User login
Center’s experience casts doubt on clinical utility of NGS
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor samples seldom changes patient management, and even when it does prompt off-label therapy, outcomes are usually poor, one center’s experience suggests.
“NGS has allowed more personalized medicine in oncology. It is well established that treatment of certain actionable mutations improves outcomes in many cancer types,” wrote Gregory J. Kubicek, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper in Camden, N.J., and colleagues.
However, evidence of its utility to date has been mixed, and key trials – NCI-MPACT (National Cancer Institute Molecular Profiling–Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy) and NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice)—are still ongoing. “In the interim, the oncologist must make clinical decisions with limited empiric data but an exponentially increasing number of options,” they noted.
The investigators studied outcomes of the first 305 consecutive patients at their institution for whom tissue samples were sent to FoundationOne for NGS testing between March 2014 and April 2017. On average, the patients had received two lines of therapy, and the test was ordered 1.1 years from diagnosis of metastatic disease.
Study findings reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice showed that 116 of the tests were unusable because they did not yield a report (most often as a result of insufficient tissue) or yielded a report that could not be acted on owing to follow-up issues (patient loss of contact, transfer to hospice, or death).
Of the 189 potentially usable tests, 40.2% and 66.7% showed an aberration targetable by on-label therapies and off-label therapies, respectively. And fully 89.9% had actionable aberrations via all potential avenues, including clinical trials.
However, only 11.1% of the 189 potentially usable tests (and merely 8.3% of 253 completed tests and 6.9% of all 305 ordered tests) yielded a change in management, including use of on-label or off-label therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or discontinuation of medications with a predicted poor response.
Of the six patients who were started on an off-label therapy, the median duration of treatment was 46 days, with half of these patients each stopping therapy because of death or because of progression.
“A vast majority of NGS assay results were not actively incorporated into clinical decision making, despite many assays indicating potential on- or off-label therapies,” Dr. Kubicek and coinvestigators wrote. “Given the escalating cost of medical care and scrutiny thereof, it is important to analyze whether tests are changing management and order tests appropriately.”
Several factors may explain the observed low use of NGS test results, they noted. For example, many patients were heavily pretreated, so some NGS-detected mutations would have already been known. Also, clinicians at the center had little experience with NGS testing.
“A variety of factors make precisely defining the utility of these assays in clinical decision making difficult, but we can certainly conclude that we have observed substantial costs with few discernible benefits,” the investigators stated. “It is possible that there will be greater use in the future as familiarity with these assays increases. Similarly, although we found poor outcomes with NGS-directed off-label therapies, we will eagerly await the results of NCI-MPACT and NCI-MATCH.”
Dr. Kubicek disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Davis W et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00269.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor samples seldom changes patient management, and even when it does prompt off-label therapy, outcomes are usually poor, one center’s experience suggests.
“NGS has allowed more personalized medicine in oncology. It is well established that treatment of certain actionable mutations improves outcomes in many cancer types,” wrote Gregory J. Kubicek, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper in Camden, N.J., and colleagues.
However, evidence of its utility to date has been mixed, and key trials – NCI-MPACT (National Cancer Institute Molecular Profiling–Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy) and NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice)—are still ongoing. “In the interim, the oncologist must make clinical decisions with limited empiric data but an exponentially increasing number of options,” they noted.
The investigators studied outcomes of the first 305 consecutive patients at their institution for whom tissue samples were sent to FoundationOne for NGS testing between March 2014 and April 2017. On average, the patients had received two lines of therapy, and the test was ordered 1.1 years from diagnosis of metastatic disease.
Study findings reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice showed that 116 of the tests were unusable because they did not yield a report (most often as a result of insufficient tissue) or yielded a report that could not be acted on owing to follow-up issues (patient loss of contact, transfer to hospice, or death).
Of the 189 potentially usable tests, 40.2% and 66.7% showed an aberration targetable by on-label therapies and off-label therapies, respectively. And fully 89.9% had actionable aberrations via all potential avenues, including clinical trials.
However, only 11.1% of the 189 potentially usable tests (and merely 8.3% of 253 completed tests and 6.9% of all 305 ordered tests) yielded a change in management, including use of on-label or off-label therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or discontinuation of medications with a predicted poor response.
Of the six patients who were started on an off-label therapy, the median duration of treatment was 46 days, with half of these patients each stopping therapy because of death or because of progression.
“A vast majority of NGS assay results were not actively incorporated into clinical decision making, despite many assays indicating potential on- or off-label therapies,” Dr. Kubicek and coinvestigators wrote. “Given the escalating cost of medical care and scrutiny thereof, it is important to analyze whether tests are changing management and order tests appropriately.”
Several factors may explain the observed low use of NGS test results, they noted. For example, many patients were heavily pretreated, so some NGS-detected mutations would have already been known. Also, clinicians at the center had little experience with NGS testing.
“A variety of factors make precisely defining the utility of these assays in clinical decision making difficult, but we can certainly conclude that we have observed substantial costs with few discernible benefits,” the investigators stated. “It is possible that there will be greater use in the future as familiarity with these assays increases. Similarly, although we found poor outcomes with NGS-directed off-label therapies, we will eagerly await the results of NCI-MPACT and NCI-MATCH.”
Dr. Kubicek disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Davis W et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00269.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor samples seldom changes patient management, and even when it does prompt off-label therapy, outcomes are usually poor, one center’s experience suggests.
“NGS has allowed more personalized medicine in oncology. It is well established that treatment of certain actionable mutations improves outcomes in many cancer types,” wrote Gregory J. Kubicek, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper in Camden, N.J., and colleagues.
However, evidence of its utility to date has been mixed, and key trials – NCI-MPACT (National Cancer Institute Molecular Profiling–Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy) and NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice)—are still ongoing. “In the interim, the oncologist must make clinical decisions with limited empiric data but an exponentially increasing number of options,” they noted.
The investigators studied outcomes of the first 305 consecutive patients at their institution for whom tissue samples were sent to FoundationOne for NGS testing between March 2014 and April 2017. On average, the patients had received two lines of therapy, and the test was ordered 1.1 years from diagnosis of metastatic disease.
Study findings reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice showed that 116 of the tests were unusable because they did not yield a report (most often as a result of insufficient tissue) or yielded a report that could not be acted on owing to follow-up issues (patient loss of contact, transfer to hospice, or death).
Of the 189 potentially usable tests, 40.2% and 66.7% showed an aberration targetable by on-label therapies and off-label therapies, respectively. And fully 89.9% had actionable aberrations via all potential avenues, including clinical trials.
However, only 11.1% of the 189 potentially usable tests (and merely 8.3% of 253 completed tests and 6.9% of all 305 ordered tests) yielded a change in management, including use of on-label or off-label therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or discontinuation of medications with a predicted poor response.
Of the six patients who were started on an off-label therapy, the median duration of treatment was 46 days, with half of these patients each stopping therapy because of death or because of progression.
“A vast majority of NGS assay results were not actively incorporated into clinical decision making, despite many assays indicating potential on- or off-label therapies,” Dr. Kubicek and coinvestigators wrote. “Given the escalating cost of medical care and scrutiny thereof, it is important to analyze whether tests are changing management and order tests appropriately.”
Several factors may explain the observed low use of NGS test results, they noted. For example, many patients were heavily pretreated, so some NGS-detected mutations would have already been known. Also, clinicians at the center had little experience with NGS testing.
“A variety of factors make precisely defining the utility of these assays in clinical decision making difficult, but we can certainly conclude that we have observed substantial costs with few discernible benefits,” the investigators stated. “It is possible that there will be greater use in the future as familiarity with these assays increases. Similarly, although we found poor outcomes with NGS-directed off-label therapies, we will eagerly await the results of NCI-MPACT and NCI-MATCH.”
Dr. Kubicek disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding.
SOURCE: Davis W et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00269.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Bevacizumab-erlotinib combo falls short in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC
according to a multicenter, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.
“The development of erlotinib as a first-line therapy was an important advance, but there was interest in improving the efficacy of erlotinib,” noted the investigators, led by Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C. Preclinical data suggested that adding an antiangiogenic agent could overcome resistance, and subgroup analyses of a phase 3 trial hinted at greater efficacy of this combination in patients with EGFR-mutant disease (Lancet. 2011;377:1846-54).
The new trial was conducted among 88 patients with previously untreated stage 4 EGFR-mutant NSCLC eligible to receive bevacizumab. Two-thirds had an EGFR exon 19 deletion.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive erlotinib (Tarceva), an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, either alone or in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin), an antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor.
Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that, during a median follow-up of 33 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 17.9 months with the combination and 13.5 months with erlotinib alone, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .39).
There was also no significant difference between groups in objective response rate (81% vs. 83%; P = .81) and overall survival (median, 32.4 vs. 50.6 months; HR, 1.41; P = .33).
Relative to the erlotinib monotherapy group, the combination therapy group had higher rates of grade 3 or worse acneiform rash (26% vs. 16%), hypertension (40% vs. 20%), and proteinuria (12% vs. 0%), but a lower rate of grade 3 or worse diarrhea (9% vs. 13%).
“Our study, unlike previous randomized clinical trials, did not reveal a significant improvement in PFS with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab. ... One consideration is that our trial used investigator assessment of response and disease progression, whereas previous randomized trials used blinded independent radiologic review,” Dr. Stinchcombe and coinvestigators summarized.
“Future studies will investigate novel osimertinib [Tagrisso] combinations and molecular markers to identify patients most likely to experience disease progression with single-agent EGFR TKIs,” they concluded.
Dr. Stinchcombe reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The trial was supported by Genentech/Roche.
SOURCE: Stinchcombe TE et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1847.
according to a multicenter, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.
“The development of erlotinib as a first-line therapy was an important advance, but there was interest in improving the efficacy of erlotinib,” noted the investigators, led by Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C. Preclinical data suggested that adding an antiangiogenic agent could overcome resistance, and subgroup analyses of a phase 3 trial hinted at greater efficacy of this combination in patients with EGFR-mutant disease (Lancet. 2011;377:1846-54).
The new trial was conducted among 88 patients with previously untreated stage 4 EGFR-mutant NSCLC eligible to receive bevacizumab. Two-thirds had an EGFR exon 19 deletion.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive erlotinib (Tarceva), an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, either alone or in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin), an antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor.
Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that, during a median follow-up of 33 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 17.9 months with the combination and 13.5 months with erlotinib alone, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .39).
There was also no significant difference between groups in objective response rate (81% vs. 83%; P = .81) and overall survival (median, 32.4 vs. 50.6 months; HR, 1.41; P = .33).
Relative to the erlotinib monotherapy group, the combination therapy group had higher rates of grade 3 or worse acneiform rash (26% vs. 16%), hypertension (40% vs. 20%), and proteinuria (12% vs. 0%), but a lower rate of grade 3 or worse diarrhea (9% vs. 13%).
“Our study, unlike previous randomized clinical trials, did not reveal a significant improvement in PFS with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab. ... One consideration is that our trial used investigator assessment of response and disease progression, whereas previous randomized trials used blinded independent radiologic review,” Dr. Stinchcombe and coinvestigators summarized.
“Future studies will investigate novel osimertinib [Tagrisso] combinations and molecular markers to identify patients most likely to experience disease progression with single-agent EGFR TKIs,” they concluded.
Dr. Stinchcombe reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The trial was supported by Genentech/Roche.
SOURCE: Stinchcombe TE et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1847.
according to a multicenter, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.
“The development of erlotinib as a first-line therapy was an important advance, but there was interest in improving the efficacy of erlotinib,” noted the investigators, led by Thomas E. Stinchcombe, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C. Preclinical data suggested that adding an antiangiogenic agent could overcome resistance, and subgroup analyses of a phase 3 trial hinted at greater efficacy of this combination in patients with EGFR-mutant disease (Lancet. 2011;377:1846-54).
The new trial was conducted among 88 patients with previously untreated stage 4 EGFR-mutant NSCLC eligible to receive bevacizumab. Two-thirds had an EGFR exon 19 deletion.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive erlotinib (Tarceva), an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, either alone or in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin), an antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor.
Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that, during a median follow-up of 33 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 17.9 months with the combination and 13.5 months with erlotinib alone, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .39).
There was also no significant difference between groups in objective response rate (81% vs. 83%; P = .81) and overall survival (median, 32.4 vs. 50.6 months; HR, 1.41; P = .33).
Relative to the erlotinib monotherapy group, the combination therapy group had higher rates of grade 3 or worse acneiform rash (26% vs. 16%), hypertension (40% vs. 20%), and proteinuria (12% vs. 0%), but a lower rate of grade 3 or worse diarrhea (9% vs. 13%).
“Our study, unlike previous randomized clinical trials, did not reveal a significant improvement in PFS with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab. ... One consideration is that our trial used investigator assessment of response and disease progression, whereas previous randomized trials used blinded independent radiologic review,” Dr. Stinchcombe and coinvestigators summarized.
“Future studies will investigate novel osimertinib [Tagrisso] combinations and molecular markers to identify patients most likely to experience disease progression with single-agent EGFR TKIs,” they concluded.
Dr. Stinchcombe reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The trial was supported by Genentech/Roche.
SOURCE: Stinchcombe TE et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1847.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Immune-related toxicities, hospitalization common with checkpoint inhibitor therapy
, according to a retrospective cohort study.
In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.
“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.
The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.
In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.
Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.
“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.
“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.
Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.
SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.
, according to a retrospective cohort study.
In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.
“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.
The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.
In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.
Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.
“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.
“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.
Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.
SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.
, according to a retrospective cohort study.
In addition, the majority of the immune-related toxicities were high-grade events of grade 3 or higher (65%), necessitated multidisciplinary care (91%), and eventually improved or resolved (65%). The results highlight potential risk factors for hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicities in oncology patients.
“[We aimed to] characterize the spectrum of toxicities, management, and outcomes of hospitalizations for immune-related adverse events,” wrote Aanika Balaji, BS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. The findings were reported in the Journal of Oncology Practice.
The researchers studied 443 patients admitted to solid tumor oncology service at an oncology center over a period of 6-months. Of these, 100 patients had at any point received checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
The proportion of hospital admissions for patients with confirmed immune-related toxicities and associations between hospitalizations due to immune-related toxicity and patient characteristics were assessed by the team. Nearly half of the patients admitted with immune-related toxicities had thoracic or head and neck cancers.
In the analysis, patients treated with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-23.2), in addition to those aged 65 years and over (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.6-17.8), were more likely to be hospitalized for immune-related toxicities.
Overall, 5% of all hospitalizations were the result of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, 87% of patients discontinued checkpoint inhibitor therapy post discharge.
“We found that the most common immune-related adverse events warranting hospital admission were pneumonitis (26%) and colitis (17%),” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and lack of generalizability in community settings. Future studies that include patients from community oncology settings could improve the generalizability of the results.
“These data indicate potential risk factors for immune-related adverse event hospitalization and are likely to indicate future service needs” they concluded.
Financial support was provided by Jarushka Naidoo. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Exelixis, MedImmune, and several others.
SOURCE: Balaji A et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00703.
FROM JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Bevacizumab or pemetrexed, but not both, efficacious for NSCLC maintenance
Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.
For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.
The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.
Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.
In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.
Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, or a combination of the two agents.
For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.
Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).
Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.
Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.
For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.
The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.
Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.
In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.
Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, or a combination of the two agents.
For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.
Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).
Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.
Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.
For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.
The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.
Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.
In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.
Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, or a combination of the two agents.
For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.
Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).
Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
COPD adds complexity to shared decision making for LDCT lung cancer screening
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
research suggests.
Jonathan M. Iaccarino, MD, of the pulmonary center at the Boston University, and coauthors reported the results of a secondary analysis of patient-level outcomes from 75,138 low-dose CT (LDCT) scans in 26,453 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (Chest 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016).
Currently, LDCT screening is recommended annually for high-risk smokers aged 55-80 years. The National Lung Screening Trial showed that this screening achieved a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality in this group. The guidelines stress the importance of shared decision making, with discussion of the risks and benefits of screening.
Dr. Iaccarino and colleagues point out that decision aids for shared decision making need to include important baseline characteristics, such as the presence of COPD, as these can complicate the risk and benefit analysis.
In this study, they found that 14.2% of LDCT scans performed led to a subsequent diagnostic study and 1.5% resulted in an invasive procedure. In addition, 0.3% of scans resulted in a procedure-related complication, and in 89 cases (0.1%), this procedure-related complication was serious.
At the patient level, nearly one-third (30.5%) received a diagnostic study, 4.2% underwent an invasive procedure – 41% of whom ultimately were found not to have lung cancer – 0.9% had a procedure-related complication, and 0.3% had a serious procedure related complication. Furthermore, among those who experienced a serious complication, 12.5% were found not to have lung cancer.
“Our study analyzes cumulative outcomes at the level of the individual patient over the three years of LDCT screening during the NLST, showing higher rates of diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures, complications and serious complications than apparent when data is presented at the level of the individual test,” the authors wrote.
The 4,632 participants with COPD were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic studies (36.2%), have an invasive procedure (6%), experience a procedure-related complication (1.5%) and experience a serious procedure-related complication (0.6%) than were participants without COPD. However, they also had a significantly higher incidence of lung cancer diagnosis than did participants without COPD (6.1% vs. 3.6%).
“While most decision aids note the risks of screening may be increased in those with COPD, our study helps quantify these increased risks as well as the increased likelihood of a lung cancer diagnosis, a critical advance given that providing personalized (rather than generic) information results in more accurate risk perception and more informed choices among individuals considering screening,” the authors wrote. “With the significant change in the balance of benefits and risks of screening in patients with COPD, it is critical to adjust the shared decision-making discussions accordingly.”
They also noted that other comorbidities, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and other lung diseases, would likely affect the balance of risk and benefit of LDCT screening, and that there was a need for further exploration of screening in these patients.
Noting the study’s limitations, the authors pointed that their analysis focused on outcomes that were not the primary outcomes of the National Lung Screening trial, and that they relied on self-reported COPD diagnoses.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Charles A. King Trust, and Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Iaccarino JM et al. CHEST 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.016.
FROM CHEST
Immune checkpoint inhibitors and locally ablative therapy in NSCLC
In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.
I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC
Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.
They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
What this means in practice
As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.
Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC
We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.
As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).
The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.
What this means in practice
There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.
At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.
I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC
Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.
They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
What this means in practice
As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.
Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC
We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.
As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).
The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.
What this means in practice
There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.
At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.
I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC
Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.
They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
What this means in practice
As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.
Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC
We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.
As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).
The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.
What this means in practice
There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.
At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.
Real-world data for immunotherapy-treated NSCLC found robust
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
Real-world outcome data from patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy are robust enough to use for regulatory and payer decisions, suggests an analysis of six data sets and more than 13,000 patients.
“Study of routinely collected health care data is increasingly important for various stakeholders who are interested in better understanding particular patient populations, evaluating drug safety in the postmarketing setting, measuring health care use and clinical outcomes, performing comparative effectiveness research, and optimizing drug pricing models,” noted lead investigator Mark Stewart, PhD, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, and coinvestigators. “However, before [real-world data] finds widespread use as an adjunct to – or in unique settings, an alternative for – [randomized clinical trials], the validity of readily extractable clinical outcomes measures – real-world endpoints – must be established.”
The investigators undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims and electronic health records for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) between January 2011 and October 2017 in real-world settings. They analyzed six data sets having 269 to 6,924 patients each (13,639 patients total).
Results reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics showed that the real-world intermediate endpoints of time to treatment discontinuation and time to next treatment were moderately to highly correlated with real-world overall survival (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 0.36 to 0.89, with most values 0.60 or higher).
In real-world settings, the 1-year rate of overall survival after starting immunotherapy ranged from 40% to 57%. Real-world data and trial data were similar with respect to median overall survival (8.6-13.5 months vs. 9.2-12.7 months).
The data sources used for the study have been extensively used for research and are curated on an ongoing basis to ensure the data are accurate and as complete as possible, Dr. Stewart and coinvestigators noted.
“These findings demonstrate that real-world endpoints are generally consistent with each other and with outcomes observed in randomized clinical trials, which substantiates the potential validity of real-world data to support regulatory and payer decision-making,” they maintained. “Differences observed likely reflect true differences between real-world and protocol-driven practices.
“Additional studies are needed to further support the use of [real-world evidence] and inform the development of regulatory guidance,” the investigators concluded. “Standardizing definitions for real-world endpoints and determining appropriate analytic methodologies for [real-world data] will be critical for broader adoption of real-world studies and will provide greater confidence in associated findings. As more refined and standardized approaches are developed that incorporate deep clinical and bioinformatics expertise, the greater the utility of [real-world data] will be for detecting even small, but important, differences in treatment effects.”
Dr. Stewart disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
SOURCE: Stewart M et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 July 23. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00155.
FROM JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS
Mixed results with TMB as NSCLC marker
The degree of tumor mutational burden can predict whether patients with non–small cell lung cancer will benefit from immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor, but differences in TMB by tumor histology and metastatic sites suggest that clinicians still don’t fully understand the implications of this marker for clinical care, investigators say.
A study of nearly 3,500 unmatched non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples showed that TMB of 10 mutations per megabase (MB) or higher occurred more frequently in metastases (especially brain metastases) than in primary tumors, in squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), compared with adenocarcinomas, and in poorly differentiated tumors, compared with moderately or well-differentiated tumors, reported Matthew K. Stein, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis and colleagues in JCO Precision Oncology.
“Further work is needed to elucidate the mutational differences implied by TMB with the hope of identifying additional ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] biomarkers, as well as exploring unique therapeutic approaches for brain metastases and other sites with high TMB,” they wrote.
To get a clearer picture of differences in TMB by biopsy sample location, histology, and other biomarkers, the investigators obtained 3,424 unique, unmatched specimens from multiple U.S. cancer centers. The specimens, including 2,351 adenocarcinomas and 1,073 SCCs, were identified by only age and sex, with histology confirmed by pathology review.
The investigators conducted next-generation sequencing of 592 cancer-related genes on each specimen, as well as programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry, and TMB. They used a TMB cutoff of 10 mutations/MB, which was established as predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in the Checkmate 568 and Checkmate 227 trials.
They found that 38% of metastatic adenocarcinoma samples had TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater, compared with 25% of primary adenocarcinomas (P less than .001), a difference that was greatest for brain metastases, compared with other metastases (61% vs. 35%; P less than .001). The median TMBs were 13 mutations/MB vs. 6 mutations/MB, respectively.
Similarly, TMB above the cutoff was more frequent in SCC metastases than primaries (41% vs. 35%; P = .038).
TMB of 10 mutations/MB occurred significantly more often in SCC primary tumors (35%) than in adenocarcinoma primaries (25%; P less than .001).
They also saw variability in TMB among other sites, with adrenal metastases being the second–most likely site to have high TMB (51%) and bone metastases being least likely (19%).
In an analysis stratified by histology and primary or metastatic sample site, poorly differentiated tumors were significantly more likely to have TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater both for adenocarcinomas (40% of poorly differentiated primaries vs. 19% for others, and 48% of poorly differentiated metastases vs. 35% for other metastases; P less than .001 for both), and for SCCs (40% vs. 33% of primaries; P = .028; and 42% vs. 31% of metastases; P = .025).
The investigators also detected site-specific differences in PD-L1 positivity, STK11 and KRAS mutation rates, and other markers along the 10 mutations/MB cutoff which they characterized as “clinically informative.”
“Practically, clinicians should consider obtaining metastasis samples when possible if assessing for high TMB. Furthermore, in addition to previously described intratumor heterogeneity, our data highlight significant intertumor heterogeneity in NSCLC. One possible solution to capture tumor heterogeneity is with blood TMB, which theoretically could depict a composite TMB score versus single-site tissue,” Dr. Stein and associates said.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Stein reported no relevant disclosures. Several of the coauthors are employees of Caris Life Sciences, which performed the tumor profiling.
SOURCE: Stein MK et al. JCO Precision Oncology. 2019 Jul 26. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00376.
The degree of tumor mutational burden can predict whether patients with non–small cell lung cancer will benefit from immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor, but differences in TMB by tumor histology and metastatic sites suggest that clinicians still don’t fully understand the implications of this marker for clinical care, investigators say.
A study of nearly 3,500 unmatched non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples showed that TMB of 10 mutations per megabase (MB) or higher occurred more frequently in metastases (especially brain metastases) than in primary tumors, in squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), compared with adenocarcinomas, and in poorly differentiated tumors, compared with moderately or well-differentiated tumors, reported Matthew K. Stein, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis and colleagues in JCO Precision Oncology.
“Further work is needed to elucidate the mutational differences implied by TMB with the hope of identifying additional ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] biomarkers, as well as exploring unique therapeutic approaches for brain metastases and other sites with high TMB,” they wrote.
To get a clearer picture of differences in TMB by biopsy sample location, histology, and other biomarkers, the investigators obtained 3,424 unique, unmatched specimens from multiple U.S. cancer centers. The specimens, including 2,351 adenocarcinomas and 1,073 SCCs, were identified by only age and sex, with histology confirmed by pathology review.
The investigators conducted next-generation sequencing of 592 cancer-related genes on each specimen, as well as programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry, and TMB. They used a TMB cutoff of 10 mutations/MB, which was established as predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in the Checkmate 568 and Checkmate 227 trials.
They found that 38% of metastatic adenocarcinoma samples had TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater, compared with 25% of primary adenocarcinomas (P less than .001), a difference that was greatest for brain metastases, compared with other metastases (61% vs. 35%; P less than .001). The median TMBs were 13 mutations/MB vs. 6 mutations/MB, respectively.
Similarly, TMB above the cutoff was more frequent in SCC metastases than primaries (41% vs. 35%; P = .038).
TMB of 10 mutations/MB occurred significantly more often in SCC primary tumors (35%) than in adenocarcinoma primaries (25%; P less than .001).
They also saw variability in TMB among other sites, with adrenal metastases being the second–most likely site to have high TMB (51%) and bone metastases being least likely (19%).
In an analysis stratified by histology and primary or metastatic sample site, poorly differentiated tumors were significantly more likely to have TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater both for adenocarcinomas (40% of poorly differentiated primaries vs. 19% for others, and 48% of poorly differentiated metastases vs. 35% for other metastases; P less than .001 for both), and for SCCs (40% vs. 33% of primaries; P = .028; and 42% vs. 31% of metastases; P = .025).
The investigators also detected site-specific differences in PD-L1 positivity, STK11 and KRAS mutation rates, and other markers along the 10 mutations/MB cutoff which they characterized as “clinically informative.”
“Practically, clinicians should consider obtaining metastasis samples when possible if assessing for high TMB. Furthermore, in addition to previously described intratumor heterogeneity, our data highlight significant intertumor heterogeneity in NSCLC. One possible solution to capture tumor heterogeneity is with blood TMB, which theoretically could depict a composite TMB score versus single-site tissue,” Dr. Stein and associates said.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Stein reported no relevant disclosures. Several of the coauthors are employees of Caris Life Sciences, which performed the tumor profiling.
SOURCE: Stein MK et al. JCO Precision Oncology. 2019 Jul 26. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00376.
The degree of tumor mutational burden can predict whether patients with non–small cell lung cancer will benefit from immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor, but differences in TMB by tumor histology and metastatic sites suggest that clinicians still don’t fully understand the implications of this marker for clinical care, investigators say.
A study of nearly 3,500 unmatched non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples showed that TMB of 10 mutations per megabase (MB) or higher occurred more frequently in metastases (especially brain metastases) than in primary tumors, in squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), compared with adenocarcinomas, and in poorly differentiated tumors, compared with moderately or well-differentiated tumors, reported Matthew K. Stein, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis and colleagues in JCO Precision Oncology.
“Further work is needed to elucidate the mutational differences implied by TMB with the hope of identifying additional ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] biomarkers, as well as exploring unique therapeutic approaches for brain metastases and other sites with high TMB,” they wrote.
To get a clearer picture of differences in TMB by biopsy sample location, histology, and other biomarkers, the investigators obtained 3,424 unique, unmatched specimens from multiple U.S. cancer centers. The specimens, including 2,351 adenocarcinomas and 1,073 SCCs, were identified by only age and sex, with histology confirmed by pathology review.
The investigators conducted next-generation sequencing of 592 cancer-related genes on each specimen, as well as programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry, and TMB. They used a TMB cutoff of 10 mutations/MB, which was established as predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in the Checkmate 568 and Checkmate 227 trials.
They found that 38% of metastatic adenocarcinoma samples had TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater, compared with 25% of primary adenocarcinomas (P less than .001), a difference that was greatest for brain metastases, compared with other metastases (61% vs. 35%; P less than .001). The median TMBs were 13 mutations/MB vs. 6 mutations/MB, respectively.
Similarly, TMB above the cutoff was more frequent in SCC metastases than primaries (41% vs. 35%; P = .038).
TMB of 10 mutations/MB occurred significantly more often in SCC primary tumors (35%) than in adenocarcinoma primaries (25%; P less than .001).
They also saw variability in TMB among other sites, with adrenal metastases being the second–most likely site to have high TMB (51%) and bone metastases being least likely (19%).
In an analysis stratified by histology and primary or metastatic sample site, poorly differentiated tumors were significantly more likely to have TMB of 10 mutations/MB or greater both for adenocarcinomas (40% of poorly differentiated primaries vs. 19% for others, and 48% of poorly differentiated metastases vs. 35% for other metastases; P less than .001 for both), and for SCCs (40% vs. 33% of primaries; P = .028; and 42% vs. 31% of metastases; P = .025).
The investigators also detected site-specific differences in PD-L1 positivity, STK11 and KRAS mutation rates, and other markers along the 10 mutations/MB cutoff which they characterized as “clinically informative.”
“Practically, clinicians should consider obtaining metastasis samples when possible if assessing for high TMB. Furthermore, in addition to previously described intratumor heterogeneity, our data highlight significant intertumor heterogeneity in NSCLC. One possible solution to capture tumor heterogeneity is with blood TMB, which theoretically could depict a composite TMB score versus single-site tissue,” Dr. Stein and associates said.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Stein reported no relevant disclosures. Several of the coauthors are employees of Caris Life Sciences, which performed the tumor profiling.
SOURCE: Stein MK et al. JCO Precision Oncology. 2019 Jul 26. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00376.
FROM JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) needs further refinement as a marker for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Major finding: High TMB was significantly more frequent in metastases than primary tumors.
Study details: Analysis of samples from 3,424 patients with NSCLC.
Disclosures: The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Stein reported no relevant disclosures. Several of the coauthors are employees of Caris Life Sciences, which performed the tumor profiling.
Source: Stein MK et al. JCO Precision Oncology. 2019 Jul 26. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00376.
Study outlines survival factors with nivolumab
Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.
A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.
In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.
“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.
Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).
One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).
“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.
The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.
SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.
Although the existence of a subset of patients experiencing long-term survival certainly substantiates the role of PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint blockade in cancer immunotherapy, it is noteworthy to consider that these agents as monotherapy have not yielded sufficient activity and efficacy to replace standard-of-care therapy in the first line of therapy in advanced solid tumors, with the exception of NSCLC expressing high levels of PD-L1 and melanoma; emerging results also restrict monotherapy to stringently defined subsets of patients with gastric, esophageal, head and neck, and bladder cancers. Baseline predictive biomarkers have demonstrated distinct shortcomings, the first being their poor discriminatory ability and low negative predictive value. The clinician keen on securing the best possible outcome for his patients is thus left with the necessity for indiscriminate administration of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.
Unsurprisingly, the field of combination therapies using PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade as a backbone has been growing exponentially; a recent review shows more than 2,250 immunotherapy trials, 1,716 of which are investigating PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors with more than 240 combination partners. Analysis of the pipeline also reveals a 67% increase in the number of active agents, amounting to more than 3,300, between September 2017 and September 2018. A noteworthy development is a 113% increase in cell therapies, and an increase of agents targeting neoantigens identified through bioinformatics analysis of an individual patient’s tumor, suggesting a shift toward increased personalization of immunotherapy. The observation that clinical development of immunotherapy agents has outstripped our understanding of the cancer-immune interactions advocates for renewed collective efforts in standardizing immune monitoring methods in clinical trials to identify immune evasion pathways that are dominant and to build novel trial designs able to efficiently enhance matching of patients with therapy.
Stefan Zimmermann, MD, and Solange Peters, MD, PhD, are from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne,Switzerland. Their remarks are excerpted and adapted from an editorial accompanying the study (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2186). Dr. Zimmerman disclosed fees for advisory roles, travel grants, and clinical research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Peters disclosed fees for advisory board participation and/or lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
Although the existence of a subset of patients experiencing long-term survival certainly substantiates the role of PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint blockade in cancer immunotherapy, it is noteworthy to consider that these agents as monotherapy have not yielded sufficient activity and efficacy to replace standard-of-care therapy in the first line of therapy in advanced solid tumors, with the exception of NSCLC expressing high levels of PD-L1 and melanoma; emerging results also restrict monotherapy to stringently defined subsets of patients with gastric, esophageal, head and neck, and bladder cancers. Baseline predictive biomarkers have demonstrated distinct shortcomings, the first being their poor discriminatory ability and low negative predictive value. The clinician keen on securing the best possible outcome for his patients is thus left with the necessity for indiscriminate administration of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.
Unsurprisingly, the field of combination therapies using PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade as a backbone has been growing exponentially; a recent review shows more than 2,250 immunotherapy trials, 1,716 of which are investigating PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors with more than 240 combination partners. Analysis of the pipeline also reveals a 67% increase in the number of active agents, amounting to more than 3,300, between September 2017 and September 2018. A noteworthy development is a 113% increase in cell therapies, and an increase of agents targeting neoantigens identified through bioinformatics analysis of an individual patient’s tumor, suggesting a shift toward increased personalization of immunotherapy. The observation that clinical development of immunotherapy agents has outstripped our understanding of the cancer-immune interactions advocates for renewed collective efforts in standardizing immune monitoring methods in clinical trials to identify immune evasion pathways that are dominant and to build novel trial designs able to efficiently enhance matching of patients with therapy.
Stefan Zimmermann, MD, and Solange Peters, MD, PhD, are from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne,Switzerland. Their remarks are excerpted and adapted from an editorial accompanying the study (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2186). Dr. Zimmerman disclosed fees for advisory roles, travel grants, and clinical research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Peters disclosed fees for advisory board participation and/or lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
Although the existence of a subset of patients experiencing long-term survival certainly substantiates the role of PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint blockade in cancer immunotherapy, it is noteworthy to consider that these agents as monotherapy have not yielded sufficient activity and efficacy to replace standard-of-care therapy in the first line of therapy in advanced solid tumors, with the exception of NSCLC expressing high levels of PD-L1 and melanoma; emerging results also restrict monotherapy to stringently defined subsets of patients with gastric, esophageal, head and neck, and bladder cancers. Baseline predictive biomarkers have demonstrated distinct shortcomings, the first being their poor discriminatory ability and low negative predictive value. The clinician keen on securing the best possible outcome for his patients is thus left with the necessity for indiscriminate administration of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.
Unsurprisingly, the field of combination therapies using PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade as a backbone has been growing exponentially; a recent review shows more than 2,250 immunotherapy trials, 1,716 of which are investigating PD-1/ PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors with more than 240 combination partners. Analysis of the pipeline also reveals a 67% increase in the number of active agents, amounting to more than 3,300, between September 2017 and September 2018. A noteworthy development is a 113% increase in cell therapies, and an increase of agents targeting neoantigens identified through bioinformatics analysis of an individual patient’s tumor, suggesting a shift toward increased personalization of immunotherapy. The observation that clinical development of immunotherapy agents has outstripped our understanding of the cancer-immune interactions advocates for renewed collective efforts in standardizing immune monitoring methods in clinical trials to identify immune evasion pathways that are dominant and to build novel trial designs able to efficiently enhance matching of patients with therapy.
Stefan Zimmermann, MD, and Solange Peters, MD, PhD, are from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne,Switzerland. Their remarks are excerpted and adapted from an editorial accompanying the study (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2186). Dr. Zimmerman disclosed fees for advisory roles, travel grants, and clinical research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Peters disclosed fees for advisory board participation and/or lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.
A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.
In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.
“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.
Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).
One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).
“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.
The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.
SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.
Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.
A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.
In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.
“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.
Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).
One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).
“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.
The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.
SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Hurricanes delay RT, worsening survival of NSCLC
suggests a retrospective cohort study.
“Radiotherapy is particularly vulnerable because it requires dependable electrical power and daily treatment,” lead investigator Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, Surveillance and Health Services Research Program, American Cancer Society, and colleagues noted. “Disruptions are especially concerning for patients undergoing treatment for locally advanced ... NSCLC because treatment delays as little as 2 days negatively affect survival.”
The investigators used the National Cancer Database to identify patients receiving definitive radiotherapy for nonoperative locally advanced NSCLC between 2004 and 2014 who had at least 1 year of follow-up for vital status.
Each patient undergoing radiotherapy when a hurricane disaster was declared for their facility’s area was matched through propensity scoring with a patient treated during a declaration-free period having similar start month, sex, age, stage, nodal status, and income. Analyses compared 1,734 exposed patients with 1,734 unexposed patients.
Study results reported in JAMA showed that 101 hurricane disaster declarations were made during the study period, and they lasted from 1 day to 69 days. The radiation treatment duration was about 21 days (45%) longer for patients exposed to these declarations than for unexposed counterparts (66.9 vs. 46.2 days; P less than .001).
Over a median follow-up of 15 months, exposed patients were more likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P = .001). Moreover, risk generally rose with the duration of the declaration, peaking for patients exposed to those lasting 27 days (adjusted relative risk, 1.27).
“Because data on other potentially explanatory factors are lacking, the relative contribution of treatment delay to the observed association cannot be quantified. However, treatment delay is one of the few hurricane-related disruptions that can be prevented,” Dr. Nogueira and colleagues maintain.
“Because no recommended correction for radiotherapy delays exists ... strategies for identifying patients, arranging for transferring treatment, and eliminating patient out-of-network insurance charges should be considered in disaster mitigation planning,” they recommend.
Dr. Nogueira disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The investigators conducted the study as part of the in-tramural research program at the American Cancer Society or contributed their time.
SOURCE: Nogueira LM et al. JAMA. 2019 Jul 16;322(3):269-71.
suggests a retrospective cohort study.
“Radiotherapy is particularly vulnerable because it requires dependable electrical power and daily treatment,” lead investigator Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, Surveillance and Health Services Research Program, American Cancer Society, and colleagues noted. “Disruptions are especially concerning for patients undergoing treatment for locally advanced ... NSCLC because treatment delays as little as 2 days negatively affect survival.”
The investigators used the National Cancer Database to identify patients receiving definitive radiotherapy for nonoperative locally advanced NSCLC between 2004 and 2014 who had at least 1 year of follow-up for vital status.
Each patient undergoing radiotherapy when a hurricane disaster was declared for their facility’s area was matched through propensity scoring with a patient treated during a declaration-free period having similar start month, sex, age, stage, nodal status, and income. Analyses compared 1,734 exposed patients with 1,734 unexposed patients.
Study results reported in JAMA showed that 101 hurricane disaster declarations were made during the study period, and they lasted from 1 day to 69 days. The radiation treatment duration was about 21 days (45%) longer for patients exposed to these declarations than for unexposed counterparts (66.9 vs. 46.2 days; P less than .001).
Over a median follow-up of 15 months, exposed patients were more likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P = .001). Moreover, risk generally rose with the duration of the declaration, peaking for patients exposed to those lasting 27 days (adjusted relative risk, 1.27).
“Because data on other potentially explanatory factors are lacking, the relative contribution of treatment delay to the observed association cannot be quantified. However, treatment delay is one of the few hurricane-related disruptions that can be prevented,” Dr. Nogueira and colleagues maintain.
“Because no recommended correction for radiotherapy delays exists ... strategies for identifying patients, arranging for transferring treatment, and eliminating patient out-of-network insurance charges should be considered in disaster mitigation planning,” they recommend.
Dr. Nogueira disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The investigators conducted the study as part of the in-tramural research program at the American Cancer Society or contributed their time.
SOURCE: Nogueira LM et al. JAMA. 2019 Jul 16;322(3):269-71.
suggests a retrospective cohort study.
“Radiotherapy is particularly vulnerable because it requires dependable electrical power and daily treatment,” lead investigator Leticia M. Nogueira, PhD, Surveillance and Health Services Research Program, American Cancer Society, and colleagues noted. “Disruptions are especially concerning for patients undergoing treatment for locally advanced ... NSCLC because treatment delays as little as 2 days negatively affect survival.”
The investigators used the National Cancer Database to identify patients receiving definitive radiotherapy for nonoperative locally advanced NSCLC between 2004 and 2014 who had at least 1 year of follow-up for vital status.
Each patient undergoing radiotherapy when a hurricane disaster was declared for their facility’s area was matched through propensity scoring with a patient treated during a declaration-free period having similar start month, sex, age, stage, nodal status, and income. Analyses compared 1,734 exposed patients with 1,734 unexposed patients.
Study results reported in JAMA showed that 101 hurricane disaster declarations were made during the study period, and they lasted from 1 day to 69 days. The radiation treatment duration was about 21 days (45%) longer for patients exposed to these declarations than for unexposed counterparts (66.9 vs. 46.2 days; P less than .001).
Over a median follow-up of 15 months, exposed patients were more likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; P = .001). Moreover, risk generally rose with the duration of the declaration, peaking for patients exposed to those lasting 27 days (adjusted relative risk, 1.27).
“Because data on other potentially explanatory factors are lacking, the relative contribution of treatment delay to the observed association cannot be quantified. However, treatment delay is one of the few hurricane-related disruptions that can be prevented,” Dr. Nogueira and colleagues maintain.
“Because no recommended correction for radiotherapy delays exists ... strategies for identifying patients, arranging for transferring treatment, and eliminating patient out-of-network insurance charges should be considered in disaster mitigation planning,” they recommend.
Dr. Nogueira disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The investigators conducted the study as part of the in-tramural research program at the American Cancer Society or contributed their time.
SOURCE: Nogueira LM et al. JAMA. 2019 Jul 16;322(3):269-71.
FROM JAMA