Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with and without nivolumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: phase 2 results from the CheckMate 9X8 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). METHODS: CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. RESULTS: From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03414983.

Diagnosis of second breast cancer events after initial diagnosis of early stage breast cancer.

To examine whether there are any characteristics of women or their initial tumors that might be useful for tailoring surveillance recommendations to optimize outcomes. We followed 17,286 women for up to 5 years after an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or early stage (I/II) invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006. We calculated rates per 1,000 women years of recurrences and second breast primaries relative to demographics, risk factors, and characteristics of initial diagnosis: stage, treatment, mode of initial diagnosis. Nearly 4% had a second breast cancer event (314 recurrences and 344 second breast primaries). Women who used adjuvant hormonal therapy or were ≥ 80 years had the lowest rates of second events. Factors associated with higher recurrence and second primary rates included: initial DCIS or stage IIB, estrogen/progesterone receptor-negative, younger women (<50 years). Women with a family history or greater breast density had higher second primary rates, and women who received breast conserving surgery without radiation had higher recurrence rates. Roughly one-third of recurrences (37.6%) and second primaries (36.3%) were not screen-detected. Initial mode of diagnosis was a predictor of second events after adjusting for age, stage, primary treatment, and breast density. A recent negative mammogram should not falsely reassure physicians or women with new breast symptoms or changes because one-third of second cancers were interval cancers. This study does not provide any evidence in support of changing surveillance intervals for different subgroups.

The novel oral typhoid vaccine M01ZH09 is well tolerated and highly immunogenic in 2 vaccine presentations.

BACKGROUND: M01ZH09 (Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi [Ty2 aroC(-) ssaV(-)] ZH9) is a live oral-dose typhoid vaccine candidate. M01ZH09 was rationally modified with 2 independently attenuating mutations, including a novel mutation in Salmonella pathogenicity island (SPI)-2. We demonstrate that M01ZH09, in a single oral dose, is well tolerated and prompts broad immune responses, regardless of whether prevaccination with a bicarbonate buffer is given. METHODS: Thirty-two healthy adult subjects were randomized and given 5x109 cfu of M01ZH09, with (presentation 1) or without (presentation 2) prevaccination with a bicarbonate buffer. Immunogenicity data included Salmonella Typhi lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-specific immunoglobulin (Ig) A antibody-secreting cells (enzyme-linked immunospot [ELISPOT] assay), IgG serologic responses to Salmonella Typhi LPS, lymphocyte proliferation, and interferon (IFN)- gamma production. RESULTS: The vaccine was well tolerated; adverse events after vaccination were mild. No fever or prolonged vaccine shedding occurred. Immunogenicity data demonstrated that 88% and 93% of subjects who received presentation 1 and presentation 2, respectively, had a positive response by ELISPOT assay; 81% of subjects in both groups underwent IgG seroconversion on day 14. Both groups had similar cellular immune responses to presentation 1 and presentation 2; lymphocyte proliferation to Salmonella Typhi flagellin occurred in 63% and 67% of subjects, respectively, and 69% and 73% of subjects, respectively, had an increase in IFN- gamma production. CONCLUSION: The oral typhoid vaccine M01ZH09 is well tolerated and highly immunogenic in a single oral dose, with and without prevaccination with a bicarbonate buffer. Field studies to demonstrate protective efficacy are planned.