PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry in Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Combined Positive Score and Tumor Area Positivity Across 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 Assays.

PURPOSE: The clinical application of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing is complicated by the availability of multiple IHC assays, scoring algorithms, and cutoffs. This study assessed the analytical comparability of three commercially available PD-L1 assays and two scoring algorithms used to assess PD-L1 status in gastric cancer (GC) samples. METHODS: Serial sections of 100 resected GC samples, with PD-L1 expression levels across the dynamic range, were stained with three in vitro diagnostic-grade PD-L1 assays (28-8, 22C3, and SP263). Three trained pathologists blindly and independently scored slides using combined positive score (CPS) and tumor area positivity (TAP) algorithms. Comprehensive statistical analyses were performed to evaluate analytical concordance. Digital image analysis (DIA) was used to objectively compare the technical performance of each assay by simulating CPS and TAP. RESULTS: Comparable staining patterns were observed with these three PD-L1 assays. Despite discernible variation in staining intensity, reproducible evaluations of PD-L1 positivity were observed. Inter- and intra-assay assessments of all three assays, using either CPS or TAP and the same PD-L1 cutoffs, demonstrated moderate to almost-perfect (interassay Cohen's kappa [κ] range, 0.47-0.83) and substantial to almost-perfect (intra-assay κ range, 0.77-1.00) agreement. Interpathologist assessment exhibited a significant level of concordance (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.92). No difference in technical performance was observed using DIA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights analytical concordance in PD-L1 testing between three major PD-L1 assays when TAP and CPS are applied. Comparability of the technical assay performance was further supported by independent DIA. These observations support cross-application flexibility of the different PD-L1 assays and scoring algorithms to characterize PD-L1 expression in GC.

18F-BMS-986229 PET to Assess Programmed-Death Ligand 1 Status in Gastroesophageal Cancer.

Anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors are the standard of care for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Although recommendations and approval by regulatory agencies are often based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pathologic assessments of PD-L1 status have several limitations. Single-site biopsies do not adequately capture disease heterogeneity within individual tumor lesions or among several lesions within the same patient, the PD-L1 combined positive score is a dynamic biomarker subject to evolution throughout a patient's disease course, and repeated biopsies are invasive and not always feasible. Methods: This was a prospective pilot study of the PD-L1-targeting radiotracer, 18F-BMS-986229, with PET imaging (PD-L1 PET) in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Patients were administered the 18F-BMS-986229 radiotracer intravenously at a dose of 370 MBq over 1-2 min and underwent whole-body PET/CT imaging 60 min later. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of 18F-BMS-986229. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04161781). Results: Between February 3, 2020, and February 2, 2022, 10 patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma underwent PD-L1 PET. There were no adverse events associated with the 18F-BMS-986229 tracer, and imaging did not result in treatment delays; the primary endpoint was achieved. Radiographic evaluation of PD-L1 expression was concordant with pathologic assessment in 88% of biopsied lesions, and 18F-BMS-986229 uptake on PET imaging correlated with pathologic evaluation by the combined positive score (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.64). Seventy-one percent of patients with 18F-BMS-986229 accumulation on PET imaging also had lesions without 18F-BMS-986229 uptake, highlighting the intrapatient heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression. Patients treated with frontline programmed death 1 inhibitors who had 18F-BMS-986229 accumulation in any lesions on PET imaging had longer progression-free survival than patients without tracer accumulation in any lesions (median progression-free survival, 28.4 vs. 9.9 mo), though the small sample size prevents any definitive conclusions. Conclusion: PD-L1 PET imaging was safe, feasible, and concordant with pathologic evaluation and offers a potential noninvasive tool to assess PD-L1 expression.

Immunotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation. METHODS: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials. RESULTS: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations.

Safety and effectiveness of combination versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases.

Patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (pAID) are generally excluded from clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer due to concern of flaring pAID. In this multi-center, retrospective observational study, we compared safety of ICI combination (two ICI agents) versus monotherapy in cancer patients with pAIDs. The primary outcome was time to AEs (immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and/or pAID flares), with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Sixty-four of 133 patients (48%) received ICI combination and 69 (52%) monotherapy. Most had melanoma (32%) and lung cancer (31%). Most common pAIDs were rheumatic (28%) and dermatologic (23%). Over a median follow-up of 15 months (95%CI, 11-18 mo), the cumulative incidence of any-grade irAEs was higher for combination compared to monotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.27, 95%CI 1.35-3.82). No statistically significant difference was observed in high-grade irAEs (sHR 2.31 (0.95-5.66), P = .054) or the cumulative incidence of pAID flares. There was no statistically significant difference for melanoma PFS between combination versus monotherapy (23.2 vs. 17.1mo, P = .53). The combination group was more likely to discontinue or hold ICI, but > 50% of the combination group was still able to continue ICI therapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. In our cohort with pAIDs, patients had a tolerable toxicity profile with ICI combination therapy. Our results support the use of ICI combination if deemed necessary for cancer therapy in patients with pAIDs, since the ICI toxicities were comparable to monotherapy, able to be effectively managed and mostly did not require ICI interruption.

First-line regorafenib with nivolumab and chemotherapy in advanced oesophageal, gastric, or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the USA: a single-arm, single-centre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced oesophagogastric (oesophageal, gastric, or gastro-oesophageal junction) adenocarcinoma; however, outcomes remain poor. We assessed the safety and activity of regorafenib in combination with nivolumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated, HER2-negative, metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma was done at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA). Eligible patients had measurable disease or non-measurable disease that was evaluable (defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST] version 1.1) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received FOLFOX chemotherapy (fluorouracil [400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 over 48 h], leucovorin [400 mg/m2], and oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2]) and nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously on days 1 and 15, and oral regorafenib (80 mg) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression (defined by RECIST version 1.1), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival in the per-protocol population (ie, all participants who received a dose of all study treatments). The regimen would be considered worthy of further investigation if at least 24 of 35 patients were progression free at 6 months. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04757363, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2021, and May 4, 2022, 39 patients were enrolled, received at least one dose of study drug, and were included in safety analyses. 35 patients were evaluable for 6-month progression-free survival. Median age was 57 years (IQR 52-66), nine (26%) patients were women, 26 (74%) were men, 28 (80%) were White, and seven (20%) were Asian. At data cutoff (March 3, 2023), median follow-up was 18·1 months (IQR 12·7-20·4). The primary endpoint was reached, with 25 (71%; 95% CI 54-85) of 35 patients progression free at 6 months. Nine (26%) of 35 patients had disease progression and one (3%) patient died; the death was unrelated to treatment. The most common adverse event of any grade was fatigue (36 [92%] of 39). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (18 [46%]), hypertension (six [15%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (five [13%]), and anaemia (four [10%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in ten (26%) patients, which were acute kidney injury (three [8%]), hepatotoxicity (two [5%]), sepsis (two [5%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (one [3%]), nausea (one [3%]), and gastric perforation (one [3%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib can be safely combined with nivolumab and chemotherapy and showed promising activity in HER2-negative metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. A randomised, phase 3 clinical trial is planned. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer and National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.

HER2 Targeting in Esophagogastric Cancer: Redefining the Landscape and Breaking Barriers.

HER2 is overexpressed in approximately 20% of esophagogastric cancer (EGC) cases. The addition of the anti-HER2 antibody, trastuzumab, to chemotherapy in 2010 was the first targeted treatment to demonstrate an improvement in survival. The aggressive nature and heterogeneous biology of EGC have posed a particular challenge and resulted in numerous negative trials without a change in standard of care for more than a decade. However, with the incorporation of dual HER2 and PD-1 blockade as well as the advent of a new, potent antibody-drug conjugate, trastuzumab deruxtecan, there have been 2 new FDA approvals for this patient population within the past 2 years. Consequently, the management and landscape of HER2-positive EGC is rapidly changing and increasingly optimistic.

Durvalumab consolidation therapy in a patient with stage IIIB unresectable NSCLC harboring a MET exon 14 splice site alteration.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has identified significant benefit of consolidation durvalumab following chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, immunotherapy has demonstrated modest benefit in patients harboring oncogene driver mutations. While standard of care in metastatic oncogenic driven tumors is targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), there is little data to guide treatment for patients who present with earlier stage unresectable disease, receiving chemoradiotherapy and have both high PD-L1 expression as well as concomitant actionable driver mutations. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: We report a patient who presented with stage IIIB lung adenocarcinoma with high PD-L1 expression (80%) for which she received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with consolidation durvalumab. The patient quickly progressed and was found to harbor a MET exon 14 splice site alteration for which she received crizotinib and had a good response. DISCUSSION: This case highlights the possibility that patients with non-metastatic, unresectable NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression and a concomitant driver mutation may benefit from targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors rather than immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Risk of Toxicity After Initiating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used to treat advanced cancer. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with an increased risk of malignancies; however, patients with RA have been excluded from ICI trials. In this study, we evaluated risk of toxicity after initiation of ICI treatment in RA patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution, medical records review analysis to assess the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and autoimmune disease (AID) flares among patients with AIDs treated with ICIs from 2011 to 2018. A subgroup analysis for RA patients was performed with frequencies of irAEs and AID flares reported. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with RA who were treated with ICI for malignancy were identified. At the time of ICI initiation, 86% had inactive RA disease activity. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 7 (32%) of patients, with 2 (9%) developing grade 3 (i.e., severe) irAEs. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were temporarily discontinued because of irAEs in 5 patients (23%), and permanently in 1 patient. Rheumatoid arthritis flares occurred in 12 patients (55%). Of those, 10 (83%) received oral corticosteroids with an adequate treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that irAEs following ICI treatment are not increased among RA patients compared with other cancer patients. Heightened RA disease activity during ICI treatment is common, but most adverse events are manageable with oral corticosteroids, and few require permanent ICI discontinuation. A close collaboration between the oncologist and rheumatologist is advisable when considering ICIs in patients with RA.

Haploidentical Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Followed by 'Post-Cyclophosphamide': The Future of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (Allo-HCT) is a potentially curative therapy for many malignant and nonmalignant hematological diseases. However, a suitable human leukocyte antigens (HLAs)-matched donor may not be available when the patient is in urgent need of a stem cell transplant. This challenge has been ameliorated to a large extent by the introduction of haploidentical donors. This type of donor shares one HLA haplotype with the recipient. Therefore, a patient's full sibling has a 50% chance of being haploidentical and a patient's biologic parents and children will all be haploidentical, thus providing an immediately accessible, motivated donor for almost every recipient. Haploidentical transplants previously incurred prohibitively poor outcomes, preventing their widespread use. However, several recent advances have dramatically improved the results, making them a more viable donor source. In this review, we discuss different types of donors used for Allo-HCT with a particular focus on the use of haploidentical donors and their future potential.

Outcomes in patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after intensive frontline treatment failure.

BACKGROUND: Salvage immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation is the standard-of-care second-line treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after first-line R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Outcomes after receipt of second-line immunochemotherapy in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas who relapse or are refractory to intensive first-line immunochemotherapy regimens (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab [R-EPOCH], rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine [R-HyperCVAD], rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate alternating with ifosfamide, etoposide, and cytarabine [R-CODOX-M/IVAC]) remain unknown. METHODS: Outcomes of patients with non-Burkitt, aggressive B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory disease after first-line treatment with intensive immunochemotherapy regimens who received platinum-based second-line immunochemotherapy were reviewed retrospectively. Analyses were performed to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of receipt of second-line immunochemotherapy. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients from 19 academic centers were included in the study. The overall response rate to second-line immunochemotherapy was 44%, with a median PFS of 3 months and a median OS of 8 months. Patients with early treatment failure (primary refractory or relapse <12 months from completion of first-line therapy) experienced inferior median PFS (2.8 vs 23 months; P < .001) and OS (6 months vs not reached; P < .001) compared with patients with late treatment failure. Although the 17% of patients with early failure who achieved a complete response to second-line immunochemotherapy experienced prolonged survival, this outcome could not be predicted by clinicopathologic features at the start of second-line immunochemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with early treatment failure after intensive first-line immunochemotherapy experience poor outcomes after receiving standard second-line immunochemotherapy. The use of standard-of-care or experimental therapies currently available in the third-line setting and beyond should be investigated in the second-line setting for these patients.