Current and anticipated future state of cachexia care in patients with cancer.

Aims: We assessed care in cancer patients with cachexia across leading health systems (LHSs). Patients & methods: Qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys were conducted with LHSs executives and frontline health care personnel, representing 46 total respondents and 42 unique LHSs and including oncology service line leaders, supportive care services, dietitians and surgical oncologists. Results: Cachexia was not considered a top priority, and formal diagnoses were rare. Participants highlighted the importance of addressing barriers to increase clinical trial enrollment and support frontline health care personnel and patients in early detection of cachexia. Conclusion: Cachexia prioritization needs to be elevated across LHSs executives to obtain capital and strategic imperatives to advance related care.

[Box: see text].

Phase 2 study of the efficacy and safety of ponsegromab in patients with cancer cachexia: PROACC-1 study design.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial metabolic wasting syndrome characterized by anorexia, unintentional loss of weight involving both skeletal muscle and adipose tissues, progressive functional impairment and reduced survival. Therapeutic strategies for this serious condition are very limited. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a cytokine that is implicated in cancer cachexia and may represent both a biomarker of cancer cachexia and a potential therapeutic target. Ponsegromab is a potent and selective humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits GDF-15-mediated signalling. Preclinical and preliminary phase 1 data suggest that ponsegromab-mediated inactivation of circulating GDF-15 may lead to improvement in key characteristics of cachexia. The primary objective of this phase 2 study is to assess the effect of ponsegromab on body weight in patients with cancer, cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations. Secondary objectives include assessing physical activity, physical function, actigraphy, appetite, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and safety. Exploratory objectives include evaluating pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, lumbar skeletal muscle index and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. METHODS: Approximately 168 adults with non-small-cell lung, pancreatic or colorectal cancers who have cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations will be randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT05546476). Participants meeting eligibility criteria will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of three dose groups of ponsegromab (100, 200 or 400 mg) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for an initial 12-week treatment period. This is followed by optional open-label treatment with ponsegromab of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint is mean change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. A mixed model for repeated measures followed by a Bayesian Emax model will be used for the primary analysis. Secondary endpoints include physical activity, physical function and actigraphy measured by remote digital sensors; patient-reported appetite-related symptoms assessed by Functional Assessment of Anorexia-Cachexia Therapy subscale scores; anorexia/appetite, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue evaluated according to questions from the Cancer-Related Cachexia Symptom Diary; and incidence of adverse events, safety laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiogram abnormalities. PERSPECTIVE: Cancer-related cachexia is an area of significant unmet medical need. This study will support the clinical development of ponsegromab as a novel inhibitor of GDF-15, which may ameliorate key pathologies of cancer cachexia to improve patient symptoms, functionality and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05546476.

Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and Immune Gene Expression with Response to PD-1 Blockade by Sasanlimab Across Tumor Types and Routes of Administration.

BACKGROUND: Sasanlimab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1). Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies have improved patient clinical outcomes; however, not all treated patients derive clinical benefit. Further insights on potential biomarkers beyond PD-L1 expression levels would help to identify the patients most likely to respond to treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated tumor biopsies from patients treated with intravenous or subcutaneous sasanlimab to identify biomarkers of response and characterize pharmacodynamic activity. METHODS: Anti-PD-1/PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-naive patients with advanced solid tumors received sasanlimab intravenously at 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n = 23) or subcutaneously at 300 mg every 4 weeks (n = 15). Best tumor percentage change from baseline was determined by RECIST. Whole-exome DNA and RNA sequencing were performed in tumor samples collected from treated patients at protocol-defined timepoints. PD-L1 and CD8 protein expression were evaluated in tumor biopsies by immunohistochemistry. Associations with response were assessed by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Baseline tumor mutational burden (TMB), as well as PD-L1 and CD8 expression, were significantly associated with response to sasanlimab across the multiple dose levels, routes of administration, and range of tumor types evaluated. TMB is an independent biomarker from the various tumor inflammatory genes and signatures evaluated. Gene set enrichment analysis showed that higher baseline expression levels of genes related to the interferon-γ and PD-1 signaling pathways and the cell cycle were significantly associated with response to sasanlimab across tumor types. No differences were observed between routes of administration with regard to response to sasanlimab for the biomarkers of interest (TMB, PD-L1, CD8, and interferon-γ signature). Evaluation of pharmacodynamic changes showed increased tumor expression of genes enriched in adaptive immune response pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate an active, immunomodulatory mechanism for the anti-PD-1 antibody sasanlimab across different tumor types and routes of administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02573259; registered October 2015.

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations.

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

In the last few decades, great progress has been made in developing new treatments for adult cancers. However, development of new treatments for childhood cancers has been much slower. To encourage drug companies (sponsors) to develop effective treatments for childhood cancer, authorities in the United States (US) and Europe have made new rules for drug development. Under these new rules, sponsors developing drugs for specific cancers in adults have to consider whether the target of that drug also causes cancers in children. If this is the case, sponsors have to carry out clinical studies of their drug in children who have cancer that is caused by the same drug target. In this article, we describe some reasons for why drug development for childhood cancers has been slow and the rules created to address this problem in the US and Europe. We share some recommendations to help sponsors maximize their chances of developing an effective drug in children while satisfying the new rules. Specifically, sponsors need to be aware of the differences between studying drugs in adults versus children and how these influence the way the drug is tested. We make several recommendations for each stage of the development process, beginning with what is needed even before human studies begin. Finally, we highlight some issues that sponsors need to think about during drug development, from the preclinical stage (testing drugs in cells and animals) through to clinical testing in adults and pediatric patients with cancer.

Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials.

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African-Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups.

Lay abstract A plain language version of this article is available and is published alongside the paper online: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2020-1262.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time. METHODS: We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019. RESULTS: Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%). CONCLUSION: Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed.

Addressing resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: an urgent unmet need.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of various cancers by reversing the immunosuppressive mechanisms employed by tumors to restore anticancer immunity. Although ICIs have demonstrated substantial clinical efficacy, patient response can vary in depth and duration, and many do not respond at all or eventually develop resistance. ICI resistance mechanisms can be tumor-intrinsic, related to the tumor microenvironment or patient-specific factors. Multiple resistance mechanisms may be present within one tumor subtype, or heterogeneity exists among patients with the same tumor type. Consequently, designing effective combination treatment strategies is challenging. This review will discuss ICI resistance mechanisms, and summarize findings from key preclinical and clinical trials of ICIs, to identify potential treatment strategies or pathways to overcome ICI resistance.

Ovarian cancer: new strategies and emerging targets for the treatment of patients with advanced disease.

Recently approved therapies have contributed to a significant progress in the management of ovarian cancer; yet, more options are needed to further improve outcomes in patients with advanced disease. Here we review the rationale and ongoing clinical trials of novel combination strategies involving chemotherapy, poly ADP ribose polymerase, programmed death 1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand 1 immune checkpoint and/or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors. Further, we discuss novel agents aimed at targets associated with ovarian cancer growth or progression that are emerging as potential new treatment approaches. Among them, agents targeted to folate receptor α, tissue factor, and protein kinase-mediated pathways (WEE1 kinase, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase α, cell cycle checkpoint kinase 1/2, ATR kinase) are currently in clinical development as mono- or combination therapies. If successful, findings from these extensive development efforts may further transform treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Application of Real-World Data to External Control Groups in Oncology Clinical Trial Drug Development.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess overall survival are considered the "gold standard" when evaluating the efficacy and safety of a new oncology intervention. However, single-arm trials that use surrogate endpoints (e.g., objective response rate or duration of response) to evaluate clinical benefit have become the basis for accelerated or breakthrough regulatory approval of precision oncology drugs for cases where the target and research populations are relatively small. Interpretation of efficacy in single-arm trials can be challenging because such studies lack a standard-of-care comparator arm. Although an external control group can be based on data from other clinical trials, using an external control group based on data collected outside of a trial may not only offer an alternative to both RCTs and uncontrolled single-arm trials, but it may also help improve decision-making by study sponsors or regulatory authorities. Hence, leveraging real-world data (RWD) to construct external control arms in clinical trials that investigate the efficacy and safety of drug interventions in oncology has become a topic of interest. Herein, we review the benefits and challenges associated with the use of RWD to construct external control groups, and the relevance of RWD to early oncology drug development.

Humanistic and Economic Burden of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results of Two Systematic Literature Reviews.

PURPOSE: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a malignancy restricted to the inner lining of the bladder. Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) following transurethral resection of the bladder tumor is the mainstay first-line treatment for high-risk NMIBC patients. Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted to further assess the current evidence on BCG use in NMIBC and the humanistic and economic burden of disease. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, Embase® and MEDLINE® were searched using the Ovid platform to identify interventional or real-world evidence studies on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden in NMIBC. Limited evidence was found from initial economic SLR searches in NMIBC, so additional targeted searches for bladder cancer were conducted to expand findings. RESULTS: Fifty-nine publications were included in the HRQoL SLR, of which 23 reported HRQoL and symptoms in NMIBC. At diagnosis, HRQoL was comparable with population norms but worsened considerably 2 years following diagnosis. Maintenance therapy with intravesical BCG was associated with reduced HRQoL, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) resembled typical NMIBC symptoms. Twenty-two studies reported decreasing BCG compliance over time. Common AEs with BCG were frequent urination, lower urinary tract symptoms, pain, and hematuria. Forty-two publications were included in the economic SLR, of which nine assessed healthcare costs and resource use in NMIBC or bladder cancer. High-risk disease and high-intensity treatment were associated with increased healthcare costs. CONCLUSION: NMIBC has a considerable symptomatic, HRQoL, and economic burden. Symptoms persisted and HRQoL worsened despite intravesical BCG treatment. NMIBC is a costly disease, with higher healthcare costs associated with increased risk of disease progression and recurrence. There is a high unmet need for safe and effective treatments that reduce the risk of disease progression and recurrence, provide symptomatic relief, and improve HRQoL for patients.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of epigenetic modifiers for children: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The fifth multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focussed on epigenetic modifier therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. As most mutations in paediatric malignancies influence chromatin-associated proteins or transcription and paediatric cancers are driven by developmental gene expression programs, targeting epigenetic mechanisms is predicted to be a very important therapeutic approach in paediatric cancer. The Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act FDARA amendments to section 505B of the FD&C Act was implemented in August 2020, and as there are many epigenetic targets on the FDA Paediatric Molecular Targets List, clinical evaluation of epigenetic modifiers in paediatric cancers should be considered early in drug development. Companies are also required to submit to the EMA paediatric investigation plans aiming to ensure that the necessary data to support the authorisation of a medicine for children in EU are of high quality and ethically researched. The specific aims of the forum were i) to identify epigenetic targets or mechanisms of action associated with epigenetic modification relevant to paediatric cancers and ii) to define the landscape for paediatric drug development of epigenetic modifier therapies. DNA methyltransferase inhibitors/hypomethylating agents and histone deacetylase inhibitors were largely excluded from discussion as the aim was to discuss those targets for which therapeutic agents are currently in early paediatric and adult development. Epigenetics is an evolving field and could be highly relevant to many paediatric cancers; the biology is multifaceted and new targets are frequently emerging. Targeting epigenetic mechanisms in paediatric malignancy has in most circumstances yet to reach or extend beyond clinical proof of concept, as many targets do not yet have available investigational drugs developed. Eight classes of medicinal products were discussed and prioritised based on the existing level of science to support early evaluation in children: inhibitors of menin, DOT1L, EZH2, EED, BET, PRMT5 and LSD1 and a retinoic acid receptor alpha agonist. Menin inhibitors should be moved rapidly into paediatric development, in view of their biological rationale, strong preclinical activity and ability to fulfil an unmet clinical need. A combination approach is critical for successful utilisation of any epigenetic modifiers (e.g. EZH2 and EED) and exploration of the optimum combination(s) should be supported by preclinical research and, where possible, molecular biomarker validation in advance of clinical translation. A follow-up multistakeholder meeting focussing on BET inhibitors will be held to define how to prioritise the multiple compounds in clinical development that could be evaluated in children with cancer. As epigenetic modifiers are relatively early in development in paediatrics, there is a clear opportunity to shape the landscape of therapies targeting the epigenome in order that efficient and optimum plans for their evaluation in children and adolescents are developed in a timely manner.

The Promise for Histone Methyltransferase Inhibitors for Epigenetic Therapy in Clinical Oncology: A Narrative Review.

Epigenetic processes are essential for normal development and the maintenance of tissue-specific gene expression in mammals. Changes in gene expression and malignant cellular transformation can result from disruption of epigenetic mechanisms, and global disruption in the epigenetic landscape is a key feature of cancer. The study of epigenetics in cancer has revealed that human cancer cells harbor both genetic alterations and epigenetic abnormalities that interplay at all stages of cancer development. Unlike genetic mutations, epigenetic aberrations are potentially reversible through epigenetic therapy, providing a therapeutically relevant treatment option. Histone methyltransferase inhibitors are emerging as an epigenetic therapy approach with great promise in the field of clinical oncology. The recent accelerated approval of the enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2; also known as histone-lysine N-methyltransferase EZH2) inhibitor tazemetostat for metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid sarcoma marks the first approval of such a compound for the treatment of cancer. Many other histone methyltransferase inhibitors are currently in development, some of which are being tested in clinical studies. This review focuses on histone methyltransferase inhibitors, highlighting their potential in the treatment of cancer. We also discuss the role for such epigenetic drugs in overcoming epigenetically driven drug resistance mechanisms, and their value in combination with other therapeutic approaches such as immunotherapy.

Phase 1b study of a small molecule antagonist of human chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (PF-04136309) in combination with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2)/chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (CCR2) axis plays a key role in immunosuppressive properties of the tumor microenvironment, patient prognosis, and chemoresistance. This phase Ib study assessed the effects of the orally administered CCR2 inhibitor PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. Methods Patients received PF-04136309 twice daily (BID) continuously plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability, characterize dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of PF-04136309. Results In all, 21 patients received PF-04136309 at a starting dose of 500 mg or 750 mg BID. The RP2D was identified to be 500 mg BID. Of 17 patients treated at the 500 mg BID starting dose, three (17.6%) experienced a total of four DLTs, including grade 3 dysesthesia, diarrhea, and hypokalemia and one event of grade 4 hypoxia. Relative to the small number of patients (n = 21), a high incidence (24%) of pulmonary toxicity was observed in this study. The objective response rate for 21 patients was 23.8% (95% confidence interval: 8.2-47.2%). Levels of CD14 + CCR2+ inflammatory monocytes (IM) decreased in the peripheral blood, but did not accumulate in the bone marrow. Conclusions PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine had a safety profile that raises concern for synergistic pulmonary toxicity and did not show an efficacy signal above nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02732938.

Peripheral immune-based biomarkers in cancer immunotherapy: can we realize their predictive potential?

The immunologic landscape of the host and tumor play key roles in determining how patients will benefit from immunotherapy, and a better understanding of these factors could help inform how well a tumor responds to treatment. Recent advances in immunotherapy and in our understanding of the immune system have revolutionized the treatment landscape for many advanced cancers. Notably, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has demonstrated durable responses in various malignancies. However, the response to such treatments is variable and currently unpredictable, the availability of predictive biomarkers is limited, and a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to immune checkpoint therapy. Identification and investigation of potential biomarkers that may predict sensitivity to immunotherapy is an area of active research. It is envisaged that a deeper understanding of immunity will aid in harnessing the full potential of immunotherapy, and allow appropriate patients to receive the most appropriate treatments. In addition to the identification of new biomarkers, the platforms and assays required to accurately and reproducibly measure biomarkers play a key role in ensuring consistency of measurement both within and between patients. In this review we discuss the current knowledge in the area of peripheral immune-based biomarkers, drawing information from the results of recent clinical studies of a number of different immunotherapy modalities in the treatment of cancer, including checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor T cells, and anti-cancer vaccines. We also discuss the various technologies and approaches used in detecting and measuring circulatory biomarkers and the ongoing need for harmonization.

Humanistic and economic impact of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of oncology biologics.

More oncology biologics are becoming available for subcutaneous (sc.) administration and are expected to provide useful therapeutic options. We evaluated evidence published in the past 5 years to assess the humanistic and economic impact of sc. versus intravenous administration of approved cancer therapies and identify outcomes favoring either administration route. These publications focused predominantly on healthcare resource utilization and economic outcomes, demonstrating resource and cost savings with sc. administration. Patients reported a better health-related quality of life and preference for sc. formulations. Time-and-motion study analyses confirmed the convenience of sc. administration. These findings suggest that future availability of sc. oncology biologics, especially anti-PD-1/PD-ligand 1 antibodies due to their increased utility in various malignancies, may be beneficial for patients, healthcare providers and payers.

Assessment of Subcutaneous vs Intravenous Administration of Anti-PD-1 Antibody PF-06801591 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial.

IMPORTANCE: We assessed feasibility of monthly subcutaneous administration of PF-06801591, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed cell death (PD-1) receptor and blocks its interaction with PD-1 ligands. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of PF-06801591 administered intravenously vs subcutaneously. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ongoing phase 1, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation study of 40 patients, 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, enrolled between March 8, 2016, and March 5, 2018, from 4 US medical centers. INTERVENTIONS: An intravenous dose of 0.5, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg of PF-06801591 was administered every 3 weeks or a subcutaneous dose of 300 mg was administered every 4 weeks. Dose escalation occurred after 2 to 4 patients were enrolled per dose level, with additional patients enrolled in each cohort for further assessment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end points were dose-limiting toxic effects and safety. Secondary end points included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, PD-1 receptor occupancy, and efficacy. RESULTS: Of 40 enrolled patients (12 men and 28 women; mean [SD] age, 61 [13] years) in this phase 1 dose-escalation trial, 25 received PF-06801591 intravenously at escalating dose levels (0.5, 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg) and 15 patients received the monoclonal antibody subcutaneously at a single dose level. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 4 (16%) patients treated intravenously and 1 (6.7%) patient treated subcutaneously. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 (40%) patients treated intravenously and 3 (20%) treated subcutaneously. No dose-adverse event associations were observed during intravenous dose escalation, and no serious skin toxic effects occurred with subcutaneous delivery. Responses were seen in 5 patients receiving PF-06801591 intravenously and in 2 patients treated subcutaneously for an overall objective response rate of 18.4%. Median overall survival was not reached with intravenous dosing vs 10.7 months with subcutaneous administration. Exposure to PF-06801591 increased in a dose-proportional manner over the range of intravenous doses. Median time to maximum observed serum concentration was 8 days after subcutaneous administration. Full PD-1 receptor occupancy was seen in all dose cohorts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Anti-PD-1 antibody PF-06801591 was tolerable and showed antitumor activity in a variety of tumor types across all dose levels of intravenous and subcutaneous administration. Monthly subcutaneous administration of PF-06801591 offers a convenient, effective alternative to currently available intravenously administered checkpoint inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02573259.

Immunogenicity of immunomodulatory, antibody-based, oncology therapeutics.

The increasing use of multiple immunomodulatory (IMD) agents for cancer therapies (e.g. antibodies targeting immune checkpoints, bispecific antibodies, and chimeric antigen receptor [CAR]-T cells), is raising questions on their potential immunogenicity and effects on treatment. In this review, we outline the mechanisms of action (MOA) of approved, antibody-based IMD agents, potentially related to their immunogenicity, and discuss the reported incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) as well as their clinical relevance in patients with cancer. In addition, we discuss the impact of the administration route and potential strategies to reduce the incidence of ADA and manage treated patients. Analysis of published reports indicated that the risk of immunogenicity did not appear to correlate with the MOA of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies nor to substantially affect treatment with most of these agents in the majority of patients evaluated to date. Treatment with B-cell depleting agents appears associated with a low risk of immunogenicity. No significant difference in ADA incidence was found between the intravenous and subcutaneous administration routes for a panel of non-oncology IMD antibodies. Additionally, while the data suggest a higher likelihood of immunogenicity for antibodies with T-cell or antigen-presenting cell (APC) targets versus B-cell targets, it is possible to have targets expressed on APCs or T cells and still have a low incidence of immunogenicity.

Emerging therapeutic targets for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Although recent advances in the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have significantly improved patient outcomes, advanced prostate cancer is still associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients who develop resistance after multiple lines of therapy. Various cell signaling, DNA repair, and epigenetic enzymatic pathways are being targeted with small-molecule inhibitors in order to identify treatment strategies for patients with CRPC. In this review, we discuss novel targets and agents, studied preclinically and now being validated in clinical trials, including poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP), enhancer of zeste homologue 2 (EZH2), hedgehog pathway, MDM2/p53, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Further, we outline current approaches for novel prostate cancer vaccines such as DCVAC/PCa, PROSTVAC-V/F, MVI-816, CV9104, and PF-06753512. This wide spectrum of potential treatment strategies holds promise for additional improvements in the treatment of patients with CRPC, as these novel agents are aimed at targets known to be associated with growth and malignant progression of prostate cancer. If primary study endpoints are met, findings from ongoing phase III trials of well-tolerated and active combinations may provide new effective treatment options for advanced prostate cancer and thereby contribute to enhanced disease control in CRPC patients.

Bispecific Antibodies in the Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies.

Monoclonal antibody therapies are an important approach for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, but typically show low single-agent activity. Bispecific antibodies, however, redirect immune cells to the tumor for subsequent lysis, and preclinical and accruing clinical data support single-agent efficacy of these agents in hematologic malignancies, presaging an exciting era in the development of novel bispecific formats. This review discusses recent developments in this area, highlighting the challenges in delivering effective immunotherapies for patients.

Assessment of denosumab treatment effects and imaging response in patients with giant cell tumor of bone.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab has been shown to reduce tumor size and progression, reform mineralized bone, and increase intralesional bone density in patients with giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB); however, radiologic assessment of tumors in bone is challenging. The study objective was to assess tumor response to denosumab using three different imaging parameters in a prespecified analysis in patients with GCTB from two phase 2 studies. METHODS: The studies enrolled adults and adolescents (skeletally mature and at least 12 years of age) with radiographically measurable GCTB that were given denosumab 120 mg every 4 weeks, with additional doses on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1. The proportion of patients with an objective tumor response was assessed using either Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer response criteria (positron emission tomography [PET] scan criteria), or inverse Choi density/size (ICDS) criteria. Target lesions were measured by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (both studies), PET (study 2 only), or plain film radiograph (study 2 only). RESULTS: Most patients (71.6%) had an objective tumor response by at least one response criteria. Per RECIST, 25.1% of patients had a response; per PET scan criteria, 96.2% had a response; per ICDS, 76.1% had a response. 68.5% had an objective tumor response ≥ 24 weeks. Using any criteria, crude incidence of response ranged from 56% (vertebrae/skull) to 91% (lung/soft tissue), and 98.2% had tumor control ≥ 24 weeks. Reduced PET avidity appeared to be an early sign of response to denosumab treatment. CONCLUSION: Modified PET scan criteria and ICDS criteria indicate that most patients show responses and higher benefit rates than modified RECIST, and therefore may be useful for early assessment of response to denosumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical Trials Registry NCT00396279 (retrospectively registered November 6, 2006) and NCT00680992 (retrospectively registered May 20, 2008).