Whole genome sequencing across clinical trials identifies rare coding variants in GPR68 associated with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Dose-limiting toxicities significantly impact the benefit/risk profile of many drugs. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) in patients receiving drugs with dose-limiting toxicities can identify therapeutic hypotheses to prevent these toxicities. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common dose-limiting neurological toxicity of chemotherapies with no effective approach for prevention. METHODS: We conducted a genetic study of time-to-first peripheral neuropathy event using 30× germline WGS data from whole blood samples from 4900 European-ancestry cancer patients in 14 randomized controlled trials. A substantial number of patients in these trials received taxane and platinum-based chemotherapies as part of their treatment regimen, either standard of care or in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. The trials spanned several cancers including renal cell carcinoma, triple negative breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, and melanoma. RESULTS: We identified a locus consisting of low-frequency variants in intron 13 of GRID2 associated with time-to-onset of first peripheral neuropathy (PN) indexed by rs17020773 (p = 2.03 × 10-8, all patients, p = 6.36 × 10-9, taxane treated). Gene-level burden analysis identified rare coding variants associated with increased PN risk in the C-terminus of GPR68 (p = 1.59 × 10-6, all patients, p = 3.47 × 10-8, taxane treated), a pH-sensitive G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR). The variants driving this signal were found to alter predicted arrestin binding motifs in the C-terminus of GPR68. Analysis of snRNA-seq from human dorsal root ganglia (DRG) indicated that expression of GPR68 was highest in mechano-thermo-sensitive nociceptors. CONCLUSIONS: Our genetic study provides insight into the impact of low-frequency and rare coding genetic variation on PN risk and suggests that further study of GPR68 in sensory neurons may yield a therapeutic hypothesis for prevention of CIPN.

Baseline risk factors associated with immune related adverse events and atezolizumab.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer patients in the last decade, but immune-related adverse events (irAEs) pose significant clinical challenges. Despite advances in the management of these unique toxicities, there remains an unmet need to further characterize the patient-level drivers of irAEs in order to optimize the benefit/risk balance in patients receiving cancer immunotherapy. Methods: An individual-patient data post-hoc meta-analysis was performed using data from 10,344 patients across 15 Roche sponsored clinical trials with atezolizumab in five different solid tumor types to assess the association between baseline risk factors and the time to onset of irAE. In this study, the overall analysis was conducted by treatment arm, indication, toxicity grade and irAE type, and the study design considered confounder adjustment to assess potential differences in risk factor profiles. Results: This analysis demonstrates that the safety profile of atezolizumab is generally consistent across indications in the 15 studies evaluated. In addition, our findings corroborate with prior reviews which suggest that reported rates of irAEs with PD-(L)1 inhibitors are nominally lower than CTLA-4 inhibitors. In our analysis, there were no remarkable differences in the distribution of toxicity grades between indications, but some indication-specific differences regarding the type of irAE were seen across treatment arms, where pneumonitis mainly occurred in lung cancer, and hypothyroidism and rash had a higher prevalence in advanced renal cell carcinoma compared to all other indications. Results showed consistency of risk factors across indications and by toxicity grade. The strongest and most consistent risk factors were mostly organ-specific such as elevated liver enzymes for hepatitis and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) for thyroid toxicities. Another strong but non-organ-specific risk factor was ethnicity, which was associated with rash, hepatitis and pneumonitis. Further understanding the impact of ethnicity on ICI associated irAEs is considered as an area for future research. Conclusions: Overall, this analysis demonstrated that atezolizumab safety profile is consistent across indications, is clinically distinguishable from comparator regimens without checkpoint inhibition, and in line with literature, seems to suggest a nominally lower reported rates of irAEs vs CTLA-4 inhibitors. This analysis demonstrates several risk factors for irAEs by indication, severity and location of irAE, and by patient ethnicity. Additionally, several potential irAE risk factors that have been published to date, such as demographic factors, liver enzymes, TSH and blood cell counts, are assessed in this large-scale meta-analysis, providing a more consistent picture of their relevance. However, given the small effects size, changes to clinical management of irAEs associated with the use of Anti-PDL1 therapy are not warranted.

Extension of the Alternative Intravenous Dosing Regimens of Atezolizumab into Combination Settings through Modeling and Simulation.

Atezolizumab is approved as an intravenous (IV) infusion for use as a single agent and in combination with other therapies in a number of indications. The objectives of this publication are to characterize atezolizumab pharmacokinetics (PK) across indications with the available clinical data from one phase I and eight phase III studies, to determine the exposure-response (ER) relationships in combination settings across a variety of tumor types, and to provide the clinical safety to support the extension of the 840 mg q2w, 1200 mg q3w, and 1680 mg q4w IV dosing regimens across various indications in combination settings. Across all clinical studies, atezolizumab PK remained in the dose-linear range and were similar across tumor types when used in combination therapy or as a monotherapy. In the combination studies, efficacy was independent of the exposures tested and there was no significant increase in adverse events with increasing atezolizumab exposure (flat ER). The safety profile of atezolizumab in the individual combination studies was generally consistent with the established safety profile of atezolizumab, the combination partners, and the disease under study. The similar atezolizumab PK across monotherapy and combination therapy settings as well as the flat ER in new tumor types and combination therapies support the use of the 3 interchangeable atezolizumab dosing regimens in the combination setting. Atezolizumab is now approved with 3 interchangeable IV dosing regimens of 840 mg q2w, 1200 mg q3w, and 1680 mg q4w for single-agent and combination therapy use in the USA and EU.

Genetic variation associated with thyroid autoimmunity shapes the systemic immune response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade.

Activation of systemic immune responses using PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors is an essential approach to cancer therapy. Yet, the extent of benefit relative to risk of immune related adverse events (irAE) varies widely among patients. Here, we study endocrine irAE from 7 clinical trials across 6 cancers where atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) was combined with chemotherapies and compared to standard of care. We show that atezolizumab-induced thyroid dysfunction is associated with longer survival. We construct a polygenic risk score (PRS) for lifetime risk of hypothyroidism using a GWAS from the UK Biobank and apply this PRS to genetic data collected from 2,616 patients of European ancestry from these trials. Patients with high PRS are at increased risk of atezolizumab-induced thyroid dysfunction and lower risk of death in triple negative breast cancer. Our results indicate that genetic variation associated with thyroid autoimmunity interacts with biological pathways driving the systemic immune response to PD-1 blockade.

Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III Trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. RESULTS: Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.

Results of a Dose-Finding Phase 1b Study of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Intravenous (IV) atezolizumab is approved for non-small cell lung and other cancers. Subcutaneous (SC) atezolizumab coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase, a permeation enhancer for SC dispersion and absorption, is being developed to improve treatment options, reduce burden, and increase efficiency for patients and practitioners. IMscin001 (NCT03735121), a 2-part, open-label, global, multicenter, phase 1b/3 study, is evaluating the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of SC atezolizumab. The part 1 (phase 1b) objective was determination of an SC atezolizumab dose yielding a serum trough concentration (Ctrough ) comparable with IV. Patients enrolled in 3 cohorts received SC atezolizumab 1800 mg (thigh) once (cohort 1), 1200 mg (thigh) every 2 weeks for 3 cycles (cohort 2), or 1800 mg (abdomen) every 3 weeks cycle 1, then cycles 2 and 3 (thigh) every 3 weeks (cohort 3). In subsequent cycles, IV atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks was administered until loss of clinical benefit. SC atezolizumab 1800 mg every 3 weeks and 1200 mg every 2 weeks provided similar Ctrough and area under the curve values in cycle 1 to the corresponding IV atezolizumab reference, was well tolerated, and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the established IV formulation. Exposure following SC injection in the abdomen was lower (20%, 28%, and 27% for Ctrough , maximum concentration, and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to day 21, respectively) than in the thigh. Part 1 SC and IV PK data were analyzed using a population PK modeling approach, followed by simulations. Part 2 (phase 3) will now be initiated to demonstrate that SC atezolizumab PK exposure is not lower than that of IV.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with sequential nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus placebo and chemotherapy in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion031): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preferred neoadjuvant regimens for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) include anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and taxane-based chemotherapy. IMpassion031 compared efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus placebo combined with nab-paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage TNBC. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study enrolled patients in 75 academic and community sites in 13 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage II-III histologically documented TNBC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy plus intravenous atezolizumab at 840 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. Chemotherapy comprised of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2 every 2 weeks for 8 weeks, which was then followed by surgery. Stratification was by clinical breast cancer stage and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response in all-randomised (ie, all randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population) and PD-L1-positive (ie, patients with PD-L1-expressing tumour infiltrating immune cells covering ≥1% of tumour area) populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03197935), Eudra (CT2016-004734-22), and the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (JapicCTI-173630), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2017, and Sept 24, 2019, 455 patients were recruited and assessed for eligibility. Of the 333 eligible patients, 165 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 168 to placebo plus chemotherapy. At data cutoff (April 3, 2020), median follow-up was 20·6 months (IQR 8·7-24·9) in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·8 months (8·1-24·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Pathological complete response was documented in 95 (58%, 95% CI 50-65) patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 69 (41%, 34-49) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 17%, 95% CI 6-27; one-sided p=0·0044 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the PD-L1-positive population, pathological complete response was documented in 53 (69%, 95% CI 57-79) of 77 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 37 (49%, 38-61) of 75 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 20%, 95% CI 4-35; one-sided p=0·021 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the neoadjuvant phase, grade 3-4 adverse events were balanced and treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 37 (23%) and 26 (16%) patients, with one patient per group experiencing an unrelated grade 5 adverse event (traffic accident in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and pneumonia in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with early-stage TNBC, neoadjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response rates with an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has shown promising efficacy across many different tumour types. We report the prespecified second interim overall survival analysis of the phase 3 IMpassion130 study assessing the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 246 academic centres and community oncology practices in 41 countries, patients aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated, histologically documented, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice-web response system. Randomisation was stratified by previous taxane use, liver metastases, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg or matching placebo intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of every 28-day cycle and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours (tumours with ≥1% PD-L1 expression). The final progression-free survival results were previously reported at the first interim overall survival analysis. The prespecified statistical testing hierarchy meant that overall survival in the subgroup of PD-L1 immune cell-positive patients could only be formally tested if overall survival was significantly different between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02425891. FINDINGS: Between June 23, 2015, and May 24, 2017, 902 patients were enrolled, of whom 451 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 were assigned to receive placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (the intention-to-treat population). Six patients from each group did not receive treatment. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 2, 2019), median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 9·6-22·8) in the atezolizumab group and 17·5 months (8·4-22·4) in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat patients was 21·0 months (95% CI 19·0-22·6) with atezolizumab and 18·7 months (16·9-20·3) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·02, p=0·078). In the exploratory overall survival analysis in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours, median overall survival was 25·0 months (95% CI 19·6-30·7) with atezolizumab versus 18·0 months (13·6-20·1) with placebo (stratified HR 0·71, 0·54-0·94]). As of Sept 3, 2018 (the date up to which updated safety data were available), the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [8%] of 453 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 36 [8%] of 437 patients in the placebo group), peripheral neuropathy (25 [6%] vs 12 [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (22 [5%] vs 16 [4%]), and fatigue (17 [4%] vs 15 [3%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (<1%) patients in the atezolizumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atezolizumab [n=1] and septic shock related to nab-paclitaxel [n=1]) and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group (hepatic failure). No new treatment-related deaths have been reported since the primary clinical data cutoff date (April 17, 2018). INTERPRETATION: Consistent with the first interim analysis, this second interim overall survival analysis of IMpassion130 indicates no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive disease. However, this positive result could not be formally tested due to the prespecified statistical testing hierarchy. For patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therapeutic option in a disease with high unmet need. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.