, compared with 5.1 months for three patients who, at baseline, had IgG antibodies to HSV-1.

No dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events attributable to G207 occurred. There were 20 grade 1 adverse events that were potentially related to G207.

There was no evidence of peripheral G207 shedding or viremia, the investigators reported.
 

Radiation effect?

Commenting on the results in an interview, Dr. Kaufman noted that the sample size (12 patients) in this study was too small to determine whether the radiation received by patients in two of the four cohorts had any additive effect.

“Whether to move forward with virus alone or to add the radiation remains an open question that I don’t think was adequately answered,” he said.

Regarding the evidence suggesting that survival was better among patients who did not have antibodies to HSV-1 at baseline, Dr. Kaufman said, “We’ve looked at that in the melanoma population but haven’t seen any correlation there, so that’s interesting.”

The finding could be related to the fact that this was a pediatric population, or it could be related to the location of the tumors in the brain.

“It’s an interesting finding, and it suggests that, in future studies, they might want to select patients who are HSV seronegative up front,” he said.

Dr. Friedman and colleagues are currently planning a phase 2 trial of G207 with 5 Gy of radiation for children and adolescents with recurrent or progressive high-grade gliomas.

The study was supported by grants from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Cannonball Kids’ Cancer Foundation, the Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research, Hyundai Hope on Wheels, St. Baldrick’s Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, and the Kaul Pediatric Research Institute; by NIH/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grants to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and by Kelsie’s Crew, Eli’s Block Party Childhood Cancer Foundation, the Eli Jackson Foundation, Jaxon’s FROG Foundation, Battle for a Cure Foundation, and Sandcastle Kids. Dr. Friedman has received grants/support from the organizations listed above, as well as from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Kaufman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

aotto@mdedge.com

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

aotto@mdedge.com

The combination of copanlisib plus rituximab led to a 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, when compared with rituximab plus placebo in a phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The trial, dubbed CHRONOS-3, is the first to report “a broad benefit” across histologic subtypes of relapsed, indolent NHL, and the results are “essentially a long-awaited proof of concept” for combining a PI3K inhibitor with rituximab, according to investigator Matthew Matasar, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Matasar presented results from CHRONOS-3 at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT001). The findings were simultaneously published in The Lancet Oncology.

Charles Swanton, MBPhD, of the Francis Crick Institute and UCL Cancer Institute in London, called the results “strongly positive” and said the copanlisib-rituximab combination is “a potential new treatment option” for indolent NHL in patients with a long remission after first-line therapy or those who are unfit for chemotherapy.

Dr. Swanton noted, however, that “one should also bear in mind” the serious adverse events (AEs) seen with copanlisib, particularly hypertension and hyperglycemia. When asked about these AEs, Dr. Matasar said he thinks the combination would be appropriate for patients who meet the study criteria as long as they don’t have severe baseline diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Patient and treatment details

The study included 458 patients with CD20-positive, relapsed, indolent, B-cell NHL. Subtypes included follicular lymphoma (n = 275), marginal zone lymphoma (n = 95), small lymphocytic lymphoma (n = 50), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (n = 38).

All patients were progression free and treatment free before their relapse for at least 12 months after their last rituximab-containing regimen, or at least 6 months before relapse if they were unwilling or unable to undergo chemotherapy.

The patients’ median age was 63 years, and just over half of them were men (52%). About 37% of patients had a history of hypertension at baseline, and about 15% had a history of diabetes.

Patients were randomized to receive copanlisib plus rituximab (n = 307) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 151). Copanlisib was given at 60 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In both arms, rituximab was given at 375 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9.
 

Progression-free survival benefit

At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.5 months in the copanlisib-rituximab arm and 13.8 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .0001).

The PFS advantage with copanlisib was seen across subtypes:

• Follicular lymphoma – 22.2 months vs. 18.7 months (P = .001)
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma – 14.2 months vs. 5.7 months (P < .0001)
• Marginal zone lymphoma – 22.1 months vs. 11.5 months (P = .012)
• Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia – 33.4 months vs. 16.6 months (P = .054)

The PFS difference among patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia was likely not statistically significant because of the small sample size, Dr. Matasar said.

He reported that the overall response rate was 81% with copanlisib-rituximab, including a 34% complete response rate. In the placebo arm, the overall response rate was 48%, and 15% of patients had a complete response.

The median overall survival was not estimable in either treatment arm. At a median follow-up of 30.1 months, 14% of patients in the copanlisib arm and 13.2% of patients in the placebo arm had died.
 

More than double the rate of serious AEs

The rate of serious treatment-emergent AEs was 47.2% in the combination arm and 18.5% in the placebo arm.

There were six grade 5 treatment-emergent AEs in the combination arm. One of these – pneumonitis – was deemed treatment related. There was one treatment-emergent death in the placebo arm.

Hyperglycemia and hypertension were the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with the combination. Diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, and pyrexia were also more frequent with the combination than with rituximab-placebo.

More than half of patients in the combination arm (56.3%) developed grade 3/4 hyperglycemia. In the placebo arm, the incidence of grade 3 hyperglycemia was 8.2%, and there was no grade 4 hyperglycemia.

Rates of grade 3 hypertension were 39.7% in the combination arm and 8.9% in the placebo arm. There was no grade 4 hypertension.

In the combination arm, 2.6% of patients stopped treatment because of hyperglycemia and 0.7% stopped because of hypertension.

Any-grade pneumonitis occurred in 6.8% of patients in the combination arm and 1.4% of those in the placebo arm. The rate of grade 3/4 pneumonitis was 2.7% in the copanlisib arm, and the rate of grade 3 pneumonitis was 0.7% in the placebo arm.

The study was funded by Bayer, the company developing copanlisib. Dr. Matasar disclosed relationships with Bayer, its subsidiaries, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Swanton disclosed relationships with numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

aotto@mdedge.com

Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.

However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.

Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.

This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.

“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.

Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).

The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.

The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
 

Change in trial design

Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.

However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).

“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.

Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”

She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.

“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
 

CheckMate 816 particulars

CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.

In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.

Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).

In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
 

Safety similar

“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.

Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.

CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.

However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.

Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.

This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.

“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.

Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).

The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.

The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
 

Change in trial design

Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.

However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).

“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.

Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”

She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.

“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
 

CheckMate 816 particulars

CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.

In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.

Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).

In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
 

Safety similar

“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.

Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.

CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.

However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.

Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.

This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.

“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.

Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).

The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.

The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
 

Change in trial design

Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.

However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).

“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.

Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”

She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.

“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
 

CheckMate 816 particulars

CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.

In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.

Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).

In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
 

Safety similar

“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.

Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.

CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.