Complete Remission with Partial Hematological Recovery as a Palliative Endpoint for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Complete remission with partial hematological recovery (CRh) has been used as an efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of nonmyelosuppressive drugs for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted a pooled analysis to characterize the clinical outcomes for patients with AML who achieved CRh after treatment with ivosidenib, olutasidenib, enasidenib, or gilteritinib monotherapy in clinical trials used to support marketing applications. The study cohort included 841 adult patients treated at the recommended drug dosage; 64.6% were red blood cell or platelet transfusion dependent at study baseline. Correlations between disease response and outcomes were assessed by logistic regression modeling for categorical variables and by Cox proportional hazards modeling for time-to-event variables. In comparison to patients with no response (NR), those with CRh had a higher proportion with transfusion independence (TI) for at least 56 days (92.3% vs 22.3%, p < 0.0001) or TI for at least 112 days (63.5% vs 8.7%, p < 0.0001), a reduced risk over time for severe infection (HR 0.43, p = 0.0007) or severe bleeding (HR 0.17, p = 0.01), and a longer overall survival (OS) (HR 0.31, p < 0.0001). The effects were consistent across drugs. In comparison to patients with CR, the effect sizes for CRh were similar for TI-56 and for risk over time of infection or bleeding but less for TI-112 and OS. CRh is associated with clinical benefits consistent with clinically meaningful palliative effects for treatment of AML with nonmyelosuppressive drugs, although less robustly than for CR.

Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

FDA Approval Summary: Revised Indication and Dosing Regimen for Ponatinib Based on the Results of the OPTIC Trial.

On December 18, 2020, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a supplemental application for ponatinib extending the indication in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) to patients with resistance or intolerance of at least 2 prior kinase inhibitors. Ponatinib was initially approved in December 2012 but was briefly voluntarily withdrawn due to serious safety concerns including the risk of arterial occlusive events (AOE). It returned to the market in December 2013 with an indication limited to patients with T315I mutation or for whom no other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy was indicated with revised warnings and precautions. A post-marketing requirement was issued to identify the optimal safe and effective dose for CP-CML. Thus, the OPTIC trial was performed, which randomized patients to 1 of 3 doses, 45 mg, 30 mg, or 15 mg, with a dose reduction to 15 mg on achievement of MR2 (BCR-ABLIS ≤1%). Patients enrolled were treated with at least 2 prior TKIs or had a T315I mutation. Patients with a history of clinically significant, uncontrolled, or active cardiovascular disease were excluded. Efficacy was established on an interim analysis based on the rate of MR2 at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat population of 261 patients, with 88, 86, and 87 patients in the 45, 30, and 15 mg cohorts, respectively. With a median follow-up of 28 months, the rate of achievement of MR2 at 12 months was 42%, 28%, and 24% in the respective cohorts. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in prior evaluations of ponatinib with notable adverse reactions including pancreatitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, liver dysfunction, and AOE. Of patients treated at the 45/15 mg dose, AOEs were seen in 13%, with a higher rate being observed in patients age 65 or older compared to younger patients. A readjudication of AOEs seen on the prior pivotal phase 2 study resulted in a rate of 26%. Overall, the results supported a modification of the recommended dose for patients with CP-CML to 45 mg until the achievement of MR2 followed by a reduction to 15 mg. The expansion of the indication to patients with exposure to 2 prior TKIs was approved given data showing that ponatinib could be successfully used for the treatment of this population with appropriate monitoring and screening for risk factors.

FDA Approval Summary: Ruxolitinib for Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after Failure of One or Two Lines of Systemic Therapy.

On September 22, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved ruxolitinib for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Approval was based on Study INCB 18424-365 (REACH-3; CINC424D2301; NCT03112603), a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of ruxolitinib in comparison to best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD occurring after the allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 329 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily (n = 165) or BAT (n = 164). BAT was selected by the investigator prior to randomization. The overall response rate through Cycle 7 Day 1 was 70% (95% CI, 63-77) in the ruxolitinib arm, and 57% (95% CI, 49-65) in the BAT arm. The median duration of response, calculated from first response to progression, death, or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD, was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.7) for the ruxolitinib arm and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.2) for the BAT arm; and the median time from first response to death or initiation of new systemic therapies for cGVHD was 25 months (95% CI, 16.8-not estimable) for the ruxolitinib arm and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-7.8) for the BAT arm. Common adverse reactions included anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infections. Given the observed response rate with durability, the clinical benefit of ruxolitinib appears to outweigh the risks of treatment for cGVHD after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy.

Impact of an evolving regulatory landscape on skin cancer drug development in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid proliferation of FDA-approved medications with labeled indications for skin cancer over the last decade, with particular growth over the last 5 years. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the impact of an evolving U.S. regulatory framework on drug development programs to better understand current trends and regulatory considerations when adjudicating drug approvals for patients with skin cancer. METHODS: We reviewed publicly-available regulatory documents of all systemic medications with a labeled indication for skin cancer. RESULTS: We identified 130 FDA approvals that resulted in a unique indication, usage, formulation, or dosage change in skin cancer since 1949. LIMITATIONS: Publicly available data from the mid-to-late 20th century is limited. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic landscape in skin cancer has changed greatly since the first approval in 1949. In concert, regulatory medicine has also evolved over the last 70 years with the aim of ensuring safe and effective medicines for a diverse array of patients.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 µg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient. FUNDING: None.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health.

BACKGROUND: To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type. RESULTS: Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed. CONCLUSION: PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab and Durvalumab in Combination with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to atezolizumab and durvalumab in March of 2019 and 2020, respectively, for use in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. These approvals were based on data from two randomized controlled trials, IMpower133 (atezolizumab) and CASPIAN (durvalumab). Both trials demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS) with anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies when added to platinum-based chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone. In IMpower133, patients receiving atezolizumab with etoposide and carboplatin demonstrated improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91; p = .0069), with median OS of 12.3 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and carboplatin. In CASPIAN, patients receiving durvalumab with etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin also demonstrated improved OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; p = .0047) with median OS of 13.0 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with known toxicities of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapies. This review summarizes the FDA perspective and data supporting the approval of these two agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Effective therapeutic options for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are limited, and there has been modest improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with SCLC over the past 3 decades. The approvals of atezolizumab and of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC represent the first approved therapies with OS benefit for this patient population since the approval of etoposide in combination with other approved chemotherapeutic agents. Additionally, the efficacy results from IMpower133 and CASPIAN lay the groundwork for possible further evaluation in other treatment settings in this disease.

Cabozantinib plus docetaxel and prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib combined with docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase 1/2 multicentre study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks with daily prednisone 10 mg) was combined with escalating doses of daily cabozantinib (20, 40 and 60 mg). Based on the results of the phase 1 study, the investigation was expanded into a randomized study of docetaxel with prednisone (hereafter 'docetaxel/prednisone') plus the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cabozantinib compared with docetaxel/prednisone alone. RESULTS: A total of 44 men with mCRPC were enrolled in this phase 1/2 trial. An MTD of 40 mg cabozantinib plus docetaxel/prednisone was determined. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenic fever and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and there was one death attributable to a thromboembolic event. In addition, grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, hypophosphataemia and neuropathy were seen in three or more patients. In the phase 1 study, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) time were 13.6 and 16.3 months, respectively. In the phase 2 study, which was terminated early because of poor accrual, the median TTP and OS favoured the combination (n = 13) compared to docetaxel/prednisone alone (n = 12; 21.0 vs 6.6 months; P = 0.035 and 23.8 vs 15.6 months; P = 0.072, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite the limited number of patients in this study, preliminary data suggest that cabozantinib can be safely added to docetaxel/prednisone with possible enhanced efficacy.

US Food and Drug Administration regulatory updates in neuro-oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Contemporary management of patients with neuro-oncologic disease requires an understanding of approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to nervous system tumors. To summarize FDA updates applicable to neuro-oncology practitioners, we sought to review oncology product approvals and Guidances that were pertinent to the field in the past year. METHODS: Oncology product approvals between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed for clinical trial outcomes involving tumors of the nervous system. FDA Guidances relevant to neuro-oncology were also reviewed. RESULTS: Five oncology product approvals described outcomes for nervous system tumors in the year 2020. These included the first regulatory approval for neurofibromatosis type 1: selumetinib for children with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Additionally, there were 4 regulatory approvals for non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers that described clinical outcomes for patients with brain metastases. These included the approval of tucatinib for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer including patients with brain metastases, brigatinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pralsetinib and selpercatinib for RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Finally, two FDA Guidances for Industry, "Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Brain Metastases" and "Evaluating Cancer Drugs in Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases" were published to facilitate drug development for and inclusion of patients with CNS metastases in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of the past year brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continues to be made in neuro-oncology. These include first-of-their-kind FDA approvals and Guidances that are relevant to the management of patients with nervous system tumors.

CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are indicated with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adding CDKIs to endocrine therapy in patients whose tumours might have differing degrees of endocrine sensitivity. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from all phase 3 randomised breast cancer trials of CDKIs plus endocrine therapy submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Jan 1, 2019, in support of marketing applications. Our pooled analysis included all randomly assigned patients in these trials who received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo with endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor [letrozole or anastrazole] or fulvestrant). We did prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with progesterone receptor-negative disease; patients with a disease-free interval of 12 months or less; patients with de-novo metastases, lobular histology, and bone-only disease; patients with visceral metastases; and patients aged up to 40 years. Patients who were not treated, who received tamoxifen as endocrine therapy, or who were treated with an aromatase inhibitor but who had received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (not first-line) were excluded from our pooled analyses. All studies had a primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer progression or death, whichever occurred first. Median progression-free survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival were estimated by means of Cox regression models. FINDINGS: The seven studies meeting this study's inclusion criteria were done between Feb 22, 2013, and Nov 3, 2017, with a median duration of follow-up of 19·7 months (IQR 15·9-25·9). 4200 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 1320 received an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDKI, 932 received placebo plus an aromatase inhibitor, 1296 received fulvestrant plus a CDKI, and 652 received fulvestrant plus placebo. Across all seven pooled trials, the difference in estimated median progression-free survival was 8·8 months in favour of CDKI plus endocrine therapy over placebo plus endocrine therapy (range across the trials 6·8-13·3 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·54-0·64). Progression-free survival results favoured the CDKI group in all prespecified clinicopathological subgroups analysed, with similar HRs to that for the broader intended-use population. In first-line aromatase inhibitor-treated patients (n=2252), the median progression-free survival in the CDKI plus aromatase inhibitor group was 28·0 months (95% CI 25·3-29·1) versus 14·9 months (14·0-16·7) in the placebo plus aromatase inhibitor group (difference 13·1 months; range across the trials 13·0-13·3 months; HR 0·55, 95% CI 0·49-0·62). In first-line fulvestrant-treated patients (n=396), the median progression-free survival was 18·6 months (95% CI 14·8-23·5) in the placebo plus fulvestrant group and not estimable (22·4 to not estimable) in the CDKI plus fulvestrant group (difference not estimable; HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·42-0·80). In the patients treated with fulvestrant in the second-line setting and beyond (n=1552), the difference in estimated median progression-free survival between the CDKI plus fulvestrant group and the placebo plus fulvestrant group was 6·9 months in favour of the CDKI group (range across the trials 5·5-7·3 months; HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·49-0·64). INTERPRETATION: Since the addition of CDKI to endocrine therapy seemed to benefit all clinicopathological subgroups of interest in this pooled analysis, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups for whom endocrine therapy alone might be appropriate for first-line or second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

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.

Patient reported outcomes in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to capture the patient's experience with disease and treatment. Immunotherapy agents including the anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies have unique symptomatic side effects and patient-reported outcome data can help to characterize the benefits and burdens associated with therapy. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in the Food and Drug Administration database for five anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies to characterize trial design and patient-reported outcome assessment strategy (cutoff 31 December 2017). We evaluated the patient-reported outcome measurement coverage of eight key symptoms related to adverse events reported in immunotherapy agent product labels (fatigue, diarrhea, cough, shortness of breath, musculoskeletal pain, rash, pruritus, and fever). RESULTS: There were a total of 28 trials across seven disease types and one tumor agnostic indication reviewed, of which 17 were randomized and 25 were open label. Of the 28 trials, 21 contained patient-reported outcome measures and all 21 used >1 instrument. The most common instruments were the EuroQol five dimension (N = 19), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (N = 17). Disease-specific patient-reported outcome tools were included in nine trials (six lung, one head and neck, one melanoma and one renal cell). No trial used a patient-reported outcome strategy assessing all eight selected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Collection of patient-reported outcome data in anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor trials were variable and did not consistently assess important symptomatic adverse events. Use of a patient-reported outcome instrument with well-defined functional scales supplemented by item libraries to incorporate relevant symptomatic adverse events may allow for improved understanding of the patient experience while receiving therapy. These data, along with other clinical data such as hospitalizations and supportive care medication use can help inform the benefit-risk assessment for regulatory purposes.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. METHODS: For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts. FINDINGS: Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669). INTERPRETATION: Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile. FUNDING: None.

Phase II trial of docetaxel, bevacizumab, lenalidomide and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and clinical efficacy of two anti-angiogenic agents, bevacizumab and lenalidomide, with docetaxel and prednisone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in this open-label, phase II study of lenalidomide with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) ) and prednisone (10 mg daily). Docetaxel and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of a 3-week treatment cycle. To establish safety, lenalidomide dosing in this combination was escalated in a conventional 3 + 3 design (15, 20 and 25 mg daily for 2 weeks followed by 1 week off). Patients received supportive measures including prophylactic pegfilgrastim and enoxaparin. The primary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients enrolled in this trial. Toxicities were manageable with most common adverse events (AEs) being haematological, and were ascertained by weekly blood counts. Twenty-nine patients (46%) had grade 4 neutropenia, 20 (32%) had grade 3 anaemia and seven (11%) had grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Despite frequent neutropenia, serious infections were rare. Other common non-haematological grade 3 AEs included fatigue (10%) and diarrhoea (10%). Grade 2 AEs in >10% of patients included anorexia, weight loss, constipation, osteonecrosis of the jaw, rash and dyspnoea. Of 61 evaluable patients, 57 (93%), 55 (90%) and 33 (54%) had PSA declines of >30, >50 and >90%, respectively. Of the 29 evaluable patients, 24 (86%) had a confirmed radiographic partial response. The median times to progression and overall survival were 18.2 and 24.6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate supportive measures, combination angiogenesis inhibition can be safely administered and potentially provide clinical benefit. These hypothesis-generating data would require randomized trials to confirm the findings.

FDA Approval Summary: Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

In February 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy targeting the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), for adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after ≥4 lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Approval was based on overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate and duration of response (DOR) in 97 adult patients in a single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial (CARTITUDE-1 [NCT03548207]). Patients received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel, preceded by lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Of the 97 patients evaluable, ORR was 97.9% (95% CI: 92.7, 99.7) with stringent CR rate of 78.4% (95% CI: 68.8, 86.1). After median follow-up of 18 months, median DOR was 21.8 months (95% CI: 21.8, not estimable [NE]) in responders (PR or better) and NE (95% CI: 21.8 months, NE) in patients who achieved stringent CR. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 55% of 97 patients evaluated for safety. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities occurred in 5% and 11%, respectively, leading to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. Neurologic toxicities included immune effector cell associated neurologic syndrome (ICANS) typically seen with CAR-T products, Parkinsonism, peripheral neuropathy, cranial nerve palsies and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). One fatal case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome occurred. Prolonged and recurrent grade 3 or 4 cytopenias occurred; a single patient required hematopoietic stem cell rescue.