The National Conference on Health Disparities Student Research Forum.

The annual National Conference on Health Disparities (NCHD) was launched in 2000. It unites health professionals, researchers, community leaders, and government officials, and is a catalyzing force in developing policies, research interventions, and programs that address prevention, social determinants, health disparities, and health equity. The NCHD Student Research Forum (SRF) was established in 2011 at the Medical University of South Carolina to build high-quality biomedical research presentation capacity in primarily underrepresented undergraduate and graduate/professional students. This paper describes the unique research training and professional development aspects of the NCHD SRF. These include guidance in abstract development, a webinar on presentation techniques and methods, a vibrant student-centric conference, and professional development workshops on finding a mentor and locating scholarship/fellowship funding, networking, and strategies for handling ethical issues in research with mentors. Between 2011 and 2018, 400 undergraduate and graduate/professional students participated in the NCHD SRF. Most students were women (80.5%). Approximately half were African American or black (52.3%), 18.0% were white, and 21.3% were of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. The NCHD SRF is unique in several ways. First, it provides detailed instructions on developing a scientific abstract, including content area examples. Second, it establishes a mandatory pre-conference training webinar demonstrating how to prepare a scientific poster. Third, it works with the research mentors, faculty advisors, department chairs, and deans to help identify potential sources of travel funding for students with accepted abstracts. These features make the NCHD SRF different from many other conferences focused on students' scientific presentations.

ALT-803, an IL-15 superagonist, in combination with nivolumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade fails to induce a response in about 80% of patients with unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and many of those who do initially respond then develop resistance to treatment. Agonists that target the shared interleukin-2 (IL-2) and IL-15Rßγ pathway have induced complete and durable responses in some cancers, but no studies have been done to assess the safety or efficacy of these agonists in combination with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. We aimed to define the safety, tolerability, and activity of this drug combination in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously treated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC from three academic hospitals in the USA. Key eligibility criteria included measurable disease, eligibility to receive anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab intravenously at 3 mg/kg (then 240 mg when US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved dosing changed) every 14 days (either as new treatment or continued treatment at the time of disease progression) and the IL-15 superagonist ALT-803 subcutaneously once per week on weeks 1-5 of four 6-week cycles for 6 months. ALT-803 was administered at one of four escalating dose concentrations: 6, 10, 15, or 20 µg/kg. The primary endpoint was to define safety and tolerability and to establish a recommended phase 2 dose of ALT-803 in combination with nivolumab. Analyses were per-protocol and included any patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523469; phase 2 enrolment of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2016, and June 28, 2017, 23 patients were enrolled and 21 were treated at four dose levels of ALT-803 in combination with nivolumab. Two patients did not receive treatment because of the development of inter-current illness during enrolment, one patient due to leucopenia and one patient due to pulmonary dysfunction. No dose-limiting toxicities were recorded and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions (in 19 [90%] of 21 patients) and flu-like symptoms (15 [71%]). The most common grade 3 adverse events, occurring in two patients each, were lymphocytopenia and fatigue. A grade 3 myocardial infarction occurred in one patient. No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were recorded. The recommended phase 2 dose of ALT-803 is 20 µg/kg given once per week subcutaneously in combination with 240 mg intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks. INTERPRETATION: ALT-803 in combination with nivolumab can be safely administered in an outpatient setting. The promising clinical activity observed with the addition of ALT-803 to the regimen of patients with PD-1 monoclonal antibody relapsed and refractory disease shows evidence of anti-tumour activity for a new class of agents in NSCLC. FUNDING: Altor BioScience (a NantWorks company), National Institutes of Health, and Medical University of South Carolina Hollings Cancer Center.

A Randomized Phase II Open-Label Multi-Institution Study of the Combination of Bevacizumab and Erlotinib Compared to Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the combination of bevacizumab (B) and erlotinib (E) compared to sorafenib (S) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: A total of 90 patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A-B7 cirrhosis, and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive either 10 mg/kg B intravenously every 14 days and 150 mg E orally daily (n = 47) (B+E) or 400 mg S orally twice daily (n = 43). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), objective response rate based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), time to progression, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: The median OS was 8.55 months (95% CI: 7.00-13.9) for patients treated with B+E and 8.55 months (95% CI: 5.69-12.2) for patients receiving S. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.57-1.47). The median EFS was 4.37 months (95% CI: 2.99-7.36) for patients receiving B+E and 2.76 months (95% CI: 1.84-4.80) for patients receiving S. The HR for EFS was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.42-1.07; p = 0.09), favoring B+E over S. When OS was assessed among patients who were Child-Pugh class A, the median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI: 7.5-15.7) for patients treated with B+E (n = 39) and 10.26 months (95% CI: 5.9-13.0) for patients treated with S (n = 38) (HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.53-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in efficacy between the B+E and S arms, although the safety and tolerability profile tended to favor B+E over S based on competing risk analysis.