Oncolytic Virotherapy Promotes Intratumoral T Cell Infiltration and Improves Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy.

Here we report a phase 1b clinical trial testing the impact of oncolytic virotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec on cytotoxic T cell infiltration and therapeutic efficacy of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. Twenty-one patients with advanced melanoma were treated with talimogene laherparepvec followed by combination therapy with pembrolizumab. Therapy was generally well tolerated, with fatigue, fevers, and chills as the most common adverse events. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete response rate of 33% per immune-related response criteria. Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8+ T cells, elevated PD-L1 protein expression, as well as IFN-γ gene expression on several cell subsets in tumors after talimogene laherparepvec treatment. Response to combination therapy did not appear to be associated with baseline CD8+ T cell infiltration or baseline IFN-γ signature. These findings suggest that oncolytic virotherapy may improve the efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy by changing the tumor microenvironment. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of ganitumab, an investigational fully human monoclonal antibody to insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor, combined with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a phase 1b study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous Phase 1 studies have shown the acceptable safety profile of ganitumab-a fully human monoclonal antibody to insulin-like growth factor Type 1 receptor-in patients with advanced solid tumors. However, ganitumab 20 mg/kg in combination with gemcitabine had not been administered to patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. To evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of ganitumab 20 mg/kg combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, we conducted a Phase 1b study. METHODS: Eligible patients were adults with previously untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8 and 15 plus ganitumab 20 mg/kg on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Gemcitabine was administered intravenously over 30-60 min. Ganitumab was administered intravenously over 60 min after completing gemcitabine infusion. RESULTS: Six patients were enrolled and received the study treatment. All patients had thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. Other most common adverse events were neutropenia and nausea. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity defined as Grade 3 neutropenia with fever. Exposure to ganitumab 20 mg/kg was not affected by the administration of gemcitabine. No apparent pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was observed. No anti-ganitumab antibodies were detected. Five patients had a measurable tumor region at baseline. Of these, four patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Ganitumab 20 mg/kg combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was tolerable and showed an acceptable safety profile in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Ganitumab with either exemestane or fulvestrant for postmenopausal women with advanced, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factors (IGF-1 and IGF-2) bind to the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R), increasing cell proliferation and survival. Ganitumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that blocks IGF-1R. We tested the efficacy and safety of adding ganitumab to endocrine treatment for patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We did this phase 2 trial in outpatient clinics and hospitals. We enrolled postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine treatment. They were randomly assigned (2:1) with a central randomisation schedule to receive intravenous ganitumab 12 mg per kg bodyweight or placebo in combination with open-label intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg on day 1, then 250 mg on days 15, 29, and every 28 days) or oral exemestane (25 mg once daily) on a 28-day cycle. Patients, investigators, study monitors, and the sponsor staff were masked to treatment allocation. Response was assessed every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. We analysed overall survival as one of our secondary endpoints. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626106. FINDINGS: We screened 189 patients and enrolled 156 (106 in the ganitumab group and 50 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ significantly between the ganitumab and placebo groups (3·9 months, 80% CI 3·6-5·3 vs 5·7 months, 4·4-7·4; hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 80% CI 0·91-1·50; p=0·44). However, overall survival was worse in the the ganitumab group than in the placebo group (HR 1·78, 80% CI 1·27-2·50; p=0·025). With the exception of hyperglycaemia, adverse events were generally similar between groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia-reported by six of 106 (6%) patients in the ganitumab group and one of 49 (2%) in the placebo group. Hyperglycaemia was reported by 12 of 106 (11%) patients in the ganitumab group (with six patients having grade 3 or 4 hyperglycaemia) and none of 49 in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported by 27 of 106 (25%) patients in the ganitumab group and nine of 49 (18%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of ganitumab to endocrine treatment in women with previously treated hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer did not improve outcomes. Our results do not support further study of ganitumab in this subgroup of patients. FUNDING: Amgen.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.

KRAS mutational status as a predictor of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor efficacy in colorectal cancer.

Inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have demonstrated promising potential in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, a proportion of patients do not respond to therapy with EGFR inhibitors, and therefore, there has been interest in identifying those patients most likely to benefit from therapy with these agents. KRAS, a member of the RAS family of signaling proteins, plays an important role in EGFR-mediated regulation of cellular proliferation and survival. Although there is still some debate regarding the prognostic importance of KRAS mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, several recent phase 2 and 3 studies have identified the presence of mutations at codons 12 and 13 of KRAS as predictors of poor response to the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies panitumumab and cetuximab. Patients with wild-type KRAS were found to have significantly better progression-free survival, overall survival, and/or objective response rate compared with patients harboring KRAS mutations. As a result, there has been growing interest in the development of KRAS mutational status as a biomarker for predicting patient response to EGFR-targeted therapy. Screening colorectal tumors for the absence of KRAS mutations may help identify patients most likely to benefit from anti-EGFR therapies.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate. RESULTS: Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%]; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION: T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.

Randomized phase Ib/II trial of rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab versus panitumumab alone in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb), has demonstrated efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Rilotumumab and ganitumab are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor and IGF1R, respectively. Here we evaluate combining rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Part 1 was a phase Ib dose-finding study of panitumumab plus rilotumumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Part 2 was a randomized phase II trial of panitumumab in combination with rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Archival tissue specimens were collected for exploratory correlative work. RESULTS: In part 1, no DLTs were reported. A recommended phase II dose of 10 mg/kg rilotumumab was selected. In part 2, for the panitumumab plus rilotumumab (n = 48), panitumumab plus ganitumab (n = 46), and panitumumab plus placebo arms (n = 48), the ORRs were 31%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.2, 5.3, and 3.7 months and median OS 13.8, 10.6, and 11.6 months, respectively. Adverse events were tolerable. Exploratory biomarker analyses, including MET and IGF-related protein expression, failed to indicate conclusive predictive evidence on efficacy endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab plus rilotumumab met the prespecified criterion for improvement in ORR whereas ganitumab did not. This is the first study to suggest a benefit for combining an HGF inhibitor (rilotumumab) with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.

Putative predictive biomarkers of survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with gemcitabine and ganitumab, an IGF1R inhibitor.

PURPOSE: This planned exploratory analysis assessed the predictive nature of baseline circulating factors of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis on the treatment effect of ganitumab (monoclonal antibody inhibitor of IGF-1 receptor) plus gemcitabine in a randomized phase II study in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Baseline levels of IGFs/IGF binding proteins (IGFBP) were analyzed in serum or plasma. Mutations and gene expression were analyzed in archival samples. Treatment effects between biomarker subgroups were compared for overall survival (OS). Associations of tumor markers with OS were evaluated. RESULTS: For patients with evaluable samples, ganitumab was associated with improved OS versus placebo (HR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28-0.87). The treatment effect on improved OS was strong in the patient subset with higher levels of IGF-1, IGF-2, or IGFBP-3, or lower levels of IGFBP-2, but not so on the other corresponding subset. Median OS of ganitumab versus placebo in patients with higher levels of IGF-1, IGF-2, and IGFBP-3 was 16 versus 6.8 months (HR, 0.25; 95% CI: 0.09-0.67), 16 versus 5.9 months (HR, 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.68), and 16 versus 6.8 months (HR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.73), and in patients with lower IGFBP-2 levels was 12.7 versus 6.6 months (HR, 0.19; 95% CI: 0.07-0.55). Interaction between treatment and IGFs/IGFBPs in multivariate analyses suggested predictive potential for IGF-2 (P = 0.002) and IGFBP-2 (P = 0.02). KRAS mutation status and PTEN expression were not associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline circulating factors of the IGF axis may predict OS benefit from ganitumab plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.