Lung Cancer

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with pemetrexed plus platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The NovoTTF-100L System uses electric fields tuned to specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell division, Novocure, makers of NovoTTF-100L, said in a press release.

FDA approval was based on the single-arm STELLAR registration trial, which included 80 patients with unresectable and previously untreated MPM who were candidates for treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin.

Median overall survival among all patients treated with NovoTTF-100L plus chemotherapy was 18.2 months (95% confidence interval, 12.1-25.8). The disease control rate in the 72 patients with at least one follow-up CT scan performed was 97%; 40% of patients had a partial response, 57% had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 7.6 months.

The most common adverse events observed with the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with chemotherapy in patients with MPM were anemia, constipation, nausea, asthenia, chest pain, fatigue, device skin reaction, pruritus, and cough.

Other potential adverse effects associated with the use of the NovoTTF-100L System include: treatment related skin toxicity, allergic reaction to the plaster or to the gel, electrode overheating leading to pain and/or local skin burns, infections at sites of electrode contact with the skin, local warmth and tingling sensation beneath the electrodes, muscle twitching, medical site reaction, and skin breakdown/skin ulcer.

The NovoTTF-100L System can be prescribed only by a health care provider who has completed the required certification training provided by Novocure, the company said in the press release.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with pemetrexed plus platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The NovoTTF-100L System uses electric fields tuned to specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell division, Novocure, makers of NovoTTF-100L, said in a press release.

FDA approval was based on the single-arm STELLAR registration trial, which included 80 patients with unresectable and previously untreated MPM who were candidates for treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin.

Median overall survival among all patients treated with NovoTTF-100L plus chemotherapy was 18.2 months (95% confidence interval, 12.1-25.8). The disease control rate in the 72 patients with at least one follow-up CT scan performed was 97%; 40% of patients had a partial response, 57% had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 7.6 months.

The most common adverse events observed with the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with chemotherapy in patients with MPM were anemia, constipation, nausea, asthenia, chest pain, fatigue, device skin reaction, pruritus, and cough.

Other potential adverse effects associated with the use of the NovoTTF-100L System include: treatment related skin toxicity, allergic reaction to the plaster or to the gel, electrode overheating leading to pain and/or local skin burns, infections at sites of electrode contact with the skin, local warmth and tingling sensation beneath the electrodes, muscle twitching, medical site reaction, and skin breakdown/skin ulcer.

The NovoTTF-100L System can be prescribed only by a health care provider who has completed the required certification training provided by Novocure, the company said in the press release.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with pemetrexed plus platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The NovoTTF-100L System uses electric fields tuned to specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell division, Novocure, makers of NovoTTF-100L, said in a press release.

FDA approval was based on the single-arm STELLAR registration trial, which included 80 patients with unresectable and previously untreated MPM who were candidates for treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin.

Median overall survival among all patients treated with NovoTTF-100L plus chemotherapy was 18.2 months (95% confidence interval, 12.1-25.8). The disease control rate in the 72 patients with at least one follow-up CT scan performed was 97%; 40% of patients had a partial response, 57% had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 7.6 months.

The most common adverse events observed with the NovoTTF-100L System in combination with chemotherapy in patients with MPM were anemia, constipation, nausea, asthenia, chest pain, fatigue, device skin reaction, pruritus, and cough.

Other potential adverse effects associated with the use of the NovoTTF-100L System include: treatment related skin toxicity, allergic reaction to the plaster or to the gel, electrode overheating leading to pain and/or local skin burns, infections at sites of electrode contact with the skin, local warmth and tingling sensation beneath the electrodes, muscle twitching, medical site reaction, and skin breakdown/skin ulcer.

The NovoTTF-100L System can be prescribed only by a health care provider who has completed the required certification training provided by Novocure, the company said in the press release.

Patients with oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have better outcomes when treated with local consolidative therapy than with maintenance therapy or observation, based on updated results from a phase 2 trial.

The randomized study showed that both median progression-free and overall survival were better in patients who received radiotherapy or surgery instead of maintenance therapy or observation, reported lead author Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. These findings build on earlier results that showed the positive impact of local consolidative therapy (LCT), the investigators noted.

“The trial was closed early after it demonstrated an observed 8-month benefit in [progression-free survival] for patients who received LCT relative to patients who received maintenance therapy or observation,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

After early closure, 49 patients remained in the dataset. All had metastatic NSCLC with three or fewer metastases that did not progress for at least 3 months after first-line systemic therapy. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (80%). Patients were randomly divided in a 1:1 ratio between radiotherapy or surgery (LCT) for all active disease sites or maintenance therapy/observation (MT/O). Progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. Overall survival and several other secondary endpoints were also evaluated.

Data analysis showed a clear benefit of LCT. Continuing the previously reported trend, median progression-free survival was extended in the LCT group, compared with the MT/O group (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022). Similarly, median overall survival showed a significant improvement (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). Median time to appearance of new lesions also supported the advantage of LCT over MT/O, albeit with less statistical significance (14.2 vs. 6.0 months; P = .11).

The investigators suggested several mechanisms behind the efficacy of LCT, including elimination of treatment-resistant cells, potentiation of systemic therapy, and elimination of the residual tumor as a driver of distant micrometastatic disease. “Notably,” the investigators wrote, “these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and more than one could contribute to the benefits of LCT.”

“[A]lthough these data are compelling ... we emphasize that future studies should be supported to definitively assess the role of LCT in larger populations (e.g., phase III trials such as NRG-LU002) and in the context of novel systemic therapies,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by MD Anderson Cancer Center, The Mohaymen Sahebzadah Family Philanthropic Grant, and the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Gomez et al. J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00201.

Patients with oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have better outcomes when treated with local consolidative therapy than with maintenance therapy or observation, based on updated results from a phase 2 trial.

The randomized study showed that both median progression-free and overall survival were better in patients who received radiotherapy or surgery instead of maintenance therapy or observation, reported lead author Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. These findings build on earlier results that showed the positive impact of local consolidative therapy (LCT), the investigators noted.

“The trial was closed early after it demonstrated an observed 8-month benefit in [progression-free survival] for patients who received LCT relative to patients who received maintenance therapy or observation,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

After early closure, 49 patients remained in the dataset. All had metastatic NSCLC with three or fewer metastases that did not progress for at least 3 months after first-line systemic therapy. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (80%). Patients were randomly divided in a 1:1 ratio between radiotherapy or surgery (LCT) for all active disease sites or maintenance therapy/observation (MT/O). Progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. Overall survival and several other secondary endpoints were also evaluated.

Data analysis showed a clear benefit of LCT. Continuing the previously reported trend, median progression-free survival was extended in the LCT group, compared with the MT/O group (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022). Similarly, median overall survival showed a significant improvement (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). Median time to appearance of new lesions also supported the advantage of LCT over MT/O, albeit with less statistical significance (14.2 vs. 6.0 months; P = .11).

The investigators suggested several mechanisms behind the efficacy of LCT, including elimination of treatment-resistant cells, potentiation of systemic therapy, and elimination of the residual tumor as a driver of distant micrometastatic disease. “Notably,” the investigators wrote, “these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and more than one could contribute to the benefits of LCT.”

“[A]lthough these data are compelling ... we emphasize that future studies should be supported to definitively assess the role of LCT in larger populations (e.g., phase III trials such as NRG-LU002) and in the context of novel systemic therapies,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by MD Anderson Cancer Center, The Mohaymen Sahebzadah Family Philanthropic Grant, and the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Gomez et al. J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00201.

Patients with oligometastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have better outcomes when treated with local consolidative therapy than with maintenance therapy or observation, based on updated results from a phase 2 trial.

The randomized study showed that both median progression-free and overall survival were better in patients who received radiotherapy or surgery instead of maintenance therapy or observation, reported lead author Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. These findings build on earlier results that showed the positive impact of local consolidative therapy (LCT), the investigators noted.

“The trial was closed early after it demonstrated an observed 8-month benefit in [progression-free survival] for patients who received LCT relative to patients who received maintenance therapy or observation,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

After early closure, 49 patients remained in the dataset. All had metastatic NSCLC with three or fewer metastases that did not progress for at least 3 months after first-line systemic therapy. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (80%). Patients were randomly divided in a 1:1 ratio between radiotherapy or surgery (LCT) for all active disease sites or maintenance therapy/observation (MT/O). Progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. Overall survival and several other secondary endpoints were also evaluated.

Data analysis showed a clear benefit of LCT. Continuing the previously reported trend, median progression-free survival was extended in the LCT group, compared with the MT/O group (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022). Similarly, median overall survival showed a significant improvement (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). Median time to appearance of new lesions also supported the advantage of LCT over MT/O, albeit with less statistical significance (14.2 vs. 6.0 months; P = .11).

The investigators suggested several mechanisms behind the efficacy of LCT, including elimination of treatment-resistant cells, potentiation of systemic therapy, and elimination of the residual tumor as a driver of distant micrometastatic disease. “Notably,” the investigators wrote, “these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and more than one could contribute to the benefits of LCT.”

“[A]lthough these data are compelling ... we emphasize that future studies should be supported to definitively assess the role of LCT in larger populations (e.g., phase III trials such as NRG-LU002) and in the context of novel systemic therapies,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by MD Anderson Cancer Center, The Mohaymen Sahebzadah Family Philanthropic Grant, and the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Gomez et al. J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00201.

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

Although epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant lung cancers generally don’t benefit from checkpoint inhibitors, there may be some subtypes that do respond, results of a large, multi-institution analysis suggest.

Compared with wild-type lung cancer cases, tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion did indeed have worse outcomes after progressive death-1/progressive death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade; however, tumors harboring EGFR L858R mutations had comparable response rates and overall survival.

These findings don’t change clinical practice, but do serve as a “foundation” for more research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immunotherapy, according to Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

“We unequivocally support the guidance that EGFR TKIs should be the preferred first-line treatment option for patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” Dr. Hastings and coauthors wrote in Annals of Oncology.

To date, clinical investigations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers have largely been discouraging, the authors wrote. However, there have been some exceptions, including a phase 2 study where third-line durvalumab showed activity in some patients with EGFR-positive, PD-L1-expressing advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Accordingly, the investigators sought to determine whether specific molecular features made a difference. They looked at a total of 171 EGFR-mutant lung cancers that had been treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor.

In their analysis, they drilled down on the most common EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor–sensitizing alleles: EGFR exon 19 deletions, which represented 76 cases, and EGFR L858R, which represented 44 cases. For comparison, they looked at a cohort of 212 patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC who had also been treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

EGFR exon 19 deletion cases had a significantly lower overall response rate versus EGFR wild-type tumors, at 7% versus 22%, respectively (P = .002), the investigators found. Likewise, overall survival was significantly reduced, with a hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.493-0.965; P = .03).

By contrast, EGFR L858R tumors had similar response rates versus EGFR wild type, at 16% and 22%, respectively (P = .42); overall survival also was similar, with a hazard ratio of 0.917 (95% CI, 0.597-1.409; P = .69).

Of note, progression-free survival was reduced in both EGFR L858R and EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with EGFR wild-type cases, though the investigators wrote that discrepancy might be related to variations in scanning intervals between different institutions that contributed cases to the study.

“Overall, these data suggest that patients with EGFR exon 19–mutant tumors, in particular, have a significantly reduced benefit upon treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” the authors noted.

In a separate but related analysis of 383 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, tumor mutation burden was lower in EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with the EGFR L858R cases. That finding lined up with the immunotherapy response data, the investigators wrote, though it’s unclear what might be driving the differences in tumor burden between these two groups.

There were no differences in response to immune checkpoint blockade based on whether or not tumors harbored the EGFR T790M mutation, the investigators added. Similarly, PD-L1 expression did not impact response.

The study authors reported disclosures related to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

SOURCE: Hastings K et al. Ann Oncol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz141.

Although epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant lung cancers generally don’t benefit from checkpoint inhibitors, there may be some subtypes that do respond, results of a large, multi-institution analysis suggest.

Compared with wild-type lung cancer cases, tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion did indeed have worse outcomes after progressive death-1/progressive death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade; however, tumors harboring EGFR L858R mutations had comparable response rates and overall survival.

These findings don’t change clinical practice, but do serve as a “foundation” for more research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immunotherapy, according to Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

“We unequivocally support the guidance that EGFR TKIs should be the preferred first-line treatment option for patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” Dr. Hastings and coauthors wrote in Annals of Oncology.

To date, clinical investigations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers have largely been discouraging, the authors wrote. However, there have been some exceptions, including a phase 2 study where third-line durvalumab showed activity in some patients with EGFR-positive, PD-L1-expressing advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Accordingly, the investigators sought to determine whether specific molecular features made a difference. They looked at a total of 171 EGFR-mutant lung cancers that had been treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor.

In their analysis, they drilled down on the most common EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor–sensitizing alleles: EGFR exon 19 deletions, which represented 76 cases, and EGFR L858R, which represented 44 cases. For comparison, they looked at a cohort of 212 patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC who had also been treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

EGFR exon 19 deletion cases had a significantly lower overall response rate versus EGFR wild-type tumors, at 7% versus 22%, respectively (P = .002), the investigators found. Likewise, overall survival was significantly reduced, with a hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.493-0.965; P = .03).

By contrast, EGFR L858R tumors had similar response rates versus EGFR wild type, at 16% and 22%, respectively (P = .42); overall survival also was similar, with a hazard ratio of 0.917 (95% CI, 0.597-1.409; P = .69).

Of note, progression-free survival was reduced in both EGFR L858R and EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with EGFR wild-type cases, though the investigators wrote that discrepancy might be related to variations in scanning intervals between different institutions that contributed cases to the study.

“Overall, these data suggest that patients with EGFR exon 19–mutant tumors, in particular, have a significantly reduced benefit upon treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” the authors noted.

In a separate but related analysis of 383 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, tumor mutation burden was lower in EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with the EGFR L858R cases. That finding lined up with the immunotherapy response data, the investigators wrote, though it’s unclear what might be driving the differences in tumor burden between these two groups.

There were no differences in response to immune checkpoint blockade based on whether or not tumors harbored the EGFR T790M mutation, the investigators added. Similarly, PD-L1 expression did not impact response.

The study authors reported disclosures related to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

SOURCE: Hastings K et al. Ann Oncol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz141.

Although epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant lung cancers generally don’t benefit from checkpoint inhibitors, there may be some subtypes that do respond, results of a large, multi-institution analysis suggest.

Compared with wild-type lung cancer cases, tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion did indeed have worse outcomes after progressive death-1/progressive death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade; however, tumors harboring EGFR L858R mutations had comparable response rates and overall survival.

These findings don’t change clinical practice, but do serve as a “foundation” for more research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immunotherapy, according to Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

“We unequivocally support the guidance that EGFR TKIs should be the preferred first-line treatment option for patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” Dr. Hastings and coauthors wrote in Annals of Oncology.

To date, clinical investigations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers have largely been discouraging, the authors wrote. However, there have been some exceptions, including a phase 2 study where third-line durvalumab showed activity in some patients with EGFR-positive, PD-L1-expressing advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Accordingly, the investigators sought to determine whether specific molecular features made a difference. They looked at a total of 171 EGFR-mutant lung cancers that had been treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor.

In their analysis, they drilled down on the most common EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor–sensitizing alleles: EGFR exon 19 deletions, which represented 76 cases, and EGFR L858R, which represented 44 cases. For comparison, they looked at a cohort of 212 patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC who had also been treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

EGFR exon 19 deletion cases had a significantly lower overall response rate versus EGFR wild-type tumors, at 7% versus 22%, respectively (P = .002), the investigators found. Likewise, overall survival was significantly reduced, with a hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.493-0.965; P = .03).

By contrast, EGFR L858R tumors had similar response rates versus EGFR wild type, at 16% and 22%, respectively (P = .42); overall survival also was similar, with a hazard ratio of 0.917 (95% CI, 0.597-1.409; P = .69).

Of note, progression-free survival was reduced in both EGFR L858R and EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with EGFR wild-type cases, though the investigators wrote that discrepancy might be related to variations in scanning intervals between different institutions that contributed cases to the study.

“Overall, these data suggest that patients with EGFR exon 19–mutant tumors, in particular, have a significantly reduced benefit upon treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” the authors noted.

In a separate but related analysis of 383 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, tumor mutation burden was lower in EGFR exon 19 deletion cases as compared with the EGFR L858R cases. That finding lined up with the immunotherapy response data, the investigators wrote, though it’s unclear what might be driving the differences in tumor burden between these two groups.

There were no differences in response to immune checkpoint blockade based on whether or not tumors harbored the EGFR T790M mutation, the investigators added. Similarly, PD-L1 expression did not impact response.

The study authors reported disclosures related to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

SOURCE: Hastings K et al. Ann Oncol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz141.

Younger patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may have better survival, despite higher rates of brain metastasis and driver mutations, according to results from a retrospective analysis.

“We carried out a comprehensive analysis of patient clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in both young (age ≤ 50 years) and older (age > 60 years) patients with NSCLC,” wrote Anna May Suidan of Tel Aviv University, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

The researchers reviewed medical records of patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer at a large cancer treatment facility in Israel from 2010 to 2015. Patients were categorized into two groups according to age at cancer diagnosis, which was established based on tumor pathology.

Various clinical data were collected, including demographic information, history of malignancy, smoking history, histologic subtype, and survival data.

In all, 62 patients were included in the younger cohort (median age, 44.5 years) and 124 patients in the older cohort (median age, 68.0 years).

After analysis, the researchers found that younger patients had a higher incidence of brain metastasis (39% vs. 25%, respectively; P = .04), and increased rates of EGFR mutations (23% vs. 18%, respectively; P = .4) and ALK translocations (13% vs. 2%, respectively; P = .002) versus older patients.

“Our cohort, which was [composed] of white patients, demonstrated that younger patients harbored more targetable driver mutations compared with older patients (34% vs. 18%; P = .01),” the researchers wrote.

In addition, among those with a driver mutation, younger patients showed a trend toward better survival (median survival, 33 vs. 25 months, respectively; P = .4).

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.

“[These results] highlight the importance of genetic background assessments and considering lung cancer as a possible diagnosis in young symptomatic patients in clinical settings,” the researchers concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and several others.

SOURCE: Suidan AM et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00216.

Younger patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may have better survival, despite higher rates of brain metastasis and driver mutations, according to results from a retrospective analysis.

“We carried out a comprehensive analysis of patient clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in both young (age ≤ 50 years) and older (age > 60 years) patients with NSCLC,” wrote Anna May Suidan of Tel Aviv University, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

The researchers reviewed medical records of patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer at a large cancer treatment facility in Israel from 2010 to 2015. Patients were categorized into two groups according to age at cancer diagnosis, which was established based on tumor pathology.

Various clinical data were collected, including demographic information, history of malignancy, smoking history, histologic subtype, and survival data.

In all, 62 patients were included in the younger cohort (median age, 44.5 years) and 124 patients in the older cohort (median age, 68.0 years).

After analysis, the researchers found that younger patients had a higher incidence of brain metastasis (39% vs. 25%, respectively; P = .04), and increased rates of EGFR mutations (23% vs. 18%, respectively; P = .4) and ALK translocations (13% vs. 2%, respectively; P = .002) versus older patients.

“Our cohort, which was [composed] of white patients, demonstrated that younger patients harbored more targetable driver mutations compared with older patients (34% vs. 18%; P = .01),” the researchers wrote.

In addition, among those with a driver mutation, younger patients showed a trend toward better survival (median survival, 33 vs. 25 months, respectively; P = .4).

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.

“[These results] highlight the importance of genetic background assessments and considering lung cancer as a possible diagnosis in young symptomatic patients in clinical settings,” the researchers concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and several others.

SOURCE: Suidan AM et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00216.

Younger patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may have better survival, despite higher rates of brain metastasis and driver mutations, according to results from a retrospective analysis.

“We carried out a comprehensive analysis of patient clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in both young (age ≤ 50 years) and older (age > 60 years) patients with NSCLC,” wrote Anna May Suidan of Tel Aviv University, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Global Oncology.

The researchers reviewed medical records of patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer at a large cancer treatment facility in Israel from 2010 to 2015. Patients were categorized into two groups according to age at cancer diagnosis, which was established based on tumor pathology.

Various clinical data were collected, including demographic information, history of malignancy, smoking history, histologic subtype, and survival data.

In all, 62 patients were included in the younger cohort (median age, 44.5 years) and 124 patients in the older cohort (median age, 68.0 years).

After analysis, the researchers found that younger patients had a higher incidence of brain metastasis (39% vs. 25%, respectively; P = .04), and increased rates of EGFR mutations (23% vs. 18%, respectively; P = .4) and ALK translocations (13% vs. 2%, respectively; P = .002) versus older patients.

“Our cohort, which was [composed] of white patients, demonstrated that younger patients harbored more targetable driver mutations compared with older patients (34% vs. 18%; P = .01),” the researchers wrote.

In addition, among those with a driver mutation, younger patients showed a trend toward better survival (median survival, 33 vs. 25 months, respectively; P = .4).

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design.

“[These results] highlight the importance of genetic background assessments and considering lung cancer as a possible diagnosis in young symptomatic patients in clinical settings,” the researchers concluded.

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported financial affiliations with Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and several others.

SOURCE: Suidan AM et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00216.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

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 recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

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 recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

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.

ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.

Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.

“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”


Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.

The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.

ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.

Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.


The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.

“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.

The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”

Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.

ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.

Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.

“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”


Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.

The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.

ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.

Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.


The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.

“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.

The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”

Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.

ATLANTA – Combination entinostat and pembrolizumab showed promising activity in a phase 2 study of non–small cell lung cancer patients who progressed on or after anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, and new analyses have identified gene signatures associated with treatment response.

Gene set analysis in tumors from 43 of the patients – 4 responders and 39 nonresponders – who participated in the open-label ENCORE-601 study revealed that Myc gene signaling was enriched in responders vs. nonresponders, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

High Myc gene activity is known from previous studies to be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and this has been attributed to high PD-L1 expression, decrease in interferon signatures, and exclusion of lymphocytes, he noted.

“And we know from other publications that entinostat is known to decrease Myc activity,” he said. “Therefore, our putative hypothesis at this time – albeit on a small set of patients – is that for patients with baseline high Myc activity, when they have developed resistance to PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition ... giving them entinostat drives down the Myc activity and results in a change in the tumor microenvironment to one where immune checkpoint inhibition could be rendered effective.”


Patients from ENCORE-601 also were evaluated by baseline circulating classical monocyte levels as prior findings showed improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma patients with higher vs. lower counts, Dr. Ramalingam explained.

The overall response rate (ORR) in those with baseline levels above the median (MHi, 11 patients) was 21.1% vs. 6.5% in those with levels below the median (MLo, 32 patients); median PFS was 4.7 vs. 2.7 months in the MHi and MLo groups, respectively, said Dr. Ramalingam of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta.

ENCORE-601 included 76 subjects who received entinostat at a dose of 5 mg per week plus intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks. The confirmed ORR with treatment in 72 efficacy-evaluable patients was 10%, with an additional 50% of patients having stable disease. The median duration of response was 8 months, and median PFS was 2.8 months.

Top-line results from the study, which was undertaken based in part on preclinical data showing synergy between the oral class 1-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat and anti-PD-1 inhibition, were presented at the 2018 World Conference on Lung Cancer, and the current findings represent secondary outcome measures involving analyses in pretreatment tumor samples from patients with sufficient RNA yield for analysis.


The data may provide a mechanistic basis for the responses seen with entinostat and pembrolizumab in ENCORE-601, Dr. Ramalingam said.

“Now we acknowledge that this is a relatively small dataset, and therefore further studies are warranted using these biomarkers to further understand whether they can be used as predictive biomarkers for treatment,” he said, noting that one such clinical trial is currently in the discussion phase.

The ENCORE-601 findings are important given that “with the movement of checkpoint inhibitors to the front-line setting, there is now an unmet need in the second-line [setting] where patients have already received a checkpoint inhibitor and have developed disease progression,” he noted, adding that “while chemotherapy remains central to this group of patients, development of novel agents is an unmet need.”

Dr. Ramalingam disclosed ties to AbbVie, Advaxis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Loxo, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, and Syndax.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ramalingam S et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT041.

ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.

The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.

The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.

She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.

PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.

“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.

Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.

The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.

To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.

Again, none of the agents worked on their own.

“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”

“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.

Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.

“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”

Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.

“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.

“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.

“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.

Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.

ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.

The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.

The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.

She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.

PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.

“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.

Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.

The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.

To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.

Again, none of the agents worked on their own.

“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”

“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.

Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.

“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”

Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.

“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.

“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.

“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.

Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.

ATLANTA – Combined treatment with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, the oral CHK1 inhibitor SRA737, and low-dose gemcitabine for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) resulted in dramatic antitumor activity and established a strong antitumor microenvironment in a preclinical model.

The findings provide a “strong rationale” for combining these agents in patients with SCLC, Triparna Sen, PhD, reported in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Sen and her colleagues assessed this triple regimen based on encouraging prior findings, including their own recent finding that DNA damage response (DDR) inhibition “actually increases antitumor immunity in this cancer type” by activating the STING/TBK1/RF3 innate immune pathway and increasing levels of chemokines-CXCL10 and CCL5 that induced activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

“Based on this background and studies published in other cancer types, we hypothesized that ... SRA737... a very highly selective potent checkpoint inhibitor ... will upregulate the innate immune signaling, resulting in improved antitumor immune response in combination with anti–PD-L1,” she said, noting that bladder and colorectal cancer models were also studied.

The results varied by cancer type, but encouraging results in SCLC led to in vivo study, said Dr. Sen, who was a postdoctoral fellow, instructor, and member of the Byers Laboratory at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, at the time the research was conducted.

She and her colleagues injected immunocompetent mice with Trp53, Rb1, and p130 triple-knockout SCLC cell lines that are “very highly representative of what we see in patients,” and resulting tumors were treated with SRA737 alone or in combination with an anti–PD-L1 agent.

PD-L1 alone did not work, and SRA737 with 5- out of 7-day dosing was associated with a significant delay in tumor growth.

“However, the combination does much better than either of the single agents alone. ... we never had tumor growth beyond baseline and there was regression as early as 12 days,” she said, noting that the combination activates the STING pathway.

Similar findings were seen for bladder and colorectal cancer models, she noted.

The next question is how chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade – the currently approved first-line therapy in SCLC – can be improved, and how chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in SCLC, she said.

To explore this, she and her colleagues treated the mice with subtherapeutic doses of SRA737 on 2 out of 7 days with low-dose gemcitabine, followed by anti–PD-L1 therapy, or with single-agent therapy and various double-agent combinations.

Again, none of the agents worked on their own.

“Even with the double combinations you see very, very modest benefit,” she said. “With the triple combination we wipe out the tumors; as early as 14 days we have 8 out of 10 complete responses, and we have followed the tumors up to 2 months and they stay gone.”

“In a nutshell, this works,” she added.

Additional analyses showed that the CD3+ T cells increase with the gemcitabine/SRA737 combination, and even more so with the triple-combination therapy.

“So we not only increase the CD3+ total T cells, we do increase CD8+ cytotoxic T cells,” she said. “Interestingly, we also decrease exhausted T-cell populations, and also [regulatory T] cells.”

Additionally, the M1 macrophage population was significantly higher with the triple regimen, there was a trend toward a decrease in the antimacrophage population, and there was a higher population of dendritic cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.

“What I believe is we are still scratching the surface, and we need to go deeper into the tumor microenvironment and see how these combinations really work,” she said, concluding that SRA737 is cytotoxic and induces micro-nuclei formation in a subset of SCLC and other cancer models in vitro, that in combination with anti–PD-L1 it activates innate immune signaling and causes tumor regression in SCLC, and that with low-dose gemcitabine it results in durable tumor regression in combination with SRA737 and anti–PD-L1.

“What is the most interesting is that this triple combination enhances antitumor immunity by increasing cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, decreasing T-cell exhaustion, and a favorable modulation of antigen presenting cells,” she said. “Why do we care? The anti–PD-L1 drug ... atezolizumab ... is right now FDA approved as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy, and we already have DDR inhibitors in the clinic, we have PARP inhibitors in the clinic, we have checkpoint inhibitors in the clinic, SRA737 is in the clinic.

“So our preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining low-dose gemcitabine with checkpoint inhibition and with anti–PD-L1 to enhance the clinical efficacy of these drugs,” she concluded.

Dr. Sen reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sen T et al. AACR 2019, Abstract LB-148.

ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.

Frontline Medical News

Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).

Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.

“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.

Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).

“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.


Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.

The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”

The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).

Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.

“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.

Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.

“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.

Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).

No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.

“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.

MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.

Frontline Medical News

Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).

Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.

“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.

Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).

“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.


Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.

The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”

The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).

Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.

“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.

Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.

“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.

Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).

No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.

“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.

MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

ATLANTA – Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) predicts survival benefit in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy, according to findings from the open-label, phase 3 MYSTIC trial.

Frontline Medical News

Specifically, in patients with bTMB based on circulating tumor DNA at levels of 20 mutations (mut)/megabase (Mb) or greater, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with durvalumab alone and with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratios, 0.74 and 0.49, respectively). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved (HRs, 0.76 and 0.53, respectively), Solange Peters, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Among patients with bTMB less than 20 mut/Mb, the corresponding OS hazard ratios were 1.55 and 1.26, and the corresponding PFS hazard ratios were 1.22 and 1.16, said Dr. Peters, director of teaching and patient care in the area of medical oncology and thoracic malignancies at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne (Switzerland) University, and president-elect of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study subjects were 1,118 patients with immunotherapy- and chemotherapy-naive EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC who were randomized 1:1 to receive either the programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent durvalumab, durvalumab plus the anti-CTLA4 agent tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. At a tissue TMB (tTMB) level of 10 mut/Mb or greater, those who received either durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab had better OS than did those who received chemotherapy (HRs, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively).

Further, bTMB levels of at least 16 mut/Mb correlated positively with tTMB (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.6; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.7), she said, adding that survival probability at 24 months was 41.7% with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus 35.0% with durvalumab alone and 22.7% with chemotherapy in this patient subgroup.

“When you look at the subgroup of patients with lower number of mutations than 10, this phenomenon is not observed. If anything should be potentially stressed about these hazard ratios – all above 1 – is potentially that chemotherapy represents a better option in this patient population,” she said.

Treatment included intravenous durvalumab at a dose of 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks with or without IV tremelimumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses (372 and 374 patients, respectively), or platinum-based chemotherapy (372 patients).

“Durvalumab ... is already approved for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and has shown clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC in the context of phase 2 and 3 previously presented trials,” Dr. Peters said, noting that the multicenter MYSTIC trial was designed to assess its potential role in the treatment of all-comers with stage IV disease.


Overall survival data from the study were presented at the 2018 ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress, and showed that the primary endpoint of superiority of durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy for OS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (at least 25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1) was not met. There did, however, appear to be a clinically meaningful 3-month survival benefit (HR, 0.76) with durvalumab, she said.

The idea of combining durvalumab with tremelimumab was based on the potential for “antitumor activity via nonredundant pathways,” she noted, further explaining that the interest in determining whether bTMB correlates with tTMB relates to the rapid availability and less invasive nature of the latter and the fact that bTMB measured from circulating tumor DNA, “biologically speaking, may be more representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions in the context of an advanced disease.”

The current findings are from exploratory analyses looking at OS based on bTMB and tTMB at varying levels to “better understand optimal outcomes and potential contributions of tremelimumab,” she said, noting that survival benefit was observed in all subgroups defined by a high TMB (equal to or greater than vs. less than 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mut/Mb).

Outcomes using the bTMB cutoff of 16 or greater mut/Mb were also presented at the ESMO meeting, and showed an OS benefit with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in those patients; the finding was more pronounced with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR, 0.82 and 0.62, respectively), and the effect increased with increasing bTMB levels.

“Based on that, we decided to [use the 20 mut/Mb or greater] cutoff to conduct a subsequent analysis,” Dr. Peters said, noting again the “very significantly improved” OS and PFS for combined treatment versus chemotherapy with 20 or greater versus less than 20 mut/Mb, and the value of chemotherapy in those with lower bTMB.

Tumor response was also better with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy at this cutoff; objective response rates were 29.9% and 48.4% with durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab, respectively, versus 21.4% with chemotherapy.

“Again, under this threshold [less than 20 mut/Mb], it looked like chemotherapy was offering a better response rate with 31.4% as compared to 20% and less for the immunotherapy strategy,” she said.

Also of note, the percentage of patients remaining in response at 6 and 12 months was much better in those who received immunotherapy with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy; this was more pronounced in those with high TMB (85.6% vs. 14.4% at 6 months; 81.7% vs. 7.2% at 12 months).

No differences were seen in toxicity patterns in the subgroup of patients with bTMB greater than 20 mut/Mb when compared with the overall safety population from MYSTIC, she added.

“Based on this exploratory analysis, further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy is warranted and should potentially be evaluated in as many as possible future clinical trials looking at immunotherapy across various solid tumors,” Dr. Peters said.

MYSTIC is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Peters reported relationships – including receipt of honoraria or consulting fees, receipt of grant/research support, and/or speaking engagements – with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.

GENEVA – Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is an independent predictor of both progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from 550 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This is the largest CTC study to date and the first to compare test results from multiple centers, reported lead author Colin Lindsay, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. Among the centers, investigators found minimal variability in results guiding progression-free survival and no significant differences in results predicting overall survival. These findings suggest that CTC testing could be reproducible and reliable on a large scale, Dr. Lindsay said during a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference; he added that this conclusion addresses a previous concern about the process.

“A slight problem with the process is still that it is semi-automated,” Dr. Lindsay said at the meeting presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology. “The machine will harvest potential cells and stain potential cells, but the end step of the process is that a trained user in each laboratory will decide which cell is a CTC and which cell isn’t a CTC, and it’s that potential for user variability that was the basis of this study.”

The retrospective study involved 550 patients with NSCLC whose samples were processed at seven centers in multiple European countries, including 209 patients whose data was previously unpublished. The investigators looked for associations between CTC count and survival using Cox regression analysis and evaluated if CTCs could add value to prognostic clinicopathologic models based on c-indices and likelihood ratio statistics. CTC count was assessed as a continuous variable and, based on previous studies, using two categorical thresholds: at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL and at least 5 cells per 7.5 mL. In addition, the investigators looked for associations between NSCLC molecular subtypes and CTC levels.

The results showed that both cutoff levels were predictive of survival, with the higher threshold carrying a poorer prognosis. For progression-free survival, CTC counts of at least 2 cells per 7.5 mL carried a hazard ratio of 1.72, whereas the 5-cell threshold had a hazard ratio of 2.21 (P less than .001 for both). Similarly, overall survival hazard ratios for the lower and higher thresholds were 2.18 and 2.75, respectively (P less than .001 for both). When baseline CTC count was added to the analysis, predictive accuracy increased further, dropping P values tenfold, down to .0001. C-index models had a more modest impact. Although minor heterogeneity was detected among centers for prediction of progression-free survival, overall survival data was broadly reliable. Dr. Lindsay noted that intercenter differences seemed to diminish with greater testing experience. No relationships were detected between molecular subtypes and CTC profiles.

“It’s always good to finish a talk with the white elephant in the room,” Dr. Lindsay said in his concluding remarks. “Is there room for CTCs in non–small cell lung cancer? I believe they have the potential to complement ctDNA work by offering a cellular context, but [CTCs] aren’t there yet for clinical roll-out.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Juergen Wolf, MD, of the University Hospital Cologne (Germany) provided a similar conclusion, suggesting that CTCs have a clear place in research, but their clinical value is debatable. He noted that ctDNA, the most similar diagnostic and prognostic tool under development, has a pragmatic edge because ctDNA samples are more amenable to shipping and handling. Dr. Wolf noted that ctDNA also has been shown to have value for treatment planning, specifically for the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. This latter point tied into a larger issue described by Dr. Wolf, who suggested that in the current treatment landscape for NSCLC, predictive testing needs to be actionable.

“We cannot draw a consequence of a prognostic biomarker,” Dr. Wolf said. “In the era of personalized medicine, what we need is predictive markers, predictive of the outcome of specific therapies.”The investigators disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Lindsay C et al. ELCC 2019, Abstract 21O.