Ramucirumab beyond progression plus TAS-102 in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, after treatment failure on a ramucirumab-based therapy.

Based on results of prior trials (TAGS, REGARD, RAINBOW), the combination of ramucirumab beyond progression with TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) seems to be promising in advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). In this multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, investigator-initiated pilot trial, ramucirumab-pretreated patients with metastatic EGA received a maximum of 4 cycles of ramucirumab (8 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 and 15, Q2W) plus TAS-102 (35 mg/m2 p.o. bid on day 1-5 and day 8-12; Q2W). Primary endpoint was tolerability and toxicity, defining a positive trial if the SAE rate according to CTCAE 5.0 will increase <30% (up to 55%) compared to historical results from TAGS trial (SAE rate 43%). Secondary endpoints were further evaluation of safety and assessment of efficacy according to tumor response and overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). Twenty patients, 20% gastric and 80% GEJ cancers and 55% with ECOG 0 were enrolled. In total, nine SAEs were reported in 25% [95% CI: 8.7-49.1] of the patients, all without relationship to the systemic therapy. The median OS and PFS were 9.1 months [5.4-10.1] and 2.9 months [1.7-4.8], respectively. In addition, a disease control rate of 45% was obtained. The trial showed a favorable safety profile with a numerically lower incidence of SAEs for the combination of ramucirumab with TAS-102 compared to historical TAGS trial. Furthermore, the combination demonstrated efficacy in the beyond progression setting and therefore warrants further evaluation in a randomized trial compared to TAS-102 alone.

Efficacy of immunotherapy beyond RECIST progression in advanced melanoma: a real-world evidence.

Immunotherapy (ITH) holds the possibility of tumor burden decrease after initial RECIST 1.1 defined progression. The clinical concept of treating selected patients (pts) beyond disease progression (PD) is supported by so-called pseudoprogression phenomenon. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life practice and outcomes related to treatment beyond (RECIST) progression (TBP) in advanced melanoma patients. Of 584 subsequent melanoma pts analyzed 77 (13.2%) received TBP. In this cohort, the median time to first PD (TTFP) was 5.29 months (m), while time to second PD (TTSP)-8.02 m. On TBP 23.4% pts achieved an objective response (OR), and next 42.9%-stabilization of the disease (SD). 1st PD was reported most often as the development of a new lesion or increase (> 20%) of the diameter of three or more targets. In about 50% second PD was observed as an increase in the diameter of different targets that in 1st PD. Multimodal treatment resulted in 9.82 m TTSP, while ITH alone-4.93 m (p = 0.128). An oligoprogressive pattern of first PD was associated with longer TTSP (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Median OS after first PD was 28.75 months and correlated with OR during TBP (HR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.004-0.76). Selected clinically fit melanoma patients, despite evidence of first radiographic progression, may benefit from continued treatment with PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors, but the findings should be validated in larger prospective trials. Multidisciplinary treatment should be offered to advanced melanoma patients, including radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy of single loci progressing during immunotherapy.

Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimens in advanced solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment beyond progression with immunotherapy may be appropriate in selected patients based on the potential for late responses. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the impact of treatment beyond progression in patients receiving an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimen for an advanced solid tumor. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify prospective clinical trials reporting data on overall response rate by immune-related criteria and/or the number of patients treated beyond conventional criteria-defined PD and/or the number of patients achieving a clinical benefit after an initial PD with regimens including an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent which received the FDA approval for the treatment of an advanced solid tumor. RESULTS: 254 (4.6%) responses after an initial RECIST-defined progressive disease were observed among 5588 patients, based on 35 trials included in our analysis reporting this information. The overall rate of patients receiving treatment beyond progressive disease was 30.2%, based on data on 5334 patients enrolled in 36 trials, and the rate of patients who achieved an unconventional response among those treated beyond progressive disease was 19.7% (based on 25 trials for a total of 853 patients). CONCLUSION: The results of our systematic review support the clinical relevance of unconventional responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based regimens; however, most publications provided only partial information regarding immune-related clinical activity, or did not provide any information at all, highlighting the need of a more comprehensive report of such data in trials investigating immunotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced tumors.

Second-line chemotherapy after early disease progression during first-line chemotherapy containing bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The ML18174 study, which showed benefits of bevacizumab (BEV) continuation beyond progression (BBP) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), excluded patients with first-line progression-free survival (PFS) shorter than 3 months. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy after early disease progression during first-line chemotherapy containing bevacizumab. METHODS: The subjects of this study were mCRC patients who experienced disease progression < 100 days from commencement of first-line chemotherapy containing BEV initiated between Apr 2007 and Dec 2016. Second-line chemotherapy regimens were classified into two groups with and without BEV/other anti-angiogenic agents (BBP and non-BBP) and efficacy and safety were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were identified as subjects of this study. Baseline characteristics were numerically different between BBP (n = 37) and non-BBP (n = 25) groups, such as performance status (0-1/> 2/unknown: 89/8/3 and 56/40/4%), RAS status (wild/mutant/unknown: 32/54/16 and 76/16/8%). Response rate was 8.6% in BBP group and 9.1% in non-BBP group (p = 1.00). Median PFS was 3.9 months in BBP group and 2.8 months in non-BBP group (HR [95%CI]: 0.79 [0.46-1.34], p = 0.373, adjusted HR: 0.87 [0.41-1.82], p = 0.707). Median overall survival was 8.5 months in BBP group and 5.4 months in non-BBP group (HR 0.66 [0.38-1.12], p = 0.125, adjusted HR 0.53 [0.27-1.07], p = 0.078). CONCLUSION: In mCRC patients who experienced early progression in first-line chemotherapy, second-line chemotherapy showed poor clinical outcomes regardless use of anti-angiogenic agents.

Nivolumab in previously treated advanced gastric cancer (ATTRACTION-2): 3-year update and outcome of treatment beyond progression with nivolumab.

BACKGROUND: ATTRACTION-2 demonstrated that nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) vs placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with ≥ 2 chemotherapy regimens. However, its long-term efficacy and outcome of treatment beyond progression (TBP) with nivolumab have not been clarified. METHODS: The 3-year follow-up data were collected. A subset analysis was performed to explore the efficacy of TBP by assessing postprogression survival (PPS) after the first event of disease progression. RESULTS: Overall, 493 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nivolumab (n = 330) or placebo (n = 163). With a median follow-up of 38.5 (range 36.1-47.5) months, OS of the nivolumab group was significantly longer compared to the placebo group (median 5.3 vs 4.1 months; 3-year survival rate, 5.6% vs 1.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.75], P < 0.0001). The median OS of responders (n = 32) who achieved complete response or partial response was 26.7 months and the 3-year survival rate was 35.5% in the nivolumab group. Overall, 109 patients in the nivolumab group and 37 patients in the placebo group received TBP. PPS tended to be longer in the nivolumab group vs placebo group (median 5.8 vs 4.5 months; HR [95% CI], 0.69 [0.47-1.01], P = 0.057). In contrast, PPS was similar between both treatment groups in non-TBP patients (median 2.3 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.90, P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term efficacy of nivolumab was confirmed at the 3-year follow-up, and a survival benefit of TBP with nivolumab was suggested. Biomarkers for selecting patients suitable for TBP with nivolumab should be identified in the future.

Treatment Following Progression in Metastatic Melanoma: the State of the Art from Scientific Literature to Clinical Need.

INTRODUCTION: In the last few years, the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved the management and the prognosis of metastatic melanoma, but the spread of resistance mechanisms can lead to disease progression. The clinical management in this setting can be challenging because the oncologist has to decide what is the best treatment strategy among therapy beyond progression (TBP), therapy change, and the rechallenge approach. This review of the relevant scientific literature is intended to clarify which patients with progressing metastatic melanoma will benefit from continuation of ongoing therapy and which ones will not. The data are based on a total of about 4300 patients coming from the main retrospective studies in the chosen field. The article body is divided into four sections which analyze respectively the targeted therapy beyond progression, the immunotherapy beyond progression, the possible treatment sequences, and finally the rechallenge strategy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the possible approaches of TBP or rechallenge, the patient may not have an optimal response and may need new therapy, which is currently missing. To broaden the pharmacological offer in the fight against melanoma, cancer research is studying new disease targets, like the NRAS, PI3K, and cKIT pathways or combination treatment of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. Despite the limitations of this work, mainly due to the limited number of studies, their retrospective nature and the lack of comparative studies, the analysis performed allows us to draw some important conclusions: therapy beyond progression, both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, represents a valid treatment option with positive effects on disease control and survival outcomes for patients with low clinical risk, expressed as low disease burden, normal LDH levels, and good performance status; moreover, the prognosis and quality of life of these patients improve when TBP is associated with locoregional treatments. In patients with progressive metastatic melanoma and high clinical risk (high disease burden, high LDH levels, and poor performance status), it is recommended to change therapy, without ever forgetting the possibility of enrolling the patient in a clinical trial. Finally, an efficacious treatment alternative is the rechallenge strategy; this approach consists in a re-treatment with the same drug after a variable interval of discontinuation. Preliminary studies seem to have demonstrated that patients retreated with targeted therapy achieved a greater benefit if they had a low clinical risk and if the drug doublet (BRAF + MEK inhibitors) was used. On the side of immunotherapy, the rechallenge strategy produced a major benefit in patients who prior experienced a severe toxic episode.

Phase II Study of the Reuse of Trastuzumab with Docetaxel beyond Progression after First-Line Treatment in Second-Line Treatment for Unresectable, Metastatic Gastric Cancer (T-CORE1203).

Whether trastuzumab use beyond disease progression is beneficial in second-line treatment for patients with unresectable human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric cancer remains to be elucidated. We conducted this phase II study to assess whether trastuzumab plus docetaxel was effective for patients with previously treated advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer. This trial was a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study, conducted by Tohoku Clinical Oncology Research and Education Society (T-CORE). Patients aged 20 years or older who had advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer and were refractory to trastuzumab, fluoropyrimidine, and cisplatin were enrolled. Patients were treated with 6 mg/kg trastuzumab and 60 mg/m2 docetaxel every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. The threshold overall response rate was estimated to be at 15%. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, 6-month survival rate, overall survival, and toxicities. A total of 27 patients were enrolled from 7 hospitals. The median age was 67 years. Partial response was seen in 3 patients among the 26 evaluated patients. The overall response rate was at 11.5% (90% confidence interval 1.2%-21.8%). The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months, the 6-month survival rate was 85%, and the median overall survival was 11.6 months. Febrile neutropenia was observed in 14.8%. The most frequently observed grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity was anorexia (14.8%). The primary endpoint was not achieved. The results support a current consensus that the continuation of trastuzumab in second-line therapy for gastric cancer is not a recommended option.

Immune Response Evaluation and Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Progression: Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of recent literature reports describing atypical response patterns observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), modifications to response evaluation criteria for ICIs, and treatment beyond progression in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Certain response patterns such as durable response, pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated responses can be seen with ICI treatment. These patterns carry differing prognoses and are associated with varied factors. There are multiple modifications of standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) that have been proposed to better characterize immunotherapy response; however, standard RECIST1.1 remains most commonly used in clinical trials. Treatment beyond progression varies in frequency and benefit depending on assessment criteria and cancer type. Future research incorporating modified imaging criteria and biomarker assessments may serve to clarify who will benefit most from treatment beyond progression.

Novel patterns of response under immunotherapy.

Novel patterns of response and progression to immunotherapy have been reported that are not observed with conventional cytotoxic or targeted anticancer treatments. A major breakthrough with immunotherapy is its potential to achieve durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced cancer that can be maintained several years even after stopping the treatment. No standardized definition of durable response exists in the literature, and the optimal duration of treatment in case of durable response is not clearly established. However, the majority of patients do not respond to immunotherapy. Initially reported in advanced melanoma patients, pseudoprogression occurs when tumor index lesions regress after initial progression, supporting the concept of treating some patients beyond progression. Overall, reported rates of pseudoprogression never exceeded 10%, meaning that the large majority of patients who have a disease progression will not eventually respond to treatment. The decision to pursue treatment beyond progression must therefore only be taken in carefully selected patients with clinical benefit, who did not experience severe toxicities with immunotherapy. Conversely, rapid progressions, called hyperprogressions, were reported by several teams with rates ranging from 4% to 29%. These observations need to be confirmed from randomized trials. It is essential to interrupt the treatment in patients with hyperprogression, in order to switch to another potentially active treatment. Finally, some patients experience dissociated responses, with some lesions shrinking and others growing. Local treatment with surgery or radiotherapy for growing lesions may be considered. Several immune-specific-related response criteria were developed to better capture benefits of immunotherapy. These criteria only address the pseudoprogression pattern of response, and do not capture the other patterns of response such as hyperprogression and dissociated response. The classic RECIST remains a reasonable and meaningful method to assess response to immunotherapy in the clinic.

Hyperprogression under Immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy is now widely prescribed in oncology, leading to the observation of new types of responses, including rapid disease progression sometimes reported as hyperprogression. However, only a few studies have assessed the question of hyperprogression and there is no consensual definition of this phenomenon. We reviewed existing data on hyperprogression in published studies, focusing on reported definitions, predictive factors, and potential biological mechanisms. Seven studies retrospectively assessed hyperprogression incidence, using various definitions, some based on the tumoral burden variation across time with repeated computed-tomography (CT) scan, others based on an association of radiological and clinical criteria. Reported hyperprogression incidence varied between 4% and 29% of all responses, mostly in multi-tumor cohorts and with patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Hyperprogression correlated with worse chances of survival than standard progression in two studies. However, no strong predictive factors of hyperprogression were identified, and none were consistent across studies. In total, hyperprogression is a frequent pattern of response under immunotherapy, with a strong impact on patient outcome. There is a need for a consensual definition of hyperprogression. Immunotherapy should be stopped early in cases where there is suspicion of hyperprogression.

An open-label, randomized, phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of standard of care with or without bevacizumab in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer patients previously treated with bevacizumab for front-line or platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: rationale, design, and methods of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study JGOG3023.

BACKGROUND: We present the study rationale and design of the JGOG3023 study, an open-label, parallel-arm, randomized, phase II trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who were previously treated with bevacizumab for front-line or platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. We hypothesize that patients treated with a combination of single-agent chemotherapy and bevacizumab will show improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those treated with single-agent chemotherapy alone, in the setting beyond disease progression following prior bevacizumab treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 106 patients who have recurrence or progression of ovarian cancer, while receiving chemotherapy or within 6 months after the final dose of platinum, after completing at least three cycles of bevacizumab plus platinum chemotherapy will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with single-agent chemotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab. For chemotherapy, one of the following four drugs will be chosen by an investigator: pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. The secondary endpoints are overall survival, objective response rate, number of paracentesis, and response rate by CA125. Safety will be evaluated by the incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with single-agent chemotherapy, which could be used continuously after disease progression following standard platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000017247 (registered April 22, 2015).

Pseudoprogression and hyperprogression during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for urothelial and kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A small subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors manifest atypical patterns of response, the so-called pseudoprogression (PP) and hyperprogression (HP). Their prevalence in urothelial (UC) and renal cancer (RCC) remains, to date, mostly uninvestigated. Therefore, we aimed to provide a summary of the current knowledge about PP and HP during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in UC and RCC patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic medline/pubmed© literature search was performed. The atypical patterns of response to systemic immunotherapy were reviewed. Endpoints were PP and HP in UC and RCC. RESULTS: Tumors respond differently to immunotherapy compared to systemic chemotherapy. To evaluate response to immunotherapy, new guidelines (iRECIST) have been developed. To date, no studies focused on PP in UC and RCC, and the only way to evaluate its role is to take patients who respond to treatment beyond progression as surrogate for pseudoprogressors. PP seems to occur in a non-negligible rate of UC and RCC (from 1.5 to 17% and from 5 to 15%, respectively). The concept of HP, defined as a rapid progression after treatment, just took the first steps, and therefore, data from ongoing trials are awaited to elucidate its impact in genitourinary cancers. CONCLUSIONS: PP and HP are not uncommon entities in UC and RCC patients, treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Further investigation is warranted to define which patients are likely to experience PP and could benefit from treatment beyond progression and which ones will instead rapidly experience progression despite treatment and should, therefore, avoid systemic immunotherapy.

Platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer with long survival on bevacizumab and gemcitabine.

Platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, but combined therapy with bevacizumab and anticancer agents may be useful. We report a patient with long-term disease control by the combination of bevacizumab and gemcitabine (BEV + GEM). The patient was a 77-year-old woman with high-grade Stage IIIC serous ovarian carcinoma. In 2012, a complete response (CR) was obtained by neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy using paclitaxel plus carboplatin and tumor debulking surgery. After recurrence in 2013, CR was achieved again with gemcitabine plus carboplatin. In 2014, recurrence was detected again, but CR was achieved by third-line combination therapy with gemcitabine, carboplatin and bevacizumab. In 2015, the third recurrence was found during bevacizumab maintenance therapy. Fourth-line treatment was initiated with BEV + GEM, which has maintained stable disease for 29 months. This is the first report about marked prolongation of survival by BEV + GEM in a patient with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab exposure beyond disease progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses of the ARIES observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab used in combination with first-line chemotherapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis from the ARIES observational cohort study (OCS) was initiated to evaluate the effect of bevacizumab use beyond disease progression (BBP) on clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC receiving first-line treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. METHODS: The ARIES OCS prospectively enrolled patients from 2006 to 2009 in the United States who had advanced non-squamous NSCLC, received bevacizumab with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, and survived progressive disease (PD). A dichotomous landmark analysis examined post-PD OS (ppOS) in patients who received BBP versus no BBP within 30 days post PD. A time-dependent Cox model assessed the effect of cumulative BBP exposure on ppOS. RESULTS: The ARIES OCS enrolled 1967 patients with first-line NSCLC; 1358 patients had first PD and were alive at the 30-day landmark (351 patients with BBP and 1007 patients with no BBP). The landmark analysis showed that BBP was associated with a lower risk of death (BBP versus No-BBP); hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.86. In the cumulative exposure analysis of 1461 patients who had PD, HRs for ppOS decreased by approximately 4% for each additional 21-day interval of bevacizumab received. Protocol-specified bevacizumab-select adverse events occurred in 14% of BBP patients. CONCLUSIONS: BBP was associated with a lower risk of death in patients with NSCLC treated with first-line bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Continuation or reintroduction of bevacizumab beyond progression to first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: final results of the randomized BEBYP trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of bevacizumab with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard first-line treatment option in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We studied the efficacy of continuing or reintroducing bevacizumab in combination with second-line chemotherapy after progression to bevacizumab-based first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III study, patients with mCRC treated with fluoropyrimidine-based first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomized to receive in second-line mFOLFOX-6 or FOLFIRI (depending on first-line regimen) with or without bevacizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. To detect a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.70 with an α and ß error of 0.05 and 0.20, respectively, 262 patients were required. RESULTS: In consideration of the results of the ML18147 trial, the study was prematurely stopped. Between April 2008 and May 2012, a total of 185 patients were randomized. Bevacizumab-free interval was longer than 3 months in 43% of patients in chemotherapy alone arm and in 50% of patients in the bevacizumab arm. At a median follow-up of 45.3 months, the median progression-free survival was 5.0 months in the chemotherapy group and 6.8 months in the bevacizumab group [adjusted HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.95; stratified log-rank P = 0.010]. Subgroup analyses showed a consistent benefit in all subgroups analyzed and in particular in patients who had continued or reintroduced bevacizumab. An improved overall survival was also observed in the bevacizumab arm (adjusted HR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.06; stratified log-rank P = 0.043). Responses (RECIST 1.0) were similar in the chemotherapy and bevacizumab groups (17% and 21%; P = 0.573). Toxicity profile was consistent with previously reported data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the continuation or the reintroduction of bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy beyond first progression improves the outcome and supports the use of this strategy in the treatment of mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00720512.

The nature and management of metastatic melanoma after progression on BRAF inhibitors: effects of extended BRAF inhibition.

BACKGROUND: The v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) inhibitor (BRAFi) drugs dabrafenib and vemurafenib have high response rates in BRAF-mutant, metastatic melanoma; however, 50% of patients progress by 7 months. In this study, the authors examined the nature and management of disease progression (PD) on BRAFi treatment, including characteristics and outcomes of patients who received continued BRAFi treatment beyond disease progression (TBP). METHODS: Clinicopathologic data at baseline and at the time of PD were collected for all patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma who received BRAFi monotherapy within clinical trials between July 2009 and September 2012. Management and survival after PD were examined, including continued BRAFi TBP (> 28 days beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor [RECIST]-defined PD). RESULTS: Ninety-five of 114 BRAFi-treated patients had PD. Fifty-three of those 95 patients (56%) progressed in extracranial sites alone, 18% (17 of 95 patients) progressed in intracranial and extracranial sites simultaneously, and 16% (15 of 95 patients) progressed in intracranial sites alone. Twenty-nine of the 95 patients (31%) who had PD progressed in a single site or organ, 48% (46 of 95 patients) progressed in existing metastases only, and 18% (17 of 95 patients) had new metastases alone. At the time of PD, 35 of 95 patients (37%) received no subsequent systemic treatment, 20% (19 of 95 patients) changed systemic treatments, and 39% (37 of 95 patients) continued BRAFi TBP for a median of 97 days. BRAFi TBP and known prognostic factors (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, RECIST sum of the greatest dimensions of target lesions) were associated with overall survival (OS) from the time of PD; however, in multivariable analysis, BRAFi TBP improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.93; P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Most BRAFi-treated patients progressed in existing extracranial sites, and 31% progressed in isolated sites. Compared with cessation, continued BRAFi TBP is associated with prolonged OS even after adjusting for potential prognostic factors at PD.

Bevacizumab exposure beyond first disease progression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analyses of the ARIES observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: This analysis from Avastin® Registries: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) examined the association between exposure to bevacizumab after disease progression (PD) and postprogression survival (PPS) in bevacizumab-exposed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through the application of time-dependent and time-fixed analytical methods. METHODS: Patients with mCRC who were treated with first-line bevacizumab and who survived first PD (PD1) were included. A time-dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative bevacizumab exposure on PPS, while controlling for potential confounders. In addition to support findings from previous studies, a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis compared PPS in patients who received bevacizumab beyond disease progression (BBP) with those who did not (No-BBP). RESULTS: Of 1550 patients, 1199 survived PD1 and had a median PPS of 13.4 months. Cumulative bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved PPS (p = 0.0040). After adjusting for confounders, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PPS decreased, on average, by 1.2% (range, 1.1-1.3%) with each additional dose of bevacizumab. In the mITT analysis, the median PPS for BBP (n = 438) was 14.4 months vs 10.6 months with for No-BBP (n = 667). BBP was found to be independently associated with longer PPS in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.97). Protocol-specified adverse events suspected to be associated with bevacizumab occurred in 13.0% of patients with BBP. CONCLUSION: This analysis supports the observation that bevacizumab exposure after PD1 is associated with longer PPS in mCRC.

Trastuzumab beyond progression for HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer: progression-free survival on first-line therapy predicts overall survival impact.

Trastuzumab beyond first progression in the metastatic setting has been adopted based on limited data suggesting improved outcomes compared to second-line chemotherapy alone although predictive factors for preferential benefit remain elusive. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients receiving trastuzumab for HER2 + metastatic disease between Jan 1, 1999-June 15, 2011. Univariate and time to event analyses described treatment and survival patterns. Median duration of each line of therapy and overall survival times for covariates, including treatment era (pre versus post Jan 1, 2005), lines of trastuzumab-based therapy (1 versus 2 versus 3 + ), first-line chemotherapy partner (docetaxel/paclitaxel versus other) and median exposure to first-line trastuzumab-based therapy (=/> versus < cohort median) were estimated. A total of 119 patients received a median of two lines of trastuzumab-based therapy (range 1-8). Median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI = 14.5-27.1 m), by era was 15.6 m (95% CI = 9.7-24.8 m) versus 26.1 m (95% CI = 20.0-39.3 m; p = 0.11) and by lines of trastuzumab-based therapy received was 10.6 m (95% CI = 5.3-17.4 m) versus 13.9 m (95% CI = 9.5-27.6 m) versus 32.5 m (95% CI = 25-49.4 m) (p = 0.0014). Median overall survival was significantly longer for those receiving taxanes with trastuzumab compared to other first line partners (26.1 m, 95% CI = 17.8-31.4 m versus 14.5 m, 95% CI = 9.4-21.9 m, p = 0.02). Median overall survival with duration of first-line trastuzumab-based therapy =/> cohort median was 31.9 m (95% CI = 26.2-52.2 m) versus 10.3 m for shorter durations (95% CI = 6.9-15.6 m; p < 0.0001). Our observations support progression-free survival on first-line trastuzumab-based therapy as a clinically relevant predictive factor for overall survival benefit with the adoption of a trastuzumab beyond progression treatment strategy.

Ramucirumab Beyond Disease Progression After Paclitaxel Plus Ramucirumab in Gastric Cancer: A Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Irinotecan monotherapy was the most widely used third-line chemotherapy for unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer in Japan until the approval of nivolumab in September 2017 and trifluridine/tipiracil in August 2019. The benefit of continuing ramucirumab with irinotecan, an anti-VEGFR-2 monoclonal antibody, after the failure of paclitaxel plus ramucirumab (PTX+RAM) as second-line chemotherapy, has been under debate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-center phase II study was conducted in patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidines and platinum, who received PTX+RAM as second-line therapy and irinotecan plus ramucirumab (IRI+RAM) as third-line therapy after treatment failure (UMIN000022956). RESULTS: Eleven patients were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2018. Enrolment was discontinued due to difficulties in case ascertainment because of expanded third-line treatment options (originally planned for 53 patients). The median progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) of the IRI+RAM was 3.98 months [95% confidence interval (CI)=1.78-NA]. Among secondary endpoints, the transition rate to IRI+RAM was 45%, the rate of 8-week treatment continuation for IRI+RAM was 100%, the response rate for IRI+RAM was 0%, the median overall survival (OS) for PTX+RAM was 13.53 months (95%CI=1.61-24.36), and the median OS for IRI+RAM was 9.99 months (95CI=4.5-NA). CONCLUSION: The transition rate from PTX+RAM to IRI+RAM was reasonable. Ramucirumab beyond progressive disease may be beneficial for patients who are able to transition to IRI+RAM.

Continuous immunotherapy beyond progression in clinical practice for small cell lung cancer.

In non-small-cell lung cancer, continuous immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) beyond progression are often used in clinical practice. On the other hand, there is almost no data on whether the concept of continuous ICIs beyond progression can be adopted in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We describe the effectiveness of continuous ICIs beyond progression in SCLC. Medical courses of SCLC patients treated with chemo-immunotherapy were retrospectively reviewed at our hospital. The study included 36 patients with a median age of 73 years (range 46-83 years) who introduced chemo-immunotherapy between September 2019 and December 2022. Atezolizumab and durvalumab in combination with platinum plus etoposide were administered in 24 and 12 patients, respectively. The overall response rate was 67% and the disease control rate was 86%. The median progression-free survival and time to treatment failure (TTF) were 5.1 and 10.3 months, respectively. The median cycle of ICIs was 5 (range 1-42). The median overall survival was 13.6 months. ICIs were administered beyond progression in 14 (39%) patients: five were treated again with chemo-immunotherapy and local ablative radiotherapy, four with local ablative radiotherapy and continuous ICIs, three with chemo-immunotherapy, and two with continuous ICIs alone. TTF exceeded 12 months in 12 (86%) of the 14 cases, six of which were still on ICIs. Adverse events ≥grade 3 were observed in 21 (58%) patients. A notable TTF suggested a benefit of continuous ICIs beyond progression. The concept could be suitably adopted and provide a favorable prognosis in selected cases of SCLC that were previously regarded as an aggressive malignancy.