Significant Difference In Objective Response Rate Research Articles

Similar efficacy and safety between lenvatinib versus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first-line therapy. Real-world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues. We retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n=46) and A + B (n=46) as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance. A total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8year-old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow-up duration were 4.7months and 9.4months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p=0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p=0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p=0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child-Pugh class B, beyond up-to-seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65-year-old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914-4.753], p=0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p=0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin-bilirubin index and Child-Pugh score. The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC.

Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with hepatitis virus infection following sorafenib failure

BackgroundCurrently, there are a few treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after progression following sorafenib (SOR) therapy, but with limited benefit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as second-line treatment.MethodsFrom May 2018 to May 2021, a total of 93 HCCs who failed SOR treatment were included in this study and divided into TKI group (n = 37) and TKI-ICI group (n = 56). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety were estimated among the two groups. In addition, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and PFS to identify possible prognostic factors.ResultsWith a median follow-up time of 13.7 months, the median age of patients was 56 (range, 50–64) years and most were male. All of the patients were hepatitis virus-related HCC. Both median OS (7.63 months vs 19.23 months, P < 0.001) and median PFS (2.97 months vs 8.63 months, P < 0.001) were significantly improved in the TKI-ICI group compared to the TKI group. A significant increase in DCR was demonstrated in the TKI-ICI group compared to the TKI group (83.9% vs 45.9%, P = 0.0003), although no significant difference in ORR was reported (21.4% vs 8.1%, P = 0.1552). Multivariate Cox regression analysis of OS and PFS revealed that second-line regimen was an independent protective factor affecting death and progression in HCCs after SOR failure. In addition, Child–Pugh B7 was an independent risk factor of OS. Finally, there was no significant difference in the incidence of any grade or grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) between the two groups, and no treatment-related deaths were observed.ConclusionThis real-world study suggests that the combination of TKIs and ICIs benefits more than mono-TKIs and is well tolerated in HCCs with hepatitis virus infection after SOR failure.

Late Breaking Abstracts

Late Breaking Abstracts

LBA42 Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma

Merkel Cell Carcinoma is an aggressive cutaneous malignancy associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus or UV exposure. In recent years, anti-PD1/PDL1 therapy has dramatically improved the treatment landscape, but outcome remains poor among patients who progress on this therapy. In this multicenter phase 2 randomized study, patients with unresectable, recurrent or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma patients received NIVO 240mg IV q2 wks plus IPI 1mg/kg IV q6 wks (Arm A) or NIVO 240mg IV q2 wks plus IPI 1mg/kg IV q6 wks plus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to 24Gy in 3 fractions at week 2 (Arm B). Patients were required to have at least two measurable sites of disease to ensure that at least one non-irradiated site could be followed for treatment response. Both arms were experimental and randomized in a 1:1 ratio based on a Bayesian pick-the-winner design with each arm using a Simon’s Mini-Max two-stage design. Patients were stratified by prior treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Tumor status was assessed every 12 weeks and evaluated by immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST). 50 patients (24 ICI-naïve, 26 with prior ICI) received ≥1 dose of NIVO plus IPI and 24 received SBRT (median follow-up 14.6 months). ORR in ICI-naïve patients was 100% [95%CI, 82%-100%], 41% with complete response. ORR in prior ICI patients was 31% [95%CI, 15%-52%], 15% with complete response. No significant differences in ORR were observed between Arms A and B (72% vs. 52%, p=0.26). Median duration of response was not reached [95%CI, 33.9 months-NE] in the ICI-naïve cohort and was 10.8 months [95% CI, 4.9 months-NE] in the prior ICI cohort. Treatment was well tolerated with a toxicity profile similar to that previously observed. In this study, first-line therapy with NIVO plus IPI in patients with advanced MCC demonstrated an exceptionally high ORR of 100%, with durable responses and a manageable safety profile. NIVO plus IPI also exhibited clinical activity in patients who progressed on prior anti-PD1/PDL1 monotherapy. Addition of SBRT did not alter the efficacy of NIVO plus IPI in this study.

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.

Efficacy and safety of herbal formulas with the function of gut microbiota regulation for gastric and colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundCurrently, gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are the most common causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Gut microbiota is closely related to the occurrence of GC and CRC and the efficacy of chemotherapy. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of herbal formulas with the function of gut microbiota regulation (HFGMR) in the treatment of GC and CRC and to assess the quality of the synthesized evidence.MethodsA comprehensive search was performed on eight electronic databases, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, and two registries, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov, from their initiation to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the therapeutic effects of HFGMR were included. We used Stata 16 for data synthesis and Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) for methodological quality evaluation and assessed the quality of the synthesized evidence in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.ResultsFifty-three RCTs involving 4,478 patients were included. These trials involve seven herbal formulas that could regulate the gut microbiota of Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, Escherichia coli, Bacteroides, and Enterococcus faecalis. The meta-analysis results were subgrouped to three different stages in GC and CRC. 1) For the perioperative stage, HFGMR combined with conventional therapy could shorten the time to bowel sound recovery by 1.63 h [mean difference (MD) = −1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−2.62, −0.65)], the time to first flatus by 9.69 h [MD = −9.69, 95% CI (−10.89, −8.48)], and the duration of hospitalization by 2.91 days [MD = −2.91, 95% CI (−4.01, −1.80)] in GC. There were no significant differences in outcomes of gastrointestinal function recovery and adverse events in CRC. 2) For postoperative patients, combined with adjuvant chemotherapy, HFGMR could decrease the incidence of diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, anorexia, and peripheral neurotoxicity in GC; boost Karnofsky performance status (KPS) improvement rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.96, 95% CI (1.38, 2.79)]; and decrease the incidence of leucopenia and nausea and vomiting in CRC. 3) For advanced stage, HFGMR can significantly improve the objective response rate (ORR) [RR = 1.35, 95% CI (1.19~1.53)], disease control rate (DCR) [RR = 1.14, 95% CI (1.05~1.23)], and KPS improvement rate [RR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.17, 2.09)] and decrease the incidence of leucopenia, neutropenia, anemia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue in GC. There were no significant differences in ORR [RR = 1.32, 95% CI (0.94~1.86)] and DCR [RR = 1.22, 95% CI (0.99~1.50)], but they can improve the KPS response rate [RR = 1.62, 95% CI (1.13, 2.32)] and decrease the incidence of myelosuppression, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and hepatic and renal dysfunction in CRC.ConclusionThis study indicates that herbal formulas that could regulate the composition and proportion of gut microbiota have a positive effect in three stages (perioperative, postoperative, and advanced) of GC and CRC. They could promote the recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function, increase tumor response, improve performance status, and reduce the incidence of adverse events. Herbal formulas exerted anti-cancer efficacy through multiple mechanisms and pathways; among them, the regulation of gut microbiota has not been paid enough attention. To further support the conclusion and better understand the role of gut microbiota in the treatment of GC and CRC, more rigorously designed, large-scale, and multicenter RCTs that focus on herbal formulas and gut microbiota are needed in the future.

Safety and efficacy of retreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundRetreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might be a subsequent therapeutic option for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who discontinued initial ICIs treatment because of disease progression, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or completion of a fixed course, yet little evidence exists on the safety and efficacy of ICIs retreatment to support this strategy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane and major meeting libraries for articles about ICIs retreatment in NSCLC for systematic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for efficacy and the incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs for safety. ICIs rechallenge implies retreatment that can be applied to patients who progressed, while ICIs resumption refers to retreatment for patients who discontinued prior treatment due to an irAE or completion of a fixed course of immunotherapy.ResultsEighteen studies were enrolled in our analysis. The pooled ORR and DCR of ICIs retreatment were respectively 20% and 54%. ICIs retreatment was associated with a decrease in ORR and DCR compared to prior ICIs treatment (ORR: OR, 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.63, P=0.002; DCR: OR, 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28–0.99, P=0.05). The pooled ORR and DCR of ICIs rechallenge were 8% and 39%. ICIs rechallenge showed a lower ORR compared with initial ICIs treatment (P<0.05). ICIs resumption presented an ORR of 34% and a DCR of 71%, showing no significant difference in ORR and DCR compared with initial ICIs treatment (P>0.05). Retreated with the same type of ICIs as before showed no difference in ORR and DCR (P>0.05), while with different ICIs was associated with a decrease in ORR and DCR in contrast to initial treatment (P<0.05). The pooled incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs after ICIs retreatment in patients with NSCLC were separately 41% and 13% which showed a similar incidence compared with initial ICIs treatment (P>0.05).DiscussionRetreatment with ICIs is feasible for patients with NSCLC in consideration of its encouraging efficacy and tolerable safety, especially in resumption with ICIs. When it comes to ICIs rechallenge, it is necessary to accurately identify the potential targeted beneficiary population. More large-scale prospective studies are warranted to confirm our discoveries. More attention could be paid to further exploring the efficacy and safety of retreatment concurrently with ICIs and chemotherapy.

A real-world study of anlotinib as third-line or above therapy in patients with her-2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

BackgroundAntiangiogenic agents provides an optional treatment strategy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib as third-line or above therapy for patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer.MethodsPatients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer who have failed from prior therapy and treated with anlotinib monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy or immunotherapy from June 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed based on real-world clinical practice. The primary end point was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS) and safety.Results47 patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer received anlotinib monotherapy or combination therapy as third-line or above therapy. In the general population, 10 patients achieved PR, 25 patients had SD and 12 patients had PD. The overall ORR and DCR were 21.3% and 74.5%, respectively. Subgroup analysis suggested that there were no statistically significant differences in ORR and DCR with respect to HR status (positive vs. negative), treatment programs (monotherapy vs. combination) and treatment type in combination group (chemotherapy vs. immunotherapy). The patients who did not received previously anti-angiogenesis therapy had superior DCR (84.8% vs. 50.0%, P=0.012). Median PFS and OS were 5.0 months (95% CI=4.3-5.7) and 21.0 (95% CI=14.9-27.1) months, respectively. The PFS (6.5m vs. 3.5m, P=0.042)and OS (28.2m vs. 12.6m, P=0.040) were better in HR positive patients than HR negative patients. And simultaneously, patients who received anlotinib combination therapy obtained better PFS (5.5m vs. 3.0m, P=0.045). The incidence of Grade 3-4 adverse events(AEs) was 31.9%.ConclusionsAnlotinib monotherapy or combination therapy provide a viable third-line or above therapeutic strategy in patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer, a median PFS of 5.0 months was obtained with well tolerated toxicity.

Sarcopenia Was a Poor Prognostic Predictor for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BackgroundIt remains not well known whether skeletal muscle mass (SMM) loss has any impact on the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced lung cancer. We aimed to evaluate the association between SMM and clinical outcome of patients with advanced lung cancer receiving ICIs as first line or second line.Materials and MethodsFrom March 1st, 2019 to March 31st, 2021 at our hospital, 34 patients with advanced lung cancer treated with first-line or second-line ICIs were enrolled retrospectively. The estimation of skeletal muscle index (SMI) for sarcopenia was assessed at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) on computed tomography (CT) images obtained within 4 weeks before initiation of ICIs treatment. The impact of sarcopenia (low SMI) on progression free survival (PFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. The effect of various variables on PFS was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression model with univariate and multivariate analysis. The impact on treatment response including objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) and immunotherapy related adverse events (irAEs) between patients with and without sarcopenia was compared by the chi-squared test. The comparison of SMI value between patients with objective response (OR), disease control (DC) and those without OR and DC was used student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsBoth in univariate and multivariate analysis, sarcopenia and treatment lines were the predictive factors for PFS (p < 0.05). Patients with sarcopenia had significantly shorter PFS than that of non-sarcopenic ones [6.57 vs. 16.2 months, hazard ratios (HR) = 2.947 and 3.542, and 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.123–13.183 and 1.11–11.308, p = 0.022 and 0.033]. No significant difference in ORR and irAEs was found. Patients with sarcopenia had lower DCR than those without sarcopenia. The mean SMI value of DCR group and non-DCR group was 32.94 ± 5.49 and 44.77 ± 9.06 cm2/m2, respectively (p = 0.008).ConclusionSarcopenia before immunotherapy might be a significant predictor for poor prognosis including shorter PFS and lower DCR in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with ICIs as first line or second line.

Real-world data analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors in stage III-IV adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma

BackgroundThis study was designed to investigate the clinical application, efficacy, and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of lung cancer in the real world.MethodsA retrospective, observational analysis was conducted on patients treated with ICIs in four tertiary hospitals in the region from January 2015 to March 2021, to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ICIs single-agent or combined chemotherapy and anti-vascular drugs in the first-line or second-line treatment of patients with lung cancer.ResultsThree hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled in this study. In patients with stage III-IV adenocarcinoma and Squamous cell carcinoma, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 35.5% (87/245) and 93.5% (229/245), respectively, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. A total of 132 patients received ICIs as the first-line treatment, the median treatment cycle was 8 cycles (2–20 cycles), the short-term efficacy ORR was 38.6%, DCR was 93.9%, and the median PFS was 11.4 months. One hundred thirteen patients received ICIs treatment as second-line treatment, the median treatment cycle was five cycles (2–10 cycles), the short-term efficacy ORR was 31.9%, DCR was 92.9%, and the median PFS was 10.0 months. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, DCR, or median PFS with ICIs as the first-line treatment compared with the second-line treatment(P > 0.05). The results of subgroup analysis showed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, pathological type and number of treatment lines were not correlated with median PFS(P > 0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences in programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) expression, corticosteroid interference, and antibiotic (Abx) treatment among all groups (P < 0.05). In terms of safety, the overall incidence of adverse reactions in 315 patients was 62.5%, and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 13.7%. Grade 1–2 and 3–4 incidence of adverse events were 34.9 and 27.65%, respectively. There were four patients who experienced fatal irAEs, two cases were liver damage leading to liver failure, one case was immune related pneumonia, and one case was immune related myocarditis.ConclusionIn the real world, ICIs has a good effect on patients with lung cancer and significantly improves ORR and PFS.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilar and original bevacizumab in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundBevacizumab (Avastin®), a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, is widely used in treating a variety of malignant tumors. Several biosimilars of bevacizumab have been developed and marketed with the expiration of bevacizumab’s patent. The objective of this study was to collate available data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilar bevacizumab compared with the bevacizumab (Avastin®) in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsLiterature search of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from inception until October 15, 2021. The efficacy outcome indicators were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was evaluated for safety outcome.ResultsTen RCTs recruiting 6,416 patients with non-squamous NSCLC were included. All RCTs studies included the biosimilar bevacizumab group as the experimental group and the original bevacizumab group as the control group. The patients in the experimental group and control group received the same dose and duration of chemotherapy combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in ORR [risk ratio (RR): 0.97, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.93–1.02. P=0.841, I2=0], PFS (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98–1.10, P=0.235, I2=0) and OS (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00–1.10, P=0.692, I2=0) between the biomarker and original groups. The P values of ORR, PFS and OS were 0.533, 0.970 and 0.916 respectively as shown by Egger's test, suggesting that there was no publication bias. Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in ORR, PFS, and OS between the Chinese and multicenter trials. The pooled incidence rate of AEs between two groups was similar, and there was also no significant difference between the two groups.DiscussionThis is the first study to independently report biosimilar bevacizumab in a meta-analysis on NSCLC treatment. The results showed that biosimilar bevacizumab had similar efficacy and safety compared with the original bevacizumab.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO registration No. CRD42021276991.

Uncommon EGFR mutations in lung carcinoma: features and treatment outcomes in a retrospective French cohort.

BackgroundThe best management for rare epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) remains uncertain. The literature indicates that response to usual treatment could differ in certain subgroups such as exon 20 insertion/duplication (E20ID), other single uncommon mutation (OSUM), and EGFR complex mutation (ECM).MethodsIn this observational, regional, multi-center, retrospective study, we gathered data on uncommon EGFR mutations in NSCLC from 2007 to 2021. We analyzed patient characteristics, prognostic factors and treatment outcomes [objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)].ResultsAmong 119 patients with an uncommon EGFR mutant, 34 harbored E20ID, 23 ECM, and 62 OSUM. There were significantly more non-smokers in E20ID. Female gender and performance status <2 were associated with a better prognosis. Among the 97 metastatic patients with available data for 1st line treatment, median estimated OS was 21 months (95% CI: 18–31 months), with better non-significant OS for ECM. Median estimated PFS was 7 months (95% CI: 4–9 months). We found significant differences in ORR, DCR and PFS favoring 1st line chemotherapy for E20ID, whereas the outcomes for OSUM and ECM were more favorable for tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (mainly 2nd and 3rd generation).ConclusionsThere were variations in treatment outcomes among subgroups in our cohort. Exon 20 insertions showed better ORR and PFS with 1st line chemotherapy compared to TKI. Conversely, other rare EGFR mutations including ECM had better ORR and PFS with TKI than chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in OS among treatment groups overall or within rare mutation subgroups.

Phase I study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory sarcoma and other malignant solid tumors.

11519 Background: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was found to have improved toxicity profile, especially with regards to reduced cardiotoxicity. The objectives of this study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PLD in combination with cyclophosphamide and vincristine (PCV regimen) and describe the toxicities and response of this regimen. Methods: This was an open-label, single-center, single-arm phase I study utilizing a “3 + 3” design. The primary endpoint was the MTD of PLD, and the secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST 1.1. PFS was defined as the time from treatment until disease progression or death. This study included cohort A and cohort B. Three dose levels were studied in cohort A, PLD 30 mg/m2 (L1), 40 mg/m2 (L2) or 50 mg/m2 (L3) d1 + cyclophosphamide and mesna at 1 g/m2/d d1-2 + vincristine 1.5 mg/m2/d (≯2mg) d1 every 3 weeks. As the endpoint of the study could not be reached, we changed the dose of cyclophosphamide and mesna to 1.5 g/m2/d d1 in cohort B. Results: Eleven in cohort A and 34 in cohort B were enrolled, the median age was 6 years (range 1-15). Forty-three patients were eligible and evaluable for toxicity, and 35 (77.8%) patients were evaluable for response. Diagnoses were rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 29, 64.4%), Ewing's sarcoma (n = 4), and others. The median number of prior regimens was 2 (range 1-5). The most common adverse event (AE) was grade 3 or grade 4 neutropenia with a proportion of 90.9% and 65.5% in cohort A and cohort B, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (60% vs. 48%) and DCR (90% vs. 88%) between the two cohorts. The ORR (60% vs. 0, P = 0.019) and DCR (96.7% vs. 40%, P = 0.006) were significantly higher in Group 1 (rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, Wilm's tumor, fibrosarcoma, undifferentiated sarcoma) compared with Group 2 (neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, embryonal sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, extrarenal rhabdoid tumor). The 12-month PFS of Group 1 was also better than Group 2 (79% vs. 60%, P = 0.041). Conclusions: The PCV regimen demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile and promising clinical efficacy in pediatric patients with R/R rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, Wilm's tumor, fibrosarcoma, and undifferentiated sarcoma. Increasing the dose of cyclophosphamide did not improve the efficacy, but increased the toxicity. The RP2D for future studies is PLD 30 mg/m2/d for one day. Clinical trial information: NCT04213612. [Table: see text]

Camrelizumab in combination with fluorouracil or taxol plus platinum chemotherapy as first-line treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A multicenter, open-label, prospective cohort study.

e16084 Background: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after chemotherapy and targeted therapy has altered the treatment pattern of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, using ICIs alone results in a poor response rate. Fortunately, fundamental research indicates that chemotherapy might trigger immunogenic death of tumor cells by releasing tumor antigens, hence eliminating immune system repression of tumor cells. On this basis, a number of clinical studies, including KEYNOTE-590, CheckmMate-648, ORIENT-15, and ESCORT-1st, on the first-line treatment of ESCC with ICIs coupled with chemotherapy, including fluorouracil or taxol and platinum (PF or TP), were conducted and yielded favorable results. However, the advantage of safety and effectiveness of ICIs combination with PF and TP in Chinese ESCC remains unknown. Furthermore, since the southeast part of Shanxi province has a high prevalence of esophageal cancer, the geographical features of ESCC patients will be examined. Methods: Camrelizumab was maintained after 6 cycles of camrelizumab in combination with PF or TP chemotherapy. From May 2020 to February 2022, our study has included 40 locally progressed and advanced ESCC patients. Camrelizumab was administered in combination with PF to 11 patients and TP to 29 patients. Every 6 weeks, efficacy was examined using RECIST 1.1, and 33 patients were evaluated. This research was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2000037942). Results: The median treatment time was 5.8m. 82.5% (33/40) patients were availably evaluated. The objective response rate (ORR) was 72.7% (24/33) and the disease control rate (DCR) was 97.0% (32/33). There is no statistically significant difference in ORR ( p=0.1779) and DCR ( p=0.1005) between PF and TP (55.6% vs 79.2%, 88.9% vs 100%) regimens. At this moment, mPFS has not been achieved. The most common adverse events (AEs) were anemia (22.5%, 9/40), lymphocytopenia (15%, 6/40), neutropenia(15%, 6/40), reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) (12.5%, 5/40) and fatigue (7.5%, 3/40). Thrombocytopenia (2.5%, 1/40), neutropenia (2.5%, 1/40) and leukopenia (2.5%, 1/40) were the most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities The most frequently reported immune-related AEs were RCCEP (12.5%, 5/40) and hypothyroidism (7.5%, 3/40). There were no new significant adverse events. Conclusions: Camrelizumab in combination with chemotherapy is a promising regimen with good tolerability in the first-line treatment of ESCC. Compared with FP, TP had more therapeutic advantages, But the result is a stage summary, and further observation is needed. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR2000037942. [Table: see text]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors alone vs immune checkpoint inhibitors—combined chemotherapy for NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression: a network meta-analysis

BackgroundWe indirectly compared the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors alone (ICI) and ICI-combined chemotherapy (chemo-ICI) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who had high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (defined as tumour proportion score ≥50% or TC3/IC3) through network meta-analyses.MethodsThrough literature searches, we shortlisted 22 randomised controlled trials encompassing 4289 patients, with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) set as the primary outcomes. The dichotomous data for ORR and hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and PFS were extracted.ResultsWe found that chemo-ICI had significantly improved ORR (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1–2.5) and PFS (HR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48–0.74) relative to ICI. Although no significant difference in OS was observed, the analyses revealed that the chemo-ICI patients tended to undergo fewer progression events than ICI patients (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6–1.1). In subgroup analysis, the non-squamous, PD-1 inhibitor and first-line treatment cohorts exhibited significant differences in ORR and PFS, but not in OS. However, in the squamous, PD-L1 inhibitor, and previously treated cohorts, PFS, OS and ORR were not different between chemo-ICI and ICI patients.ConclusionsIn conclusion, for non-squamous NSCLC patients, accepting PD-1 as the first-line treatment may be a relatively better option.

Study of PD-1 Inhibitors in Combination with Chemoradiotherapy/Chemotherapy in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Carcinoma.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in combination with concurrent CRT/CT for patients with inoperable ESCC in the real world and to find predictors for the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors. Patients with unresectable ESCC were evaluated at baseline. The clinical data of patients with ESCC who received CRT/CT with or without PD-1 inhibitor were collected and retrospectively reviewed. The objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed statistically. A total of 96 patients with ESCC were included. As compared with a control group (n = 48), the PFS (6.0 months vs. 5.0 months, p = 0.025) and 6-month OS (70.8% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.001) were significantly longer in the ICIs group (n = 48). There were no significant differences in ORR and 12-month OS between the two groups. In addition, we found that body mass index (BMI) was associated with PFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76–0.95, and p = 0.004) and OS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98, and p = 0.033) in the ICIs group. PD-1 inhibitors combined with CRT/CT is safe with acceptable complications and improved survival for patients with inoperable ESCC. CRT plus PD-1 inhibitor has superior antitumor efficacy. BMI was positively correlated with the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors.

Nivolumab versus pembrolizumab in previously-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients: A propensity-matched real-world analysis

ObjectiveNivolumab and pembrolizumab have been the standard of care in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data of advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 (Programmed death-ligand 1) [clone:22C3] positive tumors (Tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 1%) who had been treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab as second- or subsequent line from 2015 to 2021.Propensity score matching was performed to reduce potential selection bias. We analyzed the clinical outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). ResultsAmong a total of 202 eligible patients, 72 pairs of patients from each group were identified after propensity score matching. There were no significant differences in ORR, PFS, and OS between the two agents (nivolumab vs. pembrolizumab: ORR, 23.6% vs. 20.8%, median PFS, 3.7 months vs. 4.6 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.46; p = 0.92, and median OS, 27.4 months vs. 19.6 months, HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.20; p = 0.24). Additionally, PFS was similar between the treatments in the PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% subgroup (median PFS, 3.7 months vs. 4.6 months, HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.59; p = 0.82) and PD-L1 TPS 1–49% subgroup (median PFS, 3.7 months vs.4.6 months, HR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.85; p = 0.61). There was also no significant difference in the frequency of grade ≥ 3 irAEs (9.7% vs. 11.1%; p = 1.0). ConclusionThere is no significant difference in the efficacy and safety between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1-positive tumors in the subsequent line setting.

Pembrolizumab (PEM) plus granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in advanced biliary cancers (ABC): Final outcomes of a phase 2 trial.

444 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have limited activity as monotherapy in unselected patients with ABC; the objective response rate (ORR) of PEM was 5.8% in the multicenter phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 trial. GM-CSF modulates immune cells including monocytes and the innate immune response and has demonstrated safety and prolonged survival (OS) in combination with ipilimumab in melanoma. This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEM in combination with GM-CSF in ABC. Methods: Single-center, phase 2 trial with Simon’s 2-stage design and expansion cohort (EC) (NCT02703714). Key eligibility: ABC with progression/intolerance on ≥ 1 standard therapy, no prior ICI, bilirubin ≤1.5xULN. Treatment: PEM 200 mg IV Q21 days plus 2 cycles of GM-CSF 250 µg SC D1-14 Q21 days in cycles 2 and 3 (Stage 1 and EC) or in cycles 1 and 2 (Stage 2). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1, H0 5% vs. H1 20%. Key secondary endpoints were safety, progression-free survival (PFS), OS, PD-L1 expression. Exploratory endpoints included relationship between efficacy outcomes and anatomic subsite, risk factors, and tumor genotype. Results: Overall, 42 patients enrolled between 5/2016-12/2019: n = 9 in Stage 1, n = 18 in Stage 2, and n = 15 in EC. Overall: median age 61; female 67%; intrahepatic (ICC) 67%, extrahepatic (ECC) 26%, gallbladder (GBC) 7%; stage IV 90%; hepatitis B/C virus positive (HBV/HCV+) 24%; microsatellite instability (MSI-H)/stable (MSS)/unknown n = 1/35/6. Immune-related (ir)AE occurred in 69%, grade 3/4 treatment-related (tr)AE in 10%, all-cause serious (S)AE in 36%, and trSAE in 7%. ORR was 12% (95% CI: 4, 26), with median PFS of 63 days (95% CI: 55, 125), PFS at 6 months in 27% (95% CI: 14, 43), and median OS 3of 93 days (95% CI: 243, 573). There was no significant difference in ORR, PFS, or OS by anatomic subsite or tumor PD-L1 expression; HBV/HCV+ showed trends toward higher ORR (30% vs 6%, p = 0.08) and longer median PFS (276 vs 63 days, p = 0.06) and OS (1033 vs 323 days, p = 0.052). Conclusions: The combination of PEM plus GM-CSF was safe and well-tolerated with higher ORR than expected for PEM monotherapy in a predominantly MSS ABC population but did not meet target ORR threshold for efficacy. ORR and median PFS and OS were highest in patients with underlying HBV or HCV infection. Immune profiling of on-treatment biopsies and peripheral blood are ongoing to ascertain influence of both PEM and GM-CSF on circulating and tumor immune microenvironment. Clinical trial information: NCT02703714.

Assessment of Anti-tumor Efficacy of Osimertinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients by Liquid Biopsy Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid, Plasma, or Pleural Effusion.

PurposeThis study was to evaluate anti-tumor efficacy of osimertinib in patients positive for acquired epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation in liquid biopsy using plasma, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or bronchial washing fluid (BWF), and pleural effusion.Materials and MethodsAmong patients benefited from previous EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment followed by treatment failure, patients in whom T790M mutations are detected in at least one of the samples including tumor tissues, BALF/BWF, plasma, and pleural effusion were enrolled. T790M mutation was detected by extracting cell free DNA from liquid biopsy samples, using PANA Mutyper. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with osimertinib treatment were evaluated.ResultsBetween January 2018 and December 2019, 63 patients were enrolled and received osimertinib. Mean age was 63 years, and 38 (60.3%) were female. Twenty-six patients had T790M mutation in both liquid and tissue samples (group A), 19 patients had only in tissue biopsy samples (group B), and 18 patients had T790M mutation only in liquid biopsy samples (group C). ORR in overall population was 63.5%, and was 61.5% in group A, 68.4% in group B, and 61.1% in group C, respectively. Median PFS in overall patients was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval, 10.7 to 24.2). There was no significant difference in ORR or PFS between groups.ConclusionOsimertinib showed favorable efficacy in lung cancer patients with acquired resistance to prior EGFR-TKI therapies, who screened positive for harboring T790M mutation detected from cell free DNA extracted from plasma, BALF/BWF, and pleural effusion.

Expression of PD-L1 as a predictive marker of sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

Background:Expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) has been reported to correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in various tumor types. However, there are few data on the role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive and prognostic biomarker of sensitivity to ICIs in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Objectives:We evaluated the role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive and prognostic biomarker of response to ICIs in patients with advanced BTC.Design:We retrospectively analyzed data from 83 advanced BTC patients who received ICIs as second- or third-line treatment between February 2018 and April 2021.Methods:All patient data analysis included evaluation of PD-L1 expression by the combined positive score (CPS).Results:Among 83 patients, 56 (67.5%) had PD-L1 positivity (CPS ⩾ 1). The objective response rate (ORR) to ICIs was significantly higher in advanced BTC patients with PD-L1 expression compared to those without PD-L1 expression (17.8% versus 0%, p = 0.026). However, there were no significant differences in median progression-free survival (PFS; 2.9 versus 2.6 months, p = 0.330) and median overall survival (OS; 8.1 versus 6.3 months, p = 0.289) as a response to ICIs between patients with and without PD-L1 expression. Also, there were no significant differences in ORR, PFS, and OS as a response to ICIs in conjunction with a response to a prior gemcitabine plus cisplatin regimen (p = 0.654, p = 0.278, and p = 0.302, respectively).Conclusions:The present study suggests that the expression of PD-L1 alone was not sufficient as a novel marker to select advanced BTC patients who might benefit from ICIs. Additional comprehensive studies of biomarkers that can assist in predicting BTC patient responses to pembrolizumab and/or nivolumab therapy are required.