Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Combined with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in patients with Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer: A Randomized Phase 2 Study.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the clinical benefits of nivolumab with/without ipilimumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with pretreated metastatic biliary tract cancer (mBTC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The study was a phase 2 randomized trial with Simon's optimal 2-stage design requiring 36 evaluable patients per group after second stage. Sixty-one patients were included from September 2018 to January 2022 and randomized (1:1) to receive SBRT (15 Gy × 1 on day one to a primary or metastatic lesion) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously on day one and every 2 weeks) with/without ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously on day one and every 6 weeks). Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of patients with complete response, partial response or stable disease. Decision to continue accrual into the second stage depended on CBR from first stage. RESULTS: Forty-two patients received SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab with a CBR of 31.0% (95% CI, 17.6-47.1). Five patients (11.9%) achieved partial response with median duration of 4.4 months (range, 1.1-21.5). Nineteen patients received SBRT/nivolumab. This group was closed after the initial stage based on a CBR of 10.5% (95% CI, 1.3-33.1). Adverse events were graded with National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (31%) and 3 (16%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab and SBRT/nivolumab groups, respectively. One patient died from immune-related hepatitis in the SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab group. CONCLUSION: Combining SBRT, nivolumab and ipilimumab is well tolerated, feasible, and shows response in a subgroup of patients with mBTC.

Plasma YKL-40 is associated with prognosis in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with radiotherapy.

Background: YKL-40, also known as chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1), is a secreted glycoprotein produced by various cell types including stromal, immune, and cancer cells. It contributes to cancer progression through tumor-promoting inflammation and has been shown to inhibit the cytotoxicity of T and NK lymphocytes. In vivo studies have demonstrated synergistic anti-cancer effects of blocking YKL-40 in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Biomarkers for the prediction of the response to ICIs are highly needed. We investigated the association between plasma YKL-40 and clinical benefit and survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) receiving ICIs and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Blood samples were collected from 84 patients with mPC who participated in the randomized phase II CheckPAC study, in which patients received nivolumab with or without ipilimumab combined with a single fraction of SBRT. Plasma YKL-40 was measured using a commercial ELISA kit. Results: Elevated baseline plasma YKL-40 was an independent predictor of shorter overall survival (OS) (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21-3.95). A ≥ 40% decrease in plasma YKL-40 during treatment was associated with longer progression-free survival (p = 0.009) and OS (p = 0.0028). There was no correlation between plasma YKL-40 and the tumor burden marker CA19-9 at baseline or during treatment. Conclusion: This study contributes new knowledge regarding YKL-40 as a predictor of clinical benefit from ICIs and radiotherapy. These exploratory results warrant further investigation of YKL-40 as a biomarker for patients treated with immunotherapies. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02866383.

Randomised phase II trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CheckPRO): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has revolutionised cancer treatment but has no convincing effect in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). It has been suggested that a combination of CPI and hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may work synergistically, and recent trials have supported this. We hypothesise that adding SBRT to CPI treatment can improve response rates in patients with mCRPC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CheckPRO trial is an open-label, randomised, two-stage, phase II trial. We aim to enrol and randomise 80 evaluable patients with mCRPC who progressed following ≥2 lines of treatment. Enrolment started in November 2019 with 38 months expected enrolment period. The participants receive treatment for 52 weeks including four cycles of ipilimumab and nivolumab with or without concomitant SBRT (24 Gray in three fractions) to a single soft tissue or bone metastasis, followed by 10 cycles of nivolumab. Participants are followed until progression, death, or for 12 months after the end of treatment.Co-primary endpoints are the objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Secondary endpoints include safety, radiographic progression-free survival, clinical benefit rate, duration of response, PSA-progression-free survival beyond 12 weeks, quality of life and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints include translational analyses of tumour biopsies and consecutive blood samples. Biopsies from metastatic sites are collected at baseline, before the third treatment and at the end of treatment. Blood sampling for immune monitoring and circulating tumour DNA is performed consecutively at baseline and every radiographic assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study follows the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Danish Ethics Committee System (journal no. H-19016100). All participants must receive written and oral information and provide a signed informed consent document prior to inclusion. The study results will be published in an international peer-review journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number: 2018-003461-34. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID NCT05655715.

Phase 2 study of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and tocilizumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer (TRIPLE-R).

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 blockade and radiation combined with immunotherapy may modulate the tumour microenvironment to overcome immune resistance. We assessed the efficacy of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and tocilizumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients with PC who had progressive disease (PD) or intolerance to gemcitabine- or fluorouracil-containing regimens were enrolled in Part A of the two-part, single-centre, phase 2 study (NCT04258150). SBRT with 15 Gy was administered on day one of the first cycle. Ipilimumab was administered (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks) for a maximum of two infusions. Nivolumab (6 mg/kg) and tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) were given every four weeks until the PD or unacceptable toxicity, or for up to one year. The primary end-point was the objective response rate, with a threshold of 15%. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and treated between April 17, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The median follow-up time at the time of data cutoff (February 7, 2022) was 4.9 months (interquartile range 2.1-7.7). No responses were observed. Five patients (19%; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 7-39) achieved a stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.6 months (95% CI 1.4-1.7), and the median overall survival was 5.3 months (95% CI 2.3-8.0). Overall, 19 (73%) experienced adverse events related to the treatment including two (8%) with grade 3 or higher events. CONCLUSION: The combination of ipilimumab, nivolumab, tocilizumab, and SBRT in patients with PC did not meet the prespecified criteria for expansion for full accrual.

Molecular response patterns in relapsed/refractory AML patients treated with selinexor and chemotherapy.

Relapse in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is common and is associated with a dismal prognosis. Treatment options are limited and the understanding of molecular response patterns is still challenging. We analyzed the clonal response patterns of 15 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated with selinexor in a phase II trial (SAIL). DNA was analyzed at three time points and showed a decline of mutated alleles in FLT3, SF3B1, and TP53 under SAIL treatment. Overall survival (OS) was similar between patients with declining versus persisting clones. We show an interesting long-term course of a patient who relapsed after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) with SF3B1- and SRSF2-mutated AML and received selinexor as maintenance treatment for 4 years. Measurable residual disease (MRD) remained detectable for 2 weeks after donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) in this patient and then remained negative under selinexor maintenance treatment. Selinexor was tolerated well and was stopped after 4 years of SAIL treatment. We present an exploratory study and identify subclonal patterns of patients treated with selinexor.

COLAR: open-label clinical study of IL-6 blockade with tocilizumab for the treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis and arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are not always effectively treated using glucocorticoids and it may negatively affect the antitumor efficacy of ICIs. Interventional studies of alternatives to glucocorticoids are lacking. We examined whether interleukin-6 blockade by tocilizumab reduced ICI-induced colitis and arthritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid cancer experiencing Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0) grade >1 ICI-induced colitis/diarrhea (n=9), arthritis (n=9), or both (n=2) were recruited and treated with tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks until worsening or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were not allowed to receive systemic glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive drugs within the 14-day screening period. The primary endpoint was clinical improvement of colitis and arthritis, defined as ≥1 grade CTCAE reduction within 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints were improvements and glucocorticoid-free remission at week 24; safety; radiologic, endoscopic, and histological changes; and changes in plasma concentrations of C reactive protein, cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, and IL-17), and YKL-40. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were available for efficacy analysis; one patient was excluded due to pancreatic insufficiency-induced diarrhea. Patients received treatment with pembrolizumab (n=10) or nivolumab (n=4) as monotherapy or ipilimumab and nivolumab (n=5) combined. Seven patients had been initially treated with glucocorticoids, and two of them also received infliximab. Ten patients continued ICI therapy during tocilizumab treatment. The primary endpoint was achieved in 15 of 19 (79%) patients. Additional one patient had ≥1 grade reduction at week 10, and another patient had stabilized symptoms. At week 24, ongoing improvement without glucocorticoids (n=12), including complete remission (n=10), was noted. Five patients had grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, which were manageable and reversible. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab showed promising clinical efficacy and a manageable safety profile in the treatment of ICI-induced colitis and arthritis. Our findings support the feasibility of randomized trials of immune-related adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03601611.

Randomized Phase II Study of Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Combined With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Refractory Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (CheckPAC).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefit of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). METHODS: Between November 2016 and December 2019, patients with refractory mPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to SBRT of 15 Gy with nivolumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab stratified by performance status (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02866383). The primary end point was the clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of patients with complete or partial response (PR) or stable disease, according to RECIST 1.1. Simon's 2-stage phase II optimal design was used independently for both arms, with CBR determining expansion to the second stage. Secondary end points included safety, response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to the benefits. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (41 SBRT/nivolumab and 43 SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab) received at least one dose of study treatment. CBR was 17.1% (8.0 to 30.6) for patients receiving SBRT/nivolumab and 37.2% (24.0 to 52.1) for SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab. PR was observed in one patient receiving SBRT/nivolumab and lasted for 4.6 months. Six patients receiving SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab achieved a PR with a median duration of response of 5.4 months (4.2 to not reached). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 (24.4%) and 13 (30.2%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab and SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab groups, respectively. Programmed cell death ligand-1 expression by tumor proportion score or combined positivity score of ≥ 1% was not associated with clinical benefits. On-treatment decreased serum interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and C-reactive protein levels were associated with better overall survival. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable safety profiles were demonstrated after treatment with SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with refractory mPC. However, the contribution from SBRT is unknown. Further studies are warranted.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study of Gemcitabine and Capecitabine with or without T-ChOS as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Cancer (CHIPAC).

The antitumor activity of chitooligosaccharides has been suggested. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of T-ChOS™, in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy, in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using patients ≥18 years of age after complete macroscopic resection for PDAC, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a continuous oral T-ChOS group or a placebo group, in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) and oral capecitabine (CAP), for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Recruitment was stopped prematurely in July 2018, with 21 of planned 180 patients included, due to poor accrual and because modified FOLFIRINOX replaced GEM/CAP for the target population. Nine patients received T-ChOS and twelve received the placebo. The median DFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 5.9-15.7) for the T-ChOS arm and 8.4 months (95% CI 0-21.5) in the placebo arm. Overall, seven patients (78%) in the T-ChOS arm and eight patients (67%) in the placebo arm experienced at least one grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event, most frequently neutropenia. Altogether, the addition of T-ChOS to chemotherapy in patients after resection of PDAC seems safe. However, the clinical benefit cannot be assessed due to the premature cessation of the trial.

Effects of a 12-Week Multimodal Exercise Intervention Among Older Patients with Advanced Cancer: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer are at risk of physical decline and impaired quality of life during oncological treatment. Exercise training has the potential to reduce these challenges. The study aim was to investigate the feasibility and effect of a multimodal exercise intervention in older patients with advanced cancer (stages III/IV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-four older adults (≥65 years) with advanced pancreatic, biliary tract, or non-small cell lung cancer who received systemic oncological treatment were randomized 1:1 to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention was a 12-week multimodal exercise-based program including supervised exercise twice weekly followed by a protein supplement, a home-based walking program, and nurse-led support and counseling. The primary endpoint was change in physical function (30-second chair stand test) at 13 weeks. RESULTS: Median age of the participants was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68-75). Median adherence to the exercise sessions was 69% (IQR 21-88) and 75% (IQR 33-100) for the walking program. At 13 weeks, there was a significant difference in change scores of 2.4 repetitions in the chair stand test, favoring the intervention group (p < .0001). Furthermore, significant beneficial effects were seen for physical endurance (6-minute walk test), hand grip strength, physical activity, symptom burden, symptoms of depression and anxiety, global health status (quality of life), and lean body mass. No effects were seen for dose intensity, hospitalizations, or survival. CONCLUSION: A 12-week multimodal exercise intervention with targeted support proved effective in improving physical function in older patients with advanced cancer during oncological treatment.

Selinexor (KPT-330), an Oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) Compound, in Combination with FOLFOX in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) - Final Results of the Phase I Trial SENTINEL.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor is an oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export compound that specifically blocks Chromosomal Region Maintenance protein 1. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of selinexor plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. METHODS: In this multicenter phase I trial, mCRC patients, eligible for oxaliplatin-based treatment, were enrolled to receive oral selinexor on days 1, 3, and 8 plus mFOLFOX6 every two weeks. Primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, overall response rate, progression free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 10 patients were enrolled, who had prior treatment with oxaliplatin (6/10), irinotecan (8/10), bevacizumab (6/10) or anti-EGFR therapy (5/10). Four consecutive patients received 40 mg selinexor plus mFOLFOX6. All four experienced dose-limiting toxicities and withdrew from the study after a median of two cycles. Thus, this dose level was regarded as toxic and no further patients were evaluated at this dose. Six patients were enrolled with 20 mg selinexor plus mFOLFOX6. Despite better tolerability, four patients withdrew (patient wish) after the first cycle and only two patients continued until disease progression. Most commonly reported treatment emergent adverse events were nausea (80%), diarrhea (70%), vomiting (60%), fatigue (60%), anorexia (40%), and impaired vision (40%). Due to the short treatment exposure, no relevant clinical activity was observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, selinexor on this dose schedule plus mFOLFOX6 was not tolerable. Other dosing schedules or combinations may be evaluated. Clinical trial identifier NCT02384850.

Cancer patients, physicians, and nurses differ in their attitudes toward the decisional role in do-not-resuscitate decision-making.

PURPOSE: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision-making in severely ill patients presents many difficult medical, ethical, and legal challenges. The primary aim of this study was to explore cancer patients' and health care professionals' attitudes regarding DNR decision-making authority and timing of the decision. METHODS: This study was a questionnaire survey among Danish cancer patients and their attending physicians and nurses in an oncology outpatient setting. Potential differences between patients', physicians', and nurses' answers to the questionnaire were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Responses from 904 patients, 59 physicians, and 160 nurses were analyzed. The majority in all three groups agreed that DNR decisions should be made in collaboration between physician and patient. However, one-third of the patients answered that the patient alone should make the decision regarding DNR, which contrasts with the physicians' and nurses' attitudes, 0% and 6% pointing to the patient as sole decision-maker, respectively. In case of disagreement between patient and physician, a majority of both patients (66%) and physicians (86%) suggested themselves as the ultimate decision-maker. Additionally, 43% of patients but only 19% of physicians preferred the DNR discussion being brought up early in the course of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the decisional role of patient vs. physician and the timing of the DNR discussion, we found a substantial discrepancy between the attitudes of cancer patients and physicians. This discrepancy calls for a greater awareness and discussion of this sensitive topic among both health care professionals and the public.