Previous Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Research Articles

Long-term Responders to Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

The efficacy of cytotoxic chemo-therapy has been reported to improve after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) administration. We previously conducted a multicenter prospective clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) after ICI treatment. In that study, some patients showed a long-term response to nab-PTX, which is not usually observed with single-agent chemotherapy. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients. We retrospectively analyzed updated data from 29 patients enrolled in our clinical study who received nab-PTX monotherapy after ICI treatment. We defined a "long-term responder" as a patient who achieved a 1-year progression-free survival (PFS). Among the 29 patients, 10 (34.5%) were long-term responders, two of whom achieved a 5-year PFS. A key difference between long-term and non-long-term responders was that the long-term responders had a significantly higher number of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status of 0 (70.0% versus 10.5%; p=0.002). Furthermore, median cycles of previous ICIs and median treatment cycles were significantly higher in long-term responders than in non-long-term responders (8 cycles versus 3 cycles; p=0.03) (5.9 months versus 2.0 months; p=0.02). In the 10 long-term responders, six patients required at least a one-stage dose reduction owing to adverse events, and four patients required a two-stage dose reduction. Nab-PTX administration after ICI treatment may elicit a long-term response. A long-term response can be achieved even with a dose reduction due to adverse events.

Pathological response following neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a cross-trial, patient-level analysis

Neoadjuvant use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) before liver resection results in pathological tumour regression in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to describe the characteristics of pathological responses after preoperative ICI therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and to evaluate the association between the depth of tumour regression and relapse-free survival. In this cross-trial, patient-level analysis, we performed a pooled analysis of data from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving ICI therapy before liver resection as part of a global collaborative consortium (NeoHCC) of five phase 1 and 2 clinical trials and standardised observational protocols conducted in 12 tertiary referral centres across the USA, UK, and Taiwan. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma by tissue core biopsy before treatment initiation, a Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 5 on imaging, or both, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and no extrahepatic spread or previous ICI treatment. Pathological response was measured as the percentage of non-viable tumour in the resected surgical specimen, with major pathological response corresponding to at least 70% tumour regression and pathological complete response corresponding to 100% tumour regression. We correlated pathological response with radiological overall response using RECIST criteria (version 1.1) and relapse-free survival, and evaluated the threshold of tumour regression that could be optimally associated with relapse-free survival. At data cutoff on Jan 31, 2024, 111 patients were included in the study, of whom data on pathological response were available for 104 (94%) patients. Patients received treatment from Oct 5, 2017, to Nov 15, 2023, mostly ICI combinations (76 [69%]), for a median of 1·4 months (IQR 0·7-2·9). 87 (78%) patients were men and 24 (22%) were women. Most patients had underlying viral chronic liver disease (73 [66%]) and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A hepatocellular carcinoma (61 [55%]), without portal vein thrombosis (87 [78%]). We observed major pathological response in 33 (32%) patients and pathological complete response in 19 (18%) patients. Radiological overall response was associated with major pathological response, with 23 (74%) of 31 patients with radiological response showing major pathological response compared with ten (14%) of 73 patients without radiological response (p<0·0001). However, ten (30%) of 33 major pathological responses were not predicted by radiological response. After a median follow-up of 27·2 months (95% CI 22·3-32·1), median relapse-free survival for the whole cohort was 43·6 months (95% CI 28·3-not evaluable). Relapse-free survival was significantly longer in patients with major pathological response than in those who did not have a major pathological response (not reached [95% CI not evaluable-not evaluable] vs 28·3 months [12·8-43·8]; hazard ratio 0·26 [0·10-0·66]; p=0·0024) and in patients with pathological complete response than in those who did not have a pathological complete response (NR [95% CI not evaluable-not evaluable] vs 32·8 months [15·0-50·5]; 0·19 [0·05-0·78]; p=0·010). Unbiased recursive partitioning of the cohort for the risk of relapse, death, or both identified a threshold of 90% as the optimal cutoff of pathological tumour regression to predict improved relapse-free survival. The extent of tumour regression following neoadjuvant ICI therapy could identify patients with improved relapse-free survival following liver resection. The threshold of at least 90% tumour regression should be validated for its surrogate role for relapse-free survival in phase 3 randomised controlled trials. None.

Treatment response to durvalumab plus tremelimumab after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is unclear whether sequential ICI treatment-durvalumab plus tremelimumab (DT) after progression on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB)-is effective for HCC. In this nationwide multicenter study, we aimed to investigate the effect of DT treatment based on the timing of treatment. A total of 85 patients receiving DT treatment were enrolled. The primary endpoint is treatment response at week 8 among patients receiving first-line DT treatment, those receiving second-line or later treatment without prior AB therapy, and those receiving second-line or later treatment with prior AB therapy. Objective response rates (ORRs) in patients with first-line treatment, second-line treatment without AB, and second-line treatment with prior AB were 44%, 54%, and 5%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, disease control rates (DCRs) were 69%, 91%, and 26%, respectively (p < 0.001). ORR and DCR were significantly lower in patients with prior AB treatment. Progression free survival (PFS) was significantly shortened in patients receiving second-line therapy following prior AB treatment and an adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) in those patients for PFS, using first-line therapy as a reference, was 2.35 (1.1-5.1, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the impact of DT sequencing following AB treatment was limited. However, even after second-line treatment, the treatment effect can be equivalent to that of first-line treatment in cases with no history of AB treatment. Thus, prior treatment history should be taken into account when initiating DT treatment.

Systemic treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer after failure of previous immune checkpoint inhibitors: a bayesian network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

BackgroundAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have brought survival benefits to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), disease progression still occurs, and there is no consensus on the treatment options for these patients. We designed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate systemic treatment options for NSCLC after failure of ICIs.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched, then literature screening was followed by NMA. We included all Phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) used hazard ratio (HR) for evaluation. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) used odds ratio (OR) and relative risk (RR) effect sizes, respectively. R software was applied to compare the Bayesian NMA results.ResultsWe finally included 6 studies. 1322 patients received ICI plus Chemotherapy (ICI + Chemo), ICI plus Anti-angiogenic monoclonal antibody (ICI + Antiangio-Ab), ICI plus Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ICI + TKI), Tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus Chemotherapy (TKI + Chemo), Standard of Care (SOC), Chemotherapy (Chemo). TKI + Chemo is associated with longer PFS, higher ORR (surface under cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 99.7%, 88.2%), ICI + TKI achieved the longest OS (SUCRA, 82.7%). ICI + Antiangio-Ab was granted the highest safety rating for adverse events (AEs) of any grade, AEs greater than or equal to grade 3 and AEs of any grade leading to discontinuation of treatment (SUCRA, 95%, 82%, 93%).ConclusionsFor NSCLC after failure of ICIs, TKI + Chemo was associated with longer PFS and higher ORR, while ICI + TKI was associated with the longest OS. In terms of safety, ICI + Antiangio-Ab was the highest.

Efficacy and safety of SBRT combined with sintilimab and IBI305 in patients with advanced HCC and previously failed immunotherapy: study protocol of a phase 2 clinical trial

IntroductionHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in China. The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and antiangiogenic drugs, such as bevacizumab and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has...

Influence of Previous Therapy for Neutropenia Caused by Combination Therapy of Ramucirumab and Docetaxel.

In the present study, the influence of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with ramucirumab (RAM) + docetaxel (DTX) therapy on the occurrence of severe neutropenia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was evaluated, taking into account the influences of cytotoxic chemotherapy used in pretreatment. The study participants included patients who received a combination therapy of RAM and DTX as cancer chemotherapy for NSCLC. The influences of previous ICI treatment and pretreatment with cytotoxic anticancer agents on the development of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia were analysed. A total of 89 patients, including 50 with and 39 without a history of ICI treatment, were analysed. Kaplan-Meier curves showed a significant difference in the influence of previous ICI treatment on the development of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (p = 0.006). Moreover, Cox regression analysis identified a history of ICI treatment and prophylactic administration of G-CSF as factors associated with the development of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001, respectively). This study found that previous treatment with ICIs reduced the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia after RAM + DTX therapy in patients with NSCLC, regardless of the influences of pretreatment with cytotoxic anticancer agents.

Camrelizumab plus apatinib after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CAP 02 Re-challenge): A single-arm multicenter, phase II trial.

364 Background: The optimal therapies for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who have progressed after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unclear. This phase II single-arm study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of re-challenge with camrelizumab plus apatinib in this population. Methods: This study enrolled patients with unresectable locally advanced, locally recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who had experienced prior progression on ICI treatment. Enrolled patients received camrelizumab 200 mg intravenously every two weeks along with daily oral apatinib 250 mg. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was the confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), time to response (TOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), 3- and 6-month PFS rates, 6-, 9- and 12-month OS rates, and safety. Results: From September 1, 2021, to March 29, 2023, 49 eligible patients were enrolled and given treatment. Among 38 treated patients who had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement, the ORR and confirmed ORR were 36.8% (95% CI 21.8–54.0) and 13.2% (95% CI 4.4–28.1); the DCR was 89.5% (95% CI 75.2–97.1); the median DOR was 3.0 months; and the median TOR was 2.2 months. Among the 49 treated patients, the median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.8–6.5) and OS was 7.5 months (95% CI 5.5–13.6). Patients who were both PD-L1 positive and had responded to previous ICI therapy had the longest median PFS (5.7 months, 95% CI 3.9–not reached) and OS (9.6 months, 95% CI 7.5–not reached). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.7% of patients (17/49). Conclusions: This study showed promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile of camrelizumab plus apatinib for patients with advanced ESCC who had progressed after ICI therapy. The subset of patients who were both PD-L1 positive and had a prior ICI response seemed to benefit most. Clinical trial information: NCT03736863 .

Previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is associated with decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations and complications in patients with cancer: Results of a propensity-matched analysis of the OnCovid registry

ObjectivesTo date, studies have not provided definitive answers regarding whether previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment alters outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19. MethodsThe OnCovid registry (NCT04393974) was searched from February 27, 2020, to January 31, 2022, for patients who received systemic anti-cancer therapy in the 4 weeks before laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Propensity-score matching using country, vaccination status, primary tumor type, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumor stage, and remission status investigated differences in predefined clinical outcomes comparing those who had or had not received ICIs. ResultsOf 3523 patients screened, 137 ICI-only and 1378 non-ICI met inclusion criteria. Before matching, ICI patients were older, male, enrolled at centers in Italy, and had histories of smoking, thoracic cancers, advanced cancer stages, and active malignancies (P ≤0.02). After matching, there were 120 ICI and 322 non-ICI patients. ICI patients had no differences (odds ratio: 95% CI) in presenting COVID-19 symptoms (0.69: 0.37-1.28), receipt of COVID-specific therapy (0.88: 0.54-1.41), 14-day (0.95: 0.56-1.61), or 28-day (0.79: 0.48-1.29) mortalities. However, ICI patients required less COVID-19-related hospitalization (0.37: 0.21-0.67) and oxygen therapy (0.51: 0.31-0.83) and developed fewer complications (0.57: 0.36-0.92). ConclusionIn this propensity-score matched analysis, previous ICI therapy did not worsen and potentially improved COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer.

Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. Novocure.

Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, yet optimised treatment of patients whose disease progresses after these therapies is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding atezolizumab to cabozantinib delayed disease progression and prolonged survival in patients with disease progression on or after previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. CONTACT-03 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, done in 135 study sites in 15 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed with immune checkpoint inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus cabozantinib (60 mg orally once daily) or cabozantinib alone. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-response or web-response system in permuted blocks (block size four) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, line of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and renal cell carcinoma histology. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival per blinded independent central review and overall survival. The primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338269, and is closed to further accrual. From July 28, 2020, to Dec 27, 2021, 692 patients were screened for eligibility, 522 of whom were assigned to receive atezolizumab-cabozantinib (263 patients) or cabozantinib (259 patients). 401 (77%) patients were male and 121 (23%) patients were female. At data cutoff (Jan 3, 2023), median follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 10·7-19·3). 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receiving cabozantinib had disease progression per central review or died. Median progression-free survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·8-12·3) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 10·8 months (10·0-12·5) with cabozantinib (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 1·03 [95% CI 0·83-1·28]; p=0·78). 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabozantinib group died. Median overall survival was 25·7 months (95% CI 21·5-not evaluable) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and was not evaluable (21·1-not evaluable) with cabozantinib (HR for death 0·94 [95% CI 0·70-1·27]; p=0·69). Serious adverse events occurred in 126 (48%) of 262 patients treated with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 84 (33%) of 256 patients treated with cabozantinib; adverse events leading to death occurred in 17 (6%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and nine (4%) in the cabozantinib group. The addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Exelixis.

Sequencing checkpoint inhibitor therapy in renal cell carcinoma

Initial therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma includes drugs that inhibit immune checkpoints, thereby blocking the negative regulators of an antitumour immune response. Currently, this therapy includes a combination of a PD-1 inhibitor and either a second checkpoint inhibitor, an antibody against CTLA4, or one of several small molecule inhibitors of the VEGF receptor. These PD-1-based combination therapies have improved clinical outcomes including overall survival. 1 Motzer RJ McDermott DF Escudier B et al. Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2022; 128: 2085-2097 Crossref PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar , 2 Rini BI Plimack ER Stus V et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1116-1127 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1841) Google Scholar , 3 Choueiri TK Powles T Burotto M et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 829-841 Crossref PubMed Scopus (618) Google Scholar , 4 Motzer R Alekseev B Rha S-Y et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 1289-1300 Crossref PubMed Scopus (614) Google Scholar Although use of checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy has led to a subset of patients who have a durable response and disease control without the need for further systemic therapy, the majority of patients will progress and require additional treatment. Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trialThe addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. Full-Text PDF

Outcomes and safety of subsequent treatments after immune- and anti-VEGF therapy in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: Outcomes from a tertiary referral hospital.

e16533 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and anti-VEGFs, either in combination or sequentially, are the standard of care in first- and second-line (2L) setting for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, there is uncertainty about the subsequent lines. We describe real-world outcomes and safety of using anti-VEGFs such as cabozantinib (CABO), axitinib (AXI), and sunitinib (SUN) after ICIs and anti-VEGF therapies in patients (pts) with mRCC. Methods: A retrospective audit was performed on pts with mRCC treated between June 2014 and June 2022 at the St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UK. Baseline patient and treatment characteristics, best response, dose modifications and survival outcomes were collected. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Overall, 188 pts with mRCC were treated. We analysed 69 pts of whom 45 (65%), 16 (23%) and 8 (12%) pts received CABO, AXI, and SUN, respectively, as subsequent treatment after prior ICIs and anti-VEG. Baseline characteristics are described. Median follow-up was 36 months (95% CI: 31.6 - 55.3). Overall, the partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) rates were 9% and 45%, respectively. Eleven percent, 12% and 0% pts achieved PR and 53%, 25% and 31% achieved SD on CABO, SUN and AXI, respectively. In general, the median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 6.5-14.2) and the median OS was 16.5 months (95% CI: 11.6-23.5). One-year PFS and 1-year OS was 36% and 51%, respectively. PFS and OS by treatment are reported. The number of pts who experienced toxicities that required dose reductions was higher with CABO (58%) and SUN (37%) than with AXI (6%). The median time to dose reduction was 2.4, 1.4, and 1.4 months for CABO, SUN and AXI. Conclusions: In our centre, CABO was the most common subsequent treatment after previous ICIs and anti-VEGF. Taking into account the retrospective and single-centre nature of the collected data these results support the activity of CABO, AXI and SUN in this setting. AXI was well tolerated with less dose modifications. [Table: see text]

Response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who progressed on prior ICI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

4547 Background: Several immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination regimens are standard-of-care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). These include dual ICI and ICI-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations. While single-agent ICI is recommended as subsequent-line therapy for ICI-naïve patients, there is limited knowledge regarding efficacy of rechallenging with a different ICI or using different ICI combinations in patients who have progressed on prior ICI therapy. This is a clinically critical question as most mRCC patients would have already received ICI therapy at progression. The aim of this study is to address the above by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify studies of later-line ICI rechallenge after progression on any previous ICI in mRCC patients from database inception to December 31st, 2022. Patients who had progressed on prior ICI and rechallenged with ICI as single agent/dual/TKI combination as any subsequent line of therapy in both retrospective and prospective studies were included. Exclusion criteria were phase I or any phase studies combining ICI with unapproved drugs, case reports and case series. We calculated the pooled objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) using mixed effects model treating individual studies as a random effect. We further stratified studies into prospective and retrospective and performed subgroup analyses. Results: A total of 11 studies, 6 prospective and 5 retrospective with a total of 603 patients were initially identified. Out of the 6 prospective studies, 3 had an adaptive design of using salvage ipilimumab/nivolumab in patients who had either progressed or had stable disease as the best overall response on nivolumab monotherapy. These studies were excluded as they did not meet our inclusion criteria. A total of 8 studies with 400 patients were included in the final analysis. The ORR was 28% (95% CI, 0.27-0.36) and the DCR was 70% (95% CI, 0.47-0.85) with no significant differences between prospective and retrospective studies. Our ORR is higher than an earlier meta-analysis reporting an ORR of 14% with salvage ipilimumab/nivolumab after previous treatment with ICI. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates a modest ORR and an impressive DCR. Therefore, it provides strong clinical rationale to consider rechallenging with ICI-based therapy for later-line treatment of mRCC patients who have progressed on prior ICI. [Table: see text]

Phase 2 study of ISA101b (peltopepimut-S) and cemiplimab in patients with advanced HPV16+ oropharyngeal cancer who failed anti-PD1 therapy.

6028 Background: ISA101b (peltopepimut-S), a therapeutic vaccine against the HPV-specific E6/E7 oncoproteins, induces specific expansion of HPV16 targeted T-cells when given together with cemiplimab, an anti-PD-1 agent. Previously we showed that ISA101 with nivolumab achieved a higher response rate compared to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) alone in trials for patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) HPV16+ oropharyngeal cancer (OPC)1,2. Methods: In this single arm phase 2 study, patients with R/M HPV16+ OPC with progressive disease (PD) within 6 months after prior 1st or 2nd line anti-PD-1 ICI were treated with ISA101b (subcutaneously 100µg/peptide on days 1, 29, and 50) with cemiplimab (intravenously 350mg as a 3-weekly regimen) until PD. Patients without PD at 6 months were offered a booster ISA101b injection. HPV16 positive tumor status was confirmed by a central reference laboratory with an established PCR assay. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST1.1. An analysis was planned at the end of Stage 1, when 26 patients who had received at least one dose of ISA101b had been followed for 6 months. The cut-off date for this analysis, approved by the DSMB, was 31 January 2023. Results: Twenty-six patients (mean age 60.7 ±12.9 years; 22 (84.6%) male and 4 (15.4%) female) enrolled in Stage 1. Median follow-up was 16.2 weeks (range 1.6-78.8). Three patients were confirmed with partial response (PR) (11.5%); two of the 3 patients with PR never responded to previous ICI treatment. In 13 patients (50.0%) best overall response (BOR) was stable disease (SD); in 8 patients (30.8%) BOR was PD. Two (7.7%) patients did not have a tumor assessment after baseline: one patient died on day 8 due to OPC and one patient withdrew consent shortly after enrolment. The clinical benefit ratio (CBR) was 61.5%. Nine (34.6%) patients received a booster injection. At the time of the booster, 2 patients had PR and 5 patients had meaningful (≥6 months) SD. Time to response ranged between 127 and 307 days. Median duration of study treatment was 13.1 weeks (range 1.1-75.9), with 4 patients still on treatment. There were two grade 3 adverse events (AEs) related to ISA101b: erythema at the injection site and diarrhea. Two patients (7.7%) had grade 3 ICI-related auto-immune events. Grade 4-5 AEs related to study treatment did not occur. Median overall survival was 8.1 months (range 0.3-17.5). Conclusions: This treatment appears promising for HPV16+ OPC patients who failed prior anti-PD-1 ICI therapy, with an ORR of 11.5% and a CBR of 61.5%. In this small, ongoing study the combination of cemiplimab and ISA101b was well tolerated with a safety profile resembling anti-PD-1 monotherapy. This is the first study of the combination of ISA101b and cemiplimab in 2nd/3rd line R/M anti-PD-1 refractory OPC patients. 1Massarelli E. JAMA Oncol 2019 2de Sousa LG. J Immunother Cancer 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT04398524 .

Rechallenge with Anti-PD-1 Inhibitors in Patients with Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancies.

We investigated the treatment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 20 patients who underwent rechallenge with PD-1 inhibitors for recurrent gynecologic cancers at two tertiary centers between January 2018 and September 2022. The median age of the patients was 56 years (range, 35-79). Seven (35%), 1 (5%), 11 (55%), and 1 (5%) patients presented with cervical, vulvar, ovarian, and endometrial cancers, respectively. Sixteen (80%) patients received pembrolizumab and 4 (20%) received nivolumab at first treatment. Eight (40%) and 12 (60%) patients received pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, at second treatment. At initial ICI treatment, 1 (5%) and 4 (20%) cases of a complete response (CR) and a partial response (PR) were observed, respectively, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.8 months (range, 1.4-49.6). Reasons for first ICI discontinuation were disease progression (n=16), severe adverse events (AEs) (n=2), and treatment withdrawal (n=2). During second ICI treatment, 1 (5%) patient achieved CR, 2 (10%) showed PR, and 5 (25%) experienced stable disease. The median PFS to second ICI was 1.8 months (range, 0.4-10.4). The median overall survival was 21.3 months (range, 10.1-52.7). Neither patient who discontinued ICI treatment due to AEs experienced AE relapse during second ICI treatment. These results suggest that responses to ICI rechallenge are not as intolerable as responses to previous ICI. Clinicians should carefully consider rechallenge with PD-1 inhibitors outside of clinical trials until there are sufficient data to routinely support this practice.

IMAGENE trial: multicenter, proof-of-concept, phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of niraparib with PD-1 inhibitor in solid cancer patients with homologous recombination repair genes mutation

Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with cancer involving homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutation. Moreover, HRR gene-mutated cancers are effectively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with the increase in tumor mutation burden. We have proposed to conduct a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (IMAGENE trial) for evaluating the efficacy and safety of niraparib (PARPi) plus programmed cell death-1 inhibitor combination therapy in patients with HRR gene-mutated cancers who are refractory to ICIs therapy using a next generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue analysis. Key eligibility criteria for this trial includes HRR gene-mutated tumor determined by any cancer gene tests; progression after previous ICI treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≤ 1. The primary endpoint is the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in all patients. The secondary endpoints include the confirmed ORR in patients with HRR gene-mutation of ctDNA using the Caris Assure (CARIS, USA). The target sample size of the IMAGENE trial is 57 patients. Biomarker analyses will be performed in parallel using the Caris Assure, proteome analysis, and T cell repertoire analysis to reveal tumor immunosurveillance in peripheral blood. Our trial aims to confirm the clinical benefit of PARPi plus ICI combination therapy in ICI-resistant patients. Furthermore, through translational research, our trial will shed light on which patients would benefit from the targeted combination therapy for patients with HRR gene-mutated tumor even after the failure of ICIs. The IMAGENE trial: jRCT, Clinical trial no.: jRCT2051210120, Registered date: November 9, 2021.

Chemotherapy following immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma

BackgroundRecent studies suggest improvements in response to salvage chemotherapy (CT) after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in several types of cancer. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI, compared with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). MethodsIn this multicentre retrospective study, we included all patients with la/mUC initiating second or third-line chemotherapy from January 2015 to June 2020. We compared patients treated with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI (CT2) and patients treated with third-line chemotherapy after ICI (CT3). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) in CT3 compared with CT2. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities. ResultsOverall, 553 patients were included. ORRs were 31.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 35.5) and 29.2% (95% CI, 21.9 to 36.6), respectively, in CT2 and CT3, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.62). In subgroup analyses, no differences in ORR were observed by Bellmunt risk group, type of chemotherapy (platinum or taxanes), duration of response to first-platinum-based chemotherapy (< or ≥ 12 months) or FGFR-status. Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.1) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.5) in CT2 and CT3, respectively, and grade 3–4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 35.0% and 22.4% of patients. ConclusionThis large multicentre retrospective study provides clinically relevant real-world data. Chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI in la/mUC achieves ORR and PFS comparable with those obtained in CT2 with an acceptable safety profile. These updated results offer more promising outcomes than historically reported with second-line chemotherapy data.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: a randomised, open label, phase 2 trial

Merkel cell carcinoma is among the most aggressive and lethal of primary skin cancers, with a high rate of distant metastasis. Anti-programmed death receptor 1 (anti-PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monotherapy is currently standard of care for unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. We assessed treatment with combined nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy or following previous treatment with anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 monotherapy. In this randomised, open label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults from two cancer sites in the USA (one in Florida and one in Ohio) to group A (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab) or group B (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab plus SBRT) in a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically proven advanced stage (unresectable, recurrent, or stage IV) Merkel cell carcinoma, a minimum of two tumour lesions measureable by CT, MRI or clinical exam, and tumour tissue available for exploratory biomarker analysis. Patients were stratified by previous immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) status to receive nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks (group A) or the same schedule of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with the addition of SBRT to at least one tumour site (24 Gy in three fractions at week 2; group B). Patients had to have at least two measurable sites of disease so one non-irradiated site could be followed for response. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with a complete response or partial response per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Response was assessed every 12 weeks. Safety was assessed in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03071406. 50 patients (25 in both group A and group B) were enrolled between March 14, 2017, and Dec 21, 2021, including 24 ICI-naive patients (13 [52%] of 25 group A patients and 11 [44%] of 25 group B patients]) and 26 patients with previous ICI (12 [48%] of 25 group A patients and 14 [56%] of 25 group B patients]). One patient in group B did not receive SBRT due to concerns about excess toxicity. Median follow-up was 14·6 months (IQR 9·1-26·5). Two patients in group B were excluded from the analysis of the primary endpoint because the target lesions were irradiated and so the patients were deemed non-evaluable. Of the ICI-naive patients, 22 (100%) of 22 (95% CI 82-100) had an objective response, including nine (41% [95% CI 21-63]) with complete response. Of the patients who had previously had ICI exposure, eight (31%) of 26 patients (95% CI 15-52) had an objective response and four (15% [5-36]) had a complete response. No significant differences in ORR were observed between groups A (18 [72%] of 25 patients) and B (12 [52%] of 23 patients; p=0·26). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 10 (40%) of 25 patients in group A and 8 (32%) of 25 patients in group B. First-line combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma showed a high ORR with durable responses and an expected safety profile. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed clinical benefit in patients with previous anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 treatment. Addition of SBRT did not improve efficacy of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab represents a new first-line and salvage therapeutic option for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. Bristol Myers Squibb Rare Population Malignancy Program.

1030P Anlotinib plus docetaxel in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of previous immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy: Updated results from a pooled analysis of two phase II trials

ICIs are widely used in 1st -line or 2nd -line treatment of advanced NSCLC, but effective treatment after resistance to ICIs is still controversial. We previously reported some results of the pooled analysis of ALTER-L016 and ALTER-L018, which demonstrated that anlotinib plus docetaxel had encouraging efficacy and manageable toxicity in advanced NSCLC patients (pts) who had been pre-treated with ICIs. Here, we continued to update the efficacy and safety of the combination in the pooled analysis of ALTER-L016 and ALTER-L018. Efficacy and safety data from 2 multi-institutional, randomized, controlled comparative, phase II trials of 73 advanced NSCLC pts who had progressed after 1st-line platinum-based chemotherapy were pooled for this analysis. The studies shared similar dosing intervals and doses, pts were randomly allocated to receive anlotinib (10/12 mg QD from day 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle) plus docetaxel (60/75 mg/m2 Q3W) (group A+D) or docetaxel (60/75 mg/m2 Q3W) only (group D). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examination and clinical laboratory tests. As of 30 April, 2022, 73 pts were available for efficacy and safety analysis (demographics are shown in Table). The median (m) PFS was 5.20 months (m) (95%Cl: 2.96-7.44) vs 2.20 m (95%Cl: 1.06-3.34) in group A+D and group D, respectively (HR: 0.29; 95%Cl: 0.16-0.52, p<0.0001). The mOS has not been reached. For tumor response, the ORR was 34.90% vs 13.30% and the DCR was 93.02% vs 60.00% in group A+D and group D, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were neutropenia (5, 11.6%) and leukopenia (2, 4.7%) in group A+D, and dysphagia (1, 3.3%) in group D.Table: 1030PDemographicsExperimental (anlotinib + docetaxel) (n=43)Control (docetaxel) (n=30)Median age, years62 (31-74)60 (41-73)Age group, years, n (%)< 6018 (41.86)14 (46.67)≥ 6025 (58.14)16 (53.33)Sex, n (%)Men40 (93.02)24 (80.00)Women3 (6.98)6 (20.00)Disease stage, n (%)III5 (11.63)2 (6.67)IV38 (88.37)28 (93.33)ECOG PS, n (%)013 (30.23)9 (30.00)130 (69.77)21 (70.00)Histologic subtype, n (%)ADC20 (46.51)13 (43.33)Non-ADC23 (53.49)17 (56.67)Smoking history, n (%)Never smoker9 (20.93)10 (33.33)Current/ Former smoker34 (79.07)20 (66.67)Brain metastasis, n (%)Yes6 (13.95)4 (13.33)No37 (86.05)26 (86.67) Open table in a new tab Anlotinib plus docetaxel continued to show better clinical efficacy with manageable safety profile in advanced NSCLC pts who had been pre-treated with ICIs.

Efficacy and Safety of Amrubicin in Small Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Chemotherapy.

Simple SummaryTherapeutic efficacy of chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy has been previously demonstrated in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. However, there are no reports of any cytotoxic drug that is effective as second-line therapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line treatment. In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer to clarify whether the previous treatment with chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors impacts the efficacy and safety of amrubicin as a second-line treatment. This study shows that the efficacy and safety of amrubicin in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer remains unchanged irrespective of previous treatment with chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors.Adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy to treat extensive-stage small cell lung cancer is effective. However, there are no reports of an effective second-line treatment in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line treatment. Here, we assessed the efficacy and safety of amrubicin as a second-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer after chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy. The study enrolled 150 patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. The efficacy and the incidence of adverse events were compared between patients previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and patients without previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. One hundred and twenty-three patients were eligible. There was no difference in objective response rate, time-to-treatment failure, progression-free survival, and overall survival between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. Pretreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors was not associated with an increase in amrubicin-related adverse events. This study shows that the efficacy of amrubicin in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer remains unchanged irrespective of previous treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Amrubicin-related adverse events did not increase in patients previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.