Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy for early-stage or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA-IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42-67%) with SABR to 77% (66-91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19-0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22-0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Emerging therapeutic strategies for enhancing sensitivity and countering resistance to programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

The availability of agents targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint has transformed treatment of advanced and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, a substantial proportion of patients treated with these agents do not respond or experience only a brief period of clinical benefit. Even among those whose disease responds, many subsequently experience disease progression. Consequently, novel approaches are needed that enhance antitumor immunity and counter resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors, thereby improving and/or prolonging responses and patient outcomes, in both PD-(L)1 inhibitor-sensitive and inhibitor-resistant NSCLC. Mechanisms contributing to sensitivity and/or resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors in NSCLC include upregulation of other immune checkpoints and/or the presence of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which represent potential targets for new therapies. This review explores novel therapeutic regimens under investigation for enhancing responses to PD-(L)1 inhibitors and countering resistance, and summarizes the latest clinical evidence in NSCLC.

Safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of selinexor in combination with pembrolizumab in treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, overexpression of nuclear export proteins can result in inactivation of critical tumor suppressor proteins and cell-cycle regulators. Selective suppression of nuclear export proteins has immunomodulatory activities. Here, clinical safety and early efficacy data are presented on the combination of pembrolizumab and an oral selective nuclear export inhibitor, selinexor, for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS: The primary objective of this prospective investigator-initiated study was to determine the safety and tolerability of selinexor in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with mNSCLC. Secondary objectives included determination of objective tumor response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival duration. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were included in the final analysis. Fifteen (88%) received more than two lines of prior systemic therapy and 10 (59%) had prior exposure to anti-PD-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy. The median age was 67.5 years. Ten patients had grade ≥3 adverse events related to selinexor treatment. Responses to treatment occurred in patients who did and did not undergo previous anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and in patients with activating driver mutations. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 11.4 months (95% CI, 3.4-19.8 months) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 1.7-5.7 months), respectively. The overall response rate was 18% and the 6-month disease control rate was 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor in combination with pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in patients with mNSCLC, including those who had previously received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. The therapy-related toxic effects were consistent with the prior safety data for both drugs, and no overlapping toxic effects were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02419495. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: New strategies to prevent or reverse resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors are under investigation. Selective inhibitors of nuclear export proteins, such as selinexor, can induce restoration of tumor-suppressing pathways and induce potent immunomodulatory activities. This article contains the clinical safety and early efficacy data on the combination of pembrolizumab and selinexor in treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

A Phase I Trial of Bevacizumab and Temsirolimus in Combination With Valproic Acid in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical models suggest synergy between anti-angiogenesis therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and histone deacetylase inhibitors to promote anticancer activity. METHODS: This phase I study enrolled 47 patients between April 2012 and 2018 and determined safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) when combining bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Median age of enrolled patients was 56 years. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 lines of prior therapy. Forty-five patients (95.7%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs were lymphopenia (14.9%), thrombocytopenia (8.5%), and mucositis (6.4%). Grade 4 TRAEs included lymphopenia (2.1%) and CNS cerebrovascular ischemia (2.1%). Six patients developed DLTs across 10 dose levels with grade 3 infection, rash, mucositis, bowel perforation, elevated lipase, and grade 4 cerebrovascular ischemia. The MTD was dose level 9 (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1 and 15 intravenously (IV) plus temsirolimus 25 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 IV and valproic acid 5 mg/kg on days 1-7 and 15-21 per orally (PO)). Objective response rate (ORR) was 7.9% with confirmed partial response (PRs) in 3 patients (one each in parotid gland, ovarian, and vaginal cancers). Stable disease (SD) ≥+6 months was seen in 5 patients (13.1%). Clinical benefit state (CBR: PR + SD ≥+6 months) was 21%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid was feasible, but there were numerous toxicities, which will require careful management for future clinical development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552434).

Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

Long-term Outcomes with Nivolumab as First-line Treatment in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Subgroup Analysis of CheckMate 141.

In the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial, nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at primary analysis among 361 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) post-platinum therapy. Nivolumab versus IC as first-line treatment also improved OS among patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary setting at 1-year follow-up. In the present long-term follow-up analysis of patients receiving first-line treatment, OS benefit with nivolumab (n = 50) versus IC (n = 26) was maintained (median: 7.7 months versus 3.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94) at 2 years. No new safety signals were identified. In summary, this long-term 2-year analysis of CheckMate 141 supports the use of nivolumab as a first-line treatment for patients with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN.

Generalizability of ORIENT-11 trial results to a US standard-of-care cohort with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: This retrospective study estimated efficacy and safety of sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum (SPP) versus placebo + pemetrexed + platinum (PPP) in untreated locally advanced/metastatic, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after adjusting each ORIENT-11 trial patient's contribution to ORIENT-11 data based on characteristics of a target US population. Materials & methods: The target US population (n = 557) was selected from a real-world deidentified advanced NSCLC database based on key ORIENT-11 eligibility criteria. Inverse probability weights for ORIENT-11 patients (n = 397) relative to US patients were calculated. Efficacy and safety of SPP versus PPP were adjusted by inverse probability weights. Results: After adjustment, progression-free survival remained superior for SPP. Other efficacy and safety outcomes were consistent. Conclusion: These results provide evidence on how the effects observed with SPP in ORIENT-11 could translate to a US population with untreated locally advanced/metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

Sintilimab is an immunotherapy drug that was successfully developed and tested in China for untreated locally advanced/metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. To assess if results from the Chinese ORIENT-11 trial are applicable to the US population, this study used US real-world patient data to adjust the ORIENT-11 trial analysis. After adjustment, progression-free survival benefit observed in ORIENT-11 with the addition of sintilimab to standard chemotherapy remained superior, and other efficacy and safety end points were consistent. This finding may help inform clinical decisions about the applicability of ORIENT-11 trial results to US patients with untreated locally advanced/metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. In addition, this study offers another way real-world evidence can be applied to help complement clinical trial evidence and optimize treatment decisions.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor Therapy: How Are We Driving in Solid Tumors?

Immune effector cell (IEC) therapy is emerging as a promising approach in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Clinical IEC trials, predominantly using chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, have shown excellent responses in CD19+ B cell malignancies and multiple myeloma. In solid tumors, preclinical data are encouraging, but clinical data are in their infancy, and there are challenges in using CAR T therapy in this setting, including (1) on-target off-tumor toxicity, (2) optimal target identification, (3) effective trafficking into bulky tumor tissue, and (4) resistance to tumor immune evasion mechanisms. Novel techniques and modifications are being explored in both the preclinical and clinical settings, aiming to improve treatment efficacy and address the aforementioned obstacles to successful CAR T therapy in solid tumors. Here we review these challenges in a clinically oriented approach and summarize published clinical trials using CAR T therapy in a variety of solid tumors.

First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. RESULTS: Among the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P=0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533 .).

Nivolumab treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in CheckMate 141: A subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Response patterns with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be different from those with chemotherapy. Therefore, assessment of response to immunotherapy with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, could result in premature treatment termination. The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), which evaluated nivolumab in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum therapy, allowed treatment beyond first RECIST-defined progression (TBP) according to protocol-specified criteria. METHODS: In CheckMate 141, patients with RECIST-defined progression who had a stable performance status and demonstrated clinical benefit without rapid disease progression were permitted to receive TBP with nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until further progression, which was defined as an additional ≥10% increase in tumor volume. This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes for patients who received TBP with nivolumab. RESULTS: Of 240 patients randomized to nivolumab, 146 experienced RECIST-defined progression. Sixty-two of these patients received TBP, and 84 discontinued treatment (no TBP). Among the 60 TBP patients evaluable for response, 15 (25%) had no change in their tumor burden, and 15 (25%) had reductions in target lesion size; 3 patients (5%) had reductions >30%. The median overall survival among TBP patients was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.6 months). No new safety signals were observed with TBP. Exploratory analyses of immune cell biomarkers suggested a potential relationship with initial and TBP responses. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden reduction was noted in a proportion of patients who received TBP with nivolumab in CheckMate 141. Additional research is warranted to identify factors predictive of a TBP benefit in this population.

Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, was assessed as treatment for this condition. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 361 patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). The primary end point was overall survival. Additional end points included progression-free survival, rate of objective response, safety, and patient-reported quality of life. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 9.1) in the nivolumab group versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.0) in the group that received standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with standard therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 97.73% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P=0.01), and the estimates of the 1-year survival rate were approximately 19 percentage points higher with nivolumab than with standard therapy (36.0% vs. 16.6%). The median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) with nivolumab versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1) with standard therapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13; P=0.32). The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 19.7% with nivolumab versus 9.9% with standard therapy. The response rate was 13.3% in the nivolumab group versus 5.8% in the standard-therapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 13.1% of the patients in the nivolumab group versus 35.1% of those in the standard-therapy group. Physical, role, and social functioning was stable in the nivolumab group, whereas it was meaningfully worse in the standard-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, treatment with nivolumab resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with standard, single-agent therapy. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 141 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105636 .).

CheckMate 141: 1-Year Update and Subgroup Analysis of Nivolumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at the primary analysis of randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Here, we report that OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained at a minimum follow-up of 11.4 months. Further, OS benefit with nivolumab vs IC was also noted among patients who received first-line treatment for R/M SCCHN after progressing on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary (i.e., with radiation) setting.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have few treatment options and poor prognosis. Nivolumab significantly improved survival of this patient population when compared with standard single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in Checkmate 141; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: CheckMate 141 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121) of methotrexate (40-60 mg/m2 of body surface area), docetaxel (30-40 mg/m2), or cetuximab (250 mg/m2 after a loading dose of 400 mg/m2) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. On Jan 26, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee reviewed the data at the planned interim analysis and declared overall survival superiority for nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (primary endpoint; described previously). The protocol was amended to allow patients in the investigator's choice group to cross over to nivolumab. All patients not on active therapy are being followed for survival. As an exploratory endpoint, PROs were assessed at baseline, week 9, and every 6 weeks thereafter using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the three-level European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Differences within and between treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one other assessment. All randomised patients were included in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration analyses. Median time to clinically meaningful deterioration was analysed by Kaplan-Meier methods. CheckMate 141 was registered with ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT02105636. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between May 29, 2014, and July 31, 2015, and subsequently 361 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121). Among them, 129 patients (93 in the nivolumab group and 36 in the investigator's choice group) completed any of the PRO questionnaires at baseline and at least one other assessment. Treatment with nivolumab resulted in adjusted mean changes from baseline to week 15 ranging from -2·1 to 5·4 across functional and symptom domains measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, with no domains indicating clinically meaningful deterioration. By contrast, eight (53%) of the 15 domains in the investigator's choice group showed clinically meaningful deterioration (10 points or more) at week 15 (change from baseline range, -24·5 to 2·4). Similarly, on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, clinically meaningful worsening at week 15 was seen in no domains in the nivolumab group and eight (44%) of 18 domains in the investigator's choice group. Patients in the nivolumab group had a clinically meaningful improvement (according to a difference of 7 points or greater) in adjusted mean change from baseline to week 15 on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, in contrast to a clinically meaningful deterioration in the investigator's choice group (7·3 vs -7·8). Differences between groups were significant and clinically meaningful at weeks 9 and 15 in favour of nivolumab for role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, and appetite loss on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and pain and sensory problems on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Median time to deterioration was significantly longer with nivolumab versus investigator's choice for 13 (37%) of 35 domains assessed across the three questionnaires. INTERPRETATION: In this exploratory analysis of CheckMate 141, nivolumab stabilised symptoms and functioning from baseline to weeks 9 and 15, whereas investigator's choice led to clinically meaningful deterioration. Nivolumab delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes compared with single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In view of the major unmet need in this population and the importance of maintaining or improving quality of life for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, these data support nivolumab as a new standard-of-care option in this setting. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A phase I open-label dose-escalation study of the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody LJM716 in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or head and neck and HER2-overexpressing breast or gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) is important in maintaining epidermal growth factor receptor-driven cancers and mediating resistance to targeted therapy. A phase I study of anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody LJM716 was conducted with the primary objective to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE), and dosing schedule. Secondary objectives were to characterize safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: This open-label, dose-finding study comprised dose escalation, followed by expansion in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or esophagus, and HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer or gastric cancer. During dose escalation, patients received LJM716 intravenous once weekly (QW) or every two weeks (Q2W), in 28-day cycles. An adaptive Bayesian logistic regression model was used to guide dose escalation and establish the RDE. Exploratory pharmacodynamic tumor studies evaluated modulation of HER3 signaling. RESULTS: Patients received LJM716 3-40 mg/kg QW and 20 mg/kg Q2W (54 patients; 36 patients at 40 mg/kg QW). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported during dose-escalation. One patient experienced two DLTs (diarrhea, hypokalemia [both grade 3]) in the expansion phase. The RDE was 40 mg/kg QW, providing drug levels above the preclinical minimum effective concentration. One patient with gastric cancer had an unconfirmed partial response; 17/54 patients had stable disease, two lasting >30 weeks. Down-modulation of phospho-HER3 was observed in paired tumor samples. CONCLUSIONS: LJM716 was well tolerated; the MTD was not reached, and the RDE was 40 mg/kg QW. Further development of LJM716 is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry number NCT01598077 (registered on 4 May, 2012).

Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential effect of aggressive local consolidative therapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. We aimed to assess the effect of local consolidative therapy on progression-free survival. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study, eligible patients from three hospitals had histological confirmation of stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastatic disease lesions after first-line systemic therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, had received standard first-line systemic therapy, and had no disease progression before randomisation. First-line therapy was four or more cycles of platinum doublet therapy or 3 or more months of EGFR or ALK inhibitors for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either local consolidative therapy ([chemo]radiotherapy or resection of all lesions) with or without subsequent maintenance treatment or to maintenance treatment alone, which could be observation only. Maintenance treatment was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic treatment. Randomisation was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, CNS metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR and ALK status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients who were treated and had at least one post-baseline imaging assessment. The study is ongoing but not recruiting participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01725165. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2012, and Jan 19, 2016, 74 patients were enrolled either during or at the completion of first-line systemic therapy. The study was terminated early after randomisation of 49 patients (25 in the local consolidative therapy group and 24 in the maintenance treatment group) as part of the annual analyses done by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of all randomised trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and before a planned interim analysis of 44 events. At a median follow-up time for all randomised patients of 12·39 months (IQR 5·52-20·30), the median progression-free survival in the local consolidative therapy group was 11·9 months (90% CI 5·7-20·9) versus 3·9 months (2·3-6·6) in the maintenance treatment group (hazard ratio 0·35 [90% CI 0·18-0·66], log-rank p=0·0054). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no grade 4 adverse events or deaths due to treatment. Grade 3 adverse events in the maintenance therapy group were fatigue (n=1) and anaemia (n=1) and in the local consolidative therapy group were oesophagitis (n=2), anaemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1, unlikely related). INTERPRETATION: Local consolidative therapy with or without maintenance therapy for patients with three or fewer metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved progression-free survival compared with maintenance therapy alone. These findings suggest that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase 3 trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario. FUNDING: MD Anderson Lung Cancer Priority Fund, MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shot Initiative, and Cancer Center Support (Core), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m(2) cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22.9 months (IQR 27.5-33.3). Median overall survival was 28.7 months (95% CI 24.1-36.9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20.3 months (17.7-25.0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; p=0.004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21.3 months (IQR 23.5-29.8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25.0 months (95% CI 20.2-30.5) compared with 24.0 months (19.8-28.6) in those who did not (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35; p=0.29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0.0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A phase I/II study combining erlotinib and dasatinib for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: EGFR and Src are frequently activated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In preclinical models, combining EGFR and Src inhibition has additive synergistic effects. We conducted a phase I/II trial of the combination of Src inhibitor dasatinib with EGFR inhibitor erlotinib to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic drug interactions, biomarkers, and efficacy in NSCLC. METHODS: The phase I 3+3 dose-escalation study enrolled patients with solid tumors to determine the MTD. The phase II trial enrolled patients with advanced NSCLC who had undergone no previous treatments to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and response. Pharmacokinetic and tissue biomarker analyses were performed. RESULTS: MTD was 150 mg of erlotinib and 70 mg of dasatinib daily based on 12 patients treated in the phase I portion. No responses were observed in phase I. The 35 NSCLC patients treated in phase II had an overall disease control rate of 59% at 6 weeks. Five patients (15%) had partial responses; all had activating EGFR mutations. Median PFS was 3.3 months. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers did not correlate with outcomes. CONCLUSION: The combination of erlotinib and dasatinib is safe and feasible in NSCLC. The results of this study do not support use of this combination in molecularly unselected NSCLC.

Identifying MAGE-A4-positive tumors for TCR T cell therapies in HLA-A∗02-eligible patients.

T cell receptor (TCR) T cell therapies target tumor antigens in a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-restricted manner. Biomarker-defined therapies require validation of assays suitable for determination of patient eligibility. For clinical trials evaluating TCR T cell therapies targeting melanoma-associated antigen A4 (MAGE-A4), screening in studies NCT02636855 and NCT04044768 assesses patient eligibility based on: (1) high-resolution HLA typing and (2) tumor MAGE-A4 testing via an immunohistochemical assay in HLA-eligible patients. The HLA/MAGE-A4 assays validation, biomarker data, and their relationship to covariates (demographics, cancer type, histopathology, tissue location) are reported here. HLA-A∗02 eligibility was 44.8% (2,959/6,606) in patients from 43 sites across North America and Europe. While HLA-A∗02:01 was the most frequent HLA-A∗02 allele, others (A∗02:02, A∗02:03, A∗02:06) considerably increased HLA eligibility in Hispanic, Black, and Asian populations. Overall, MAGE-A4 prevalence based on clinical trial enrollment was 26% (447/1,750) across 10 solid tumor types, and was highest in synovial sarcoma (70%) and lowest in gastric cancer (9%). The covariates were generally not associated with MAGE-A4 expression, except for patient age in ovarian cancer and histology in non-small cell lung cancer. This report shows the eligibility rate from biomarker screening for TCR T cell therapies and provides epidemiological data for future clinical development of MAGE-A4-targeted therapies.