Measuring ovarian toxicity in clinical trials: an American Society of Clinical Oncology research statement.

Anticancer agents can impair ovarian function, resulting in premature menopause and associated long-term health effects. Ovarian toxicity is not usually adequately assessed in trials of anticancer agents, leaving an important information gap for patients facing therapy choices. This American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) statement provides information about the incorporation of ovarian toxicity measures in trial design. ASCO recommends: (1) measurement of ovarian toxicity in relevant clinical trials of anticancer agents that enrol post-pubertal, pre-menopausal patients; (2) collection of ovarian function measures at baseline and at 12-24 months after anticancer agent cessation, as a minimum, and later in line with the trial schedule; and (3) assessment of both clinical measures and biomarkers of ovarian function. ASCO recognises that routine measurement of ovarian toxicity and function in cancer clinical trials will add additional complexity and burden to trial resources but asserts that this issue is of such importance to patients that it cannot continue to be overlooked.

The Development of the Oncology Center of Excellence Patient-Friendly Language Glossary of Oncology Clinical Trial Terms.

Oncology clinical trials terms and definitions have become increasingly complex, which has led to shortcomings among research staff and healthcare providers in informing clinical trial participants with the study results and consenting procedures in simple language. Understanding oncology clinical trial terms is of critical importance to assist patients and caregivers in making cancer treatment decisions, including enrollment into clinical trials. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) organized a physician and patient advocate-led focus group, with the primary goal of publishing a patient-centric public glossary of select cancer clinical trial terms for healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers. This commentary reports the results of the focus group sessions that gave FDA OCE valuable insights into how patients perceive clinical trial terms and how oncology clinical trial definitions can be improved to effectively communicate information to the patients to make better informed decisions about their treatment options.

Overall survival in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival in patients in specific clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, we pooled individual patient data from three phase 3 randomised trials of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant in patients with breast cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and approved before Aug 1, 2020, in support of marketing applications. All analysed patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analysed collectively, by number of previous lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (first-line or endocrine naive vs second-line and later), and in various clinicopathological subgroups of interest. The estimated median overall survival was not reported by group when the pooled population included patients treated across lines of therapy because of potential patient heterogeneity. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. FINDINGS: Across the three pooled trials, 1960 patients were randomly assigned between Oct 7, 2013, and June 10, 2016 (12 patients were not treated and 1296 [66%] patients were randomly assigned to CDKI and 652 [33%] to placebo). In all treated patients (n=1948), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·88), with a median follow-up of 43·7 months (IQR 37·8-47·7) and deaths in 935 (48%) of the 1948 patients. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·1 months, favouring CDKIs. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as first-line systemic endocrine therapy (two trials; n=396), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·74 (95% CI 0·52-1·07), with a median follow-up of 39·4 months (IQR 37·0-42·2). 123 (31%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival could not be calculated because median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI 50·9-not estimable) in the CDKI group and was 45·7 months (95% CI 41·7-not estimable) in the placebo group. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as second-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (three trials; n=1552), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·67-0·89), with a median follow-up of 45·1 months (95% CI 39·2-48·5). 812 (52%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·0 months, favouring CDKIs. INTERPRETATION: The addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant resulted in a consistent overall survival benefit in all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. These findings support the existing standard of care of CDKIs plus fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 µg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient. FUNDING: None.

Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health.

BACKGROUND: To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type. RESULTS: Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed. CONCLUSION: PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient-positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

US Food and Drug Administration regulatory updates in neuro-oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Contemporary management of patients with neuro-oncologic disease requires an understanding of approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to nervous system tumors. To summarize FDA updates applicable to neuro-oncology practitioners, we sought to review oncology product approvals and Guidances that were pertinent to the field in the past year. METHODS: Oncology product approvals between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed for clinical trial outcomes involving tumors of the nervous system. FDA Guidances relevant to neuro-oncology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Five oncology product approvals described outcomes for nervous system tumors in the year 2020. These included the first regulatory approval for neurofibromatosis type 1: selumetinib for children with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Additionally, there were 4 regulatory approvals for non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers that described clinical outcomes for patients with brain metastases. These included the approval of tucatinib for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer including patients with brain metastases, brigatinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pralsetinib and selpercatinib for RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Finally, two FDA Guidances for Industry, "Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Brain Metastases" and "Evaluating Cancer Drugs in Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases" were published to facilitate drug development for and inclusion of patients with CNS metastases in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of the past year brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continues to be made in neuro-oncology. These include first-of-their-kind FDA approvals and Guidances that are relevant to the management of patients with nervous system tumors.

Arterial aneurysm and dissection with systemic vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: A review of cases reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and published in the literature.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved multiple systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors since 2004 to treat various malignancies. Inhibition of the VEGF signaling pathway can result in impairment of vascular wall integrity through medial degeneration and endothelial dysfunction, potentially resulting in arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection. We performed a postmarketing review to evaluate arterial aneurysm/dissection as a potential safety risk for patients with cancer treated with VEGF inhibitors. We searched the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database and literature for reports of arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection with VEGF inhibitors currently approved by the FDA for a cancer indication. We identified 240 cases of arterial aneurysm/dissection associated with VEGF inhibitors. The median time to onset of an arterial aneurysm/dissection event from the initiation of a VEGF inhibitor was 94 days (range 1-1955 days). Notably, 22% (53/240) of cases reported fatal outcomes related to arterial aneurysm/dissection. We determined the drug-event association as probable in 15 cases that lacked relevant confounding factors for arterial aneurysm/dissection, which is supported by unremarkable computed tomography (CT) findings prior to starting VEGF inhibitor therapy, despite nondrug-associated background arterial aneurysm/dissection generally demonstrating preexisting arterial abnormalities. FAERS and literature case-level evidence suggests that VEGF inhibitors may have contributed to arterial aneurysm/dissection, as a class effect, based on short onset relative to natural history of disease and biologic plausibility. Cardiovascular and oncology healthcare professionals should be aware of this rare, but life-threatening safety risk associated with VEGF inhibitors.

CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are indicated with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adding CDKIs to endocrine therapy in patients whose tumours might have differing degrees of endocrine sensitivity. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from all phase 3 randomised breast cancer trials of CDKIs plus endocrine therapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Jan 1, 2019, in support of marketing applications. Our pooled analysis included all randomly assigned patients in these trials who received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo with endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor [letrozole or anastrazole] or fulvestrant). We did prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with progesterone receptor-negative disease; patients with a disease-free interval of 12 months or less; patients with de-novo metastases, lobular histology, and bone-only disease; patients with visceral metastases; and patients aged up to 40 years. Patients who were not treated, who received tamoxifen as endocrine therapy, or who were treated with an aromatase inhibitor but who had received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (not first-line) were excluded from our pooled analyses. All studies had a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer progression or death, whichever occurred first. Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox regression models. FINDINGS: The seven studies meeting this study's inclusion criteria were done between Feb 22, 2013, and Nov 3, 2017, with a median duration of follow-up of 19·7 months (IQR 15·9-25·9). 4200 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 1320 received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDKI, 932 received placebo plus an aromatase inhibitor, 1296 received fulvestrant plus a CDKI, and 652 received fulvestrant plus placebo. Across all seven pooled trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8·8 months in favour of CDKI plus endocrine therapy over placebo plus endocrine therapy (range across the trials 6·8-13·3 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·54-0·64). Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI group in all prespecified clinicopathological subgroups analysed, with similar HRs to that for the broader intended-use population. In first-line aromatase inhibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inhibitor group was 28·0 months (95% CI 25·3-29·1) versus 14·9 months (14·0-16·7) in the placebo plus aromatase inhibitor group (difference 13·1 months; range across the trials 13·0-13·3 months; HR 0·55, 95% CI 0·49-0·62). In first-line fulvestrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18·6 months (95% CI 14·8-23·5) in the placebo plus fulvestrant group and not estimable (22·4 to not estimable) in the CDKI plus fulvestrant group (difference not estimable; HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·42-0·80). In the patients treated with fulvestrant in the second-line setting and beyond (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestrant group and the placebo plus fulvestrant group was 6·9 months in favour of the CDKI group (range across the trials 5·5-7·3 months; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·49-0·64). INTERPRETATION: Since the addition of CDKI to endocrine therapy seemed to benefit all clinicopathological subgroups of interest in this pooled analysis, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups for whom endocrine therapy alone might be appropriate for first-line or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

Cardio-Oncology: Vascular and Metabolic Perspectives: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardio-oncology has organically developed as a new discipline within cardiovascular medicine as a result of the cardiac and vascular adverse sequelae of the major advances in cancer treatment. Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are at increased risk of vascular disease for a number of reasons. First, many new cancer therapies, including several targeted therapies, are associated with vascular and metabolic complications. Second, cancer itself serves as a risk factor for vascular disease, especially by increasing the risk for thromboembolic events. Finally, recent data suggest that common modifiable and genetic risk factors predispose to both malignancies and cardiovascular disease. Vascular complications in patients with cancer represent a new challenge for the clinician and a new frontier for research and investigation. Indeed, vascular sequelae of novel targeted therapies may provide insights into vascular signaling in humans. Clinically, emerging challenges are best addressed by a multidisciplinary approach in which cardiovascular medicine specialists and vascular biologists work closely with oncologists in the care of patients with cancer and cancer survivors. This novel approach realizes the goal of providing superior care through the creation of cardio-oncology consultative services and the training of a new generation of cardiovascular specialists with a broad understanding of cancer treatments.

Myocarditis in the Setting of Cancer Therapeutics: Proposed Case Definitions for Emerging Clinical Syndromes in Cardio-Oncology

Recent developments in cancer therapeutics have improved outcomes but have also been associated with cardiovascular complications. Therapies harnessing the immune system have been associated with an immune-mediated myocardial injury described as myocarditis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are one such therapy with an increasing number of case and cohort reports describing a clinical syndrome of immune checkpoint inhibitor­associated myocarditis. Although the full spectrum of immune checkpoint inhibitor­associated cardiovascular disease still needs to be fully defined, described cases of myocarditis range from syndromes with mild signs and symptoms to fatal events. These observations in the clinical setting stand in contrast to outcomes from randomized clinical trials in which myocarditis is a rare event that is investigator reported and lacking in a specific case definition. The complexities associated with diagnosis, as well as the heterogeneous clinical presentation of immune checkpoint inhibitor­associated myocarditis, have made ascertainment and identification of myocarditis with high specificity challenging in clinical trials and other data sets, limiting the ability to better understand the incidence, outcomes, and predictors of these rare events. Therefore, establishing a uniform definition of myocarditis for application in clinical trials of cancer immunotherapies will enable greater understanding of these events. We propose an operational definition of cancer therapy-associated myocarditis that may facilitate case ascertainment and report and therefore may enhance the understanding of the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of this novel clinical syndrome.

Fatal neutropenic enterocolitis associated with docetaxel use: A review of cases reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.

Docetaxel is a microtubule inhibitor indicated for the treatment of multiple cancers as a single agent or in combination with other antineoplastics. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a postmarketing review of fatal neutropenic enterocolitis cases reported with docetaxel using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and literature to determine whether the drug was a potential cause. We searched FAERS and the literature for reports of fatal neutropenic enterocolitis with docetaxel-based treatment reported between 14 May 1996 and 13 March 2017. We characterized the clinical course and severity of neutropenic enterocolitis and utilized the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre rubric to assess drug causality. We identified 41 fatal cases of neutropenic enterocolitis with docetaxel from FAERS and the literature. The median time to onset of neutropenic enterocolitis from last docetaxel dose was seven days (range 2-13 days), and median time to death was nine days (range 3-23 days). The cause of death in 83% (34/41) of patients was neutropenic enterocolitis. We determined the drug-event association as probable in seven cases. Neutropenic enterocolitis with docetaxel monotherapy occurred in six cases; however, in 85% (35/41) of cases, neutropenic enterocolitis occurred when docetaxel was used in combination with other cytotoxic chemotherapy. In some cases, neutropenic enterocolitis occurred despite use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Neutropenic enterocolitis is a severe and potentially fatal complication of docetaxel-based treatment, especially when combined with other antineoplastic treatments known to cause neutropenia. Practitioners should be aware of this safety risk to promptly recognize and manage patients.

Patient-Friendly Language to Facilitate Treatment Choice for Patients with Cancer.

Resources are needed to assist patients in understanding their diagnoses and considering treatment options. This commentary focuses on improving the language used to communicate disease and treatment information so that patients can make informed decisions.

Myocarditis Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: An Expert Consensus on Data Gaps and a Call to Action.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment landscape for cancer. Due to the mechanism of action of ICIs, inflammatory reactions against normal tissue were an anticipated side effect of these agents; these immune-related adverse events have been documented and are typically low grade and manageable. Myocarditis has emerged as an uncommon but potentially life-threatening adverse reaction in patients treated with ICIs. Assessment and characterization of ICI-associated myocarditis is challenging because of its low incidence and protean manifestations. Nevertheless, the seriousness of ICI-associated myocarditis justifies a coordinated effort to increase awareness of this syndrome, identify patients who may be at risk, and enable early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The "Checkpoint Inhibitor Safety Working Group," a multidisciplinary committee of academic, industry, and regulatory partners, convened at a workshop hosted by Project Data Sphere, LLC, on December 15, 2017. This meeting aimed to evaluate the current information on ICI-associated myocarditis, determine methods to collect and share data on this adverse reaction, and establish task forces to close the identified knowledge gaps. In this report, we summarize the workshop findings and proposed steps to address the impact of ICI-associated myocarditis in patients with cancer.

The TRAIL receptor agonist drozitumab targets basal B triple-negative breast cancer cells that express vimentin and Axl.

Previously, we found that GST-tagged tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis inducing ligand preferentially killed triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells with a mesenchymal phenotype by activating death receptor 5 (DR5). The purpose of this study was to explore the sensitivity of breast cancer cell lines to drozitumab, a clinically tested DR5-specific agonist; identify potential biomarkers of drozitumab-sensitive breast cancer cells; and determine if those biomarkers were present in tumors from patients with TNBC. We evaluated viability, caspase activity, and sub-G1 DNA content in drozitumab-treated breast cancer cell lines and we characterized expression of potential biomarkers by immunoblot. Expression levels of vimentin and Axl were then explored in 177 TNBC samples from a publically available cDNA microarray dataset and by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in tumor tissue samples obtained from 53 African-American women with TNBC. Drozitumab-induced apoptosis in mesenchymal TNBC cell lines but not in cell lines from other breast cancer subtypes. The drozitumab-sensitive TNBC cell lines expressed the mesenchymal markers vimentin and Axl. Vimentin and Axl mRNA and protein were expressed in a subset of human TNBC tumors. By IHC, ~15 % of TNBC tumors had vimentin and Axl expression in the top quartile for both. These findings indicate that drozitumab-sensitive mesenchymal TNBC cells express vimentin and Axl, which can be identified in a subset of human TNBC tumors. Thus, vimentin and Axl may be useful to identify TNBC patients who would be most likely to benefit from a DR5 agonist.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: This pooled analysis of patient-level data from trials evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with or without cytoreductive nephrectomy before a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitor and antiangiogenic therapy. METHODS: Data from 5 trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus antiangiogenic therapy were pooled. Only patients with stage 4 disease at initial diagnosis were included to ensure that nephrectomy was performed for cytoreductive purposes and not to previously treat an earlier stage of disease. The effect of cytoreductive nephrectomy before immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy on outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusted for age, sex, risk group, performance status, and the presence of sarcomatoid differentiation. RESULTS: A total of 981 patients were included. The estimated median progression-free survival with and without nephrectomy was 15 and 11 months, respectively; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% confidence interval = 0.59 to 0.85). The estimated median overall survival with and without nephrectomy was 46 and 28 months, respectively; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.63 (95% confidence interval = 0.51 to 0.77). Objective response was 60% of patients with vs 46% of patients without cytoreductive nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy before immune checkpoint inhibitor plus antiangiogenic therapy had improved outcomes compared with patients without cytoreductive nephrectomy. Selection factors for cytoreductive nephrectomy may be prognostic and could not be fully controlled for in this retrospective analysis. Prospective determination of and stratification by prior cytoreductive nephrectomy may be considered when designing clinical trials to assess the impact of this factor on prognosis.

FDA Approval Summary: Enfortumab Vedotin plus Pembrolizumab for Cisplatin-Ineligible Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

On April 3, 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (EV) plus pembrolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Substantial evidence of effectiveness was obtained from EV-103/KEYNOTE-869 (NCT03288545), a multicohort study. Across cohorts, a total of 121 patients received EV 1.25 mg/kg (maximum of 125 mg) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The major efficacy outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR), determined by blinded independent central review using RECIST v1.1. The confirmed ORR in 121 patients was 68% (95% confidence interval, 59-76), including 12% with complete responses. The median DoR for the 82 responders was 22 months (range: 1+ to 46+). The safety profile of the combination comprised adverse reactions expected to occur with the corresponding monotherapies, but with overall increased frequency of adverse reactions, including skin toxicity, pneumonitis, and peripheral neuropathy. The article summarizes the data and the FDA thought process supporting accelerated approval of EV + pembrolizumab, as well as additional exploratory analyses conducted by the FDA.