Safety profile of pembrolizumab monotherapy based on an aggregate safety evaluation of 8937 patients.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab has a manageable safety profile as described in its label, which was primarily based on 2799 patients who participated in clinical trials for melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we evaluated the safety of pembrolizumab in a broader population of patients from 31 advanced cancer clinical trials across 19 cancer types. METHODS: Safety was analyzed in patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks [Q3W], 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W, or 2 mg/kg Q3W). Adverse events (AEs) and immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: Safety data from 8937 patients in 31 trials of pembrolizumab monotherapy were pooled (median, seven administrations; range, 1-59). Median duration on treatment was 4.1 months (range, 0.03-40.1). AEs occurred in 96.6% of patients. Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 50.6% of patients. AEs led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 12.7% of patients and death in 5.9%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 23.7% of patients (4.6% experienced multiple immune-mediated AEs/infusion reactions) and led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 3.6% and death in 0.2%. Grade 3-5 immune-mediated AEs occurred in 6.3% of patients. Serious immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 6.0% of patients. Median time to immune-mediated AE onset was 85 days (range, 13-163). Of 2657 immune-mediated AEs, 22.3% were initially treated with prednisone ≥ 40 mg/day or equivalent, and 8.3% were initially treated with lower steroid doses. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of 31 clinical trials showed that pembrolizumab has a consistent safety profile across indications.

Using artificial intelligence tools in answering important clinical questions: The KEYNOTE-183 multiple myeloma experience.

The phase III, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-183 study (NCT02576977) evaluating pomalidomide and low dose dexamethasone (standard-of-care [SOC]) with or without pembrolizumab in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) was placed on full clinical hold by the US FDA on July 03, 2017 due to an imbalance in the number of deaths between arms. Clinically-led subgroup analyses are typically used to shed light on clinical findings. However, this approach is not always successful. We propose a systematic approach using the artificial intelligence tools to identifying risk factors and subgroups contributing to the overall death (prognostic) or to the excess death observed in the pembrolizumab plus SOC arm (predictive) of the KEYNOTE-183 study. In KEYNOTE-183, with a data cutoff date of June 02, 2017, we identified plasmacytoma as a prognostic factor, and ECOG performance status as a predictive factor of death. In addition, a qualitative interaction was observed between ECOG performance status and the treatment arm. The subsequent subgroup analysis based on ECOG performance status confirmed that more deaths were associated with pembrolizumab plus SOC versus SOC alone in patients with ECOG performance status 1.

A randomized phase II trial of ridaforolimus, dalotuzumab, and exemestane compared with ridaforolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether adding humanized monoclonal insulin growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) antibody (dalotuzumab) to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (ridaforolimus) plus aromatase inhibitor (exemestane) improves outcomes in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase II trial enrolled 80 postmenopausal women with high-proliferation (Ki67 index staining ≥15%), ER-positive breast cancer that progressed after a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NCT01605396). Randomly assigned patients were given oral ridaforolimus 10 mg QD 5 ×/week, intravenous dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg/week, and oral exemestane 25 mg/day (R/D/E, n = 40), or ridaforolimus 30 mg QD 5 ×/week and exemestane 25 mg/day (R/E; n = 40). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 23.3 weeks for R/D/E versus 31.9 weeks for R/E (hazard ratio 1.18; 80% CI 0.81-1.72; P = 0.565). Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 67.5% of patients in the R/E arm and 59.0% in the R/D/E arm. Stomatitis (95.0 vs. 76.9%; P = 0.021) and pneumonitis (22.5 vs. 5.1%; P = 0.027) occurred more frequently in the R/E than the R/D/E arm; hyperglycemia (27.5 vs. 28.2%) occurred at a similar rate. CONCLUSIONS: R/D/E did not improve PFS compared with R/E. Because the PFS reported for R/E was similar to that reported for everolimus plus exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer, it is possible that lower-dose ridaforolimus in the R/D/E arm (from overlapping toxicities with IGF1R inhibitor) contributed to lack of improved PFS.

A phase II study of combined ridaforolimus and dalotuzumab compared with exemestane in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Combining the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus and the anti-IGFR antibody dalotuzumab demonstrated antitumor activity, including partial responses, in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced breast cancer, especially in high proliferation tumors (Ki67 > 15%). METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, international, phase II study enrolled postmenopausal women with advanced ER-positive breast cancer previously treated with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NCT01234857). Patients were randomized to either oral ridaforolimus 30 mg daily for 5 of 7 days (once daily [qd] × 5 days/week) plus intravenous dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg/week or oral exemestane 25 mg/day, and stratified by Ki67 status. Due to a high incidence of stomatitis in the ridaforolimus-dalotuzumab group, two sequential, nonrandomized, reduced-dose cohorts were explored with ridaforolimus 20 and 10 mg qd × 5 days/week. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 21.4 weeks for ridaforolimus 30 mg qd × 5 days/week plus dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg (n = 29) and 24.3 weeks for exemestane (n = 33; hazard ratio = 1.00; P = 0.5). Overall survival and objective response rates were similar between treatment arms. The incidence of drug-related, nonserious, and serious adverse events was higher with ridaforolimus/dalotuzumab (any ridaforolimus dose) than with exemestane. Lowering the ridaforolimus dose reduced the incidence of grade 3 stomatitis, but overall toxicity remained higher than acceptable at all doses without improved efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ridaforolimus plus dalotuzumab was no more effective than exemestane in patients with advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and the incidence of adverse events was higher. Therefore, the combination is not being further pursued.

Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have few treatment options. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pembrolizumab, a humanised anti-programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) antibody, in patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: This study was an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b trial of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Patients were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 18 years or older, had a confirmed diagnosis of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and had any level of PD-L1 expression (ie, at least 1% of tumour cells or stroma that were PD-L1-positive by immunohistochemistry). Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Primary outcomes were safety in the per-protocol population and the proportion of patients with centrally reviewed overall response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Overall response was analysed in the full analysis set, which was defined as all patients who had received at least one dose of pembrolizumab, had measurable disease at baseline, and one post-baseline scan or patients without a post-baseline scan who discontinued therapy because of disease progression or a drug-related adverse event. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01848834 and is ongoing, but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Of the 104 patients screened between June 7, 2013, and Oct 3, 2013, 81 (78%) were PD-L1-positive. Of these, 60 patients with PD-L1-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were enrolled and treated: 23 (38%) were HPV-positive and 37 (62%) were HPV-negative. Pembrolizumab was well tolerated, with 10 (17%) of 60 patients having grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events, the most common of which were increases in alanine aminotransferase and in aspartate aminotransferase, and hyponatraemia, each occurring in two of 60 patients; one patient developed a grade 3 drug-related rash. 27 (45%) of 60 patients experienced a serious adverse event. There were no drug-related deaths. The proportion of patients with an overall response by central imaging review was 18% (eight of 45 patients; 95% CI 8-32) in all patients and was 25% (four of 16 patients; 7-52) in HPV-positive patients and 14% (four of 29 patients; 4-32) in HPV-negative patients. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab was well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, supporting further study of pembrolizumab as anticancer therapy for advanced head and neck cancers. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

VANTAGE 095: An International, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of Vorinostat (MK-0683) in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The present global, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb study was designed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral vorinostat combined with standard doses of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma considered refractory to novel myeloma agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years, had received ≥ 2 previous regimens, had disease refractory to ≥ 1 previous bortezomib-containing regimen, and had received ≥ 1 dose of an immunomodulatory drug (thalidomide or lenalidomide)-based regimen. The patients received 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) plus oral vorinostat (400 mg/d on days 1-14). Oral dexamethasone, 20 mg, on the day of and the day after each dose of bortezomib could be added for patients with progressive disease after 2 cycles or no change after 4 cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: The objective response rate was 11.3% (95% confidence interval, 6.6%-17.7%), and the median duration of response was 211 days (range, 64-550 days). The median overall survival duration was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval, 8.5-14.4 months), with a 2-year survival rate of 32%. The frequently reported adverse events were thrombocytopenia (69.7%), nausea (57.0%), diarrhea (53.5%), anemia (52.1%), and fatigue (48.6%); the overall safety profile was consistent with that of bortezomib and vorinostat. CONCLUSION: The combination of vorinostat and bortezomib is active in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to novel treatment modalities and offers a new therapeutic option for this difficult-to-treat patient population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00773838).

The BATTLE trial: a bold step toward improving the efficiency of biomarker-based drug development.

Successful completion of the Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial, reported in this issue of Cancer Discovery, is an important advance in the effort to improve clinical trial approaches to the simultaneous development of new therapeutics with matching diagnostic tests so that patients most likely to benefit from these therapies can be identified.

Baseline characteristics and prevalence of HPV 6, 11, 16, 18 in young German women participating in phase III clinical trials of a quadrivalent HPV (6/11/16/18) vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: As limited data among German women exist about HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, we report the prevalence of these genital infections and general baseline demographics of the young German women enrolled in the phase III trials of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: German females (n = 437; 9-23 years) were recruited among 3 international phase 3 studies of an HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. We present baseline characteristics, prevalence of HPV-6/11/16/18 and, for women aged 16-23, abnormal cervical cytology and sexually transmitted diseases. RESULTS: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae prevalence was 5 and 0.3%, respectively. Approximately 17% of participants had HPV-6, 11, 16, or 18 DNA or antibodies. All subjects <17 years were naïve to the four vaccine types. DISCUSSION: The results of the vaccine trials have demonstrated that it is worth administering prophylactic HPV vaccines before sexual debut; however, none of these sexually active German women were positive to all four types and most were positive to only one type. Thus, all women had the potential to benefit from vaccination with a quadrivalent HPV vaccine.

Impact of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in a sexually active population of North American women.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to inform policy regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in North America. We measured the clinical impact of HPV-6/-11/-16/-18 vaccination in North American women. STUDY DESIGN: The study enrolled 21,954 women, the majority aged 16-25, across 5 studies of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine or its HPV-16 vaccine prototype. The North American subjects (n = 5996) were pooled from these trials, and the prevalence of HPV-6/-11/-16/-18 exposure was measured. The impact of vaccination on the burden of anogenital HPV lesions in an intention-to-treat population (regardless of enrollment HPV status) was calculated. RESULTS: At enrollment, the median age was 20 years; 13% of the women had had a Papanicolaou test abnormality, and 76% of the women had negative tests results for all 4 vaccine HPV types. With approximately 3 years of follow-up evaluations in the intention-to-treat population (regardless of enrollment HPV status), vaccination reduced the rate of HPV-16- and -18-related precancers and HPV-6/-11/-16/-18-related genital lesions by 66.4% (95% CI, 42.7%-81.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 27.3%-76.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The administration of HPV vaccine to sexually active North American women reduced the burden of HPV-6/-11/-16/-18-related disease. Catch-up vaccination programs in this population are warranted.

A risk assessment for occupational acrylonitrile exposure using epidemiology data.

The extensive data from the Blair et al.((1)) epidemiology study of occupational acrylonitrile exposure among 25460 workers in eight plants in the United States provide an excellent opportunity to update quantitative risk assessments for this widely used commodity chemical. We employ the semiparametric Cox relative risk (RR) regression model with a cumulative exposure metric to model cause-specific mortality from lung cancer and all other causes. The separately estimated cause-specific cumulative hazards are then combined to provide an overall estimate of age-specific mortality risk. Age-specific estimates of the additional risk of lung cancer mortality associated with several plausible occupational exposure scenarios are obtained. For age 70, these estimates are all markedly lower than those generated with the cancer potency estimate provided in the USEPA acrylonitrile risk assessment.((2)) This result is consistent with the failure of recent occupational studies to confirm elevated lung cancer mortality among acrylonitrile-exposed workers as was originally reported by O'Berg,((3)) and it calls attention to the importance of using high-quality epidemiology data in the risk assessment process.