Assessment of hyperprogression versus the natural course of disease development with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab versus placebo in phase III, randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have suggested a potential risk of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We compared the incidence of HPD during treatment with nivolumab±ipilimumab versus natural tumor progression with placebo in post hoc analyses of two randomized, double-blind clinical trials. METHODS: ATTRACTION-2 randomized patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) and progression on ≥2 prior regimens to nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W or placebo. CheckMate 451 randomized patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) and ongoing complete/partial response or stable disease after first-line chemotherapy to nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, nivolumab 1 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W for four doses then nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or placebo. Patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug and with tumor scans at baseline and the first on-treatment evaluation were included in the HPD analyses. HPD definitions were ≥20%, ≥50%, and ≥100% increase in target lesion sum of the longest diameters (SLD) at the first on-treatment assessment. RESULTS: In the ATTRACTION-2 HPD-evaluable population, 243 patients received nivolumab and 115 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (33.7% vs 46.1%) and ≥50% (6.2% vs 11.3%); similar proportions had increases in SLD ≥100% (1.6% vs 1.7%). In the CheckMate 451 HPD-evaluable population, 177 patients received nivolumab, 179 nivolumab+ipilimumab, and 175 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (27.1%, 27.4% vs 45.7%), ≥50% (10.2%, 11.2% vs 22.3%), and ≥100% (2.8%, 2.8% vs 6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab±ipilimumab was not associated with an increased rate of progression versus placebo in patients with GC, GEJC, or ED SCLC, suggesting that previous reports of HPD may reflect the natural disease course in some patients rather than ICI-mediated progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02538666; NCT02267343.

Clinical Benefit-Risk Assessment of Nivolumab 240 mg Every 2 Weeks in Chinese Patients With Advanced and Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks is approved in China by the National Medical Product Agency for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and gastric cancer, based on population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analyses and benefit-risk assessment of safety/efficacy in solid tumors, including Chinese and global populations. The aim of this assessment was to investigate exposure and risk for adverse events (AEs) with flat dosing compared with weight-based dosing. Nivolumab 240-mg and 3-mg/kg every-2-week exposures in Chinese patients were simulated using PPK modeling, and AEs in Chinese and pooled global populations were compared by dosing regimen, exposure, and weight. The 10-mg/kg every-2-week regimen was included because it is known to be well tolerated. Predicted nivolumab exposure in Chinese patients receiving 240 mg every 2 weeks was ∼25% higher versus 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, but ∼60% lower versus 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Grade 3/4 AE incidence in Chinese patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks was similar with 240-mg every-2-week dosing and with patients from global populations treated with 3 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. There was no trend toward increased AE incidence with high versus low nivolumab exposure or in global patients of varying body weight receiving 3 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Objective response rates were similar in Chinese and global patients with squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC. Results showed that benefit-risk profiles with nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks were similar to those of the 3-mg/kg every-2-week regimen in Chinese patients and global populations, providing an alternative treatment option to Chinese patients.

Breast cancer survivorship care beyond local and systemic therapy.

Despite persistent inequities in access to care and treatments, advances in combined modality care have led to a steady improvement in outcomes for breast cancer patients across the globe. When estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit of therapies, providers and patients must contend with a multitude of factors that impact treatment decisions and can have long-term effects on quality of life and survival. These include commonly described early toxicities, like aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome and neuropathy. But longer-term comorbidities often observed among cancer survivors including weight gain, obesity, infertility, psychological distress, sexual dysfunction, second cancers, bone loss, and body image issues can have lasting effects on quality of life. Equally important, system-level factors such as access to care and resource allocation can have a systemic impact on survival and on the quality of survivorship. Financial toxicity including underemployment can have a lasting impact on patients and caregivers. The resulting disparities in access to treatment can help explain much of the observed variability in outcomes, even within high-income countries like the US. This article revisits some of secondary effects from therapies discussed in a prior 2015 review article, along with other impediments to the optimal delivery of breast cancer care that can affect patients anywhere.

An Integrated Assessment of the Effects of Immunogenicity on the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Efficacy of Elotuzumab.

Elotuzumab is a humanized, immunostimulatory anti-signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) IgG1 monoclonal antibody indicated in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received 1-3 prior therapies. We assessed the immunogenicity of elotuzumab as a monotherapy and in combination with bortezomib/dexamethasone and lenalidomide/dexamethasone in patients with MM in five clinical studies, including the pivotal ELOQUENT-2 trial (NCT01239797). Anti-drug antibody (ADA) prevalence was determined using a validated bridging assay. The prevalence of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) was assessed in ADA-positive samples from ELOQUENT-2. Data from four trials of elotuzumab combined with lenalidomide/dexamethasone or bortezomib/dexamethasone (n = 390 evaluable patients) demonstrated that nine (2.3%) patients were ADA positive in baseline assays, 72 (18.5%) were ADA positive on-treatment or during follow-up, and two (0.5%) developed persistent ADAs. Patients treated with elotuzumab monotherapy had a higher incidence of elotuzumab ADAs than those on the combination therapy. In general, ADAs developed early and resolved after 2-4 months. Of 45 on-treatment ADA-positive patients in ELOQUENT-2, 19 had NAbs. Population pharmacokinetic modeling demonstrated an apparent increase in target-mediated elimination (higher V max, lower K M) in ADA-positive versus ADA-negative patients. ADAs were associated with lower elotuzumab steady-state exposure; however, this result may have been confounded by differential myeloma protein levels. ADAs/NAbs were not associated with hypersensitivity, infusion reactions, or loss of elotuzumab efficacy. Using a novel visualization, we also demonstrate that there is no clear relationship between the occurrence and titer values of ADA/NAbs and progression-free survival and best overall response status in patients treated with elotuzumab.