Phase 1a dose escalation study of ivonescimab (AK112/SMT112), an anti-PD-1/VEGF-A bispecific antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Studies showed that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors could improve therapeutic efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies by transforming the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) into an immunoresponsive TME. Ivonescimab is a first-in-class, humanized tetravalent bispecific antibody targeting PD-1 and VEGF-A simultaneously. Here, we report the first-in-human, phase 1a study of ivonescimab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with ivonescimab 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 20 or 30 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks using a 3+3+3 dose escalation design. Dose expansion occurred at 10 and 20 mg/kg in selected tumor types. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary antitumor activity based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. RESULTS: Between October 2, 2019 and January 14, 2021, a total of 51 patients were enrolled and received ivonescimab. Two dose-limiting toxicities were reported at 30 mg/kg. The MTD of ivonescimab was 20 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Grade≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 14 patients (27.5%). The most common TRAEs of any grade were rash (29.4%), arthralgia (19.6%), hypertension (19.6%), fatigue (17.6%), diarrhea (15.7%) and pruritus (11.8%). The most common grade≥3 TRAEs were hypertension (7/51, 13.7%), alanine aminotransferase increased (3/51, 5.2%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (2/51, 3.9%) and colitis (2/51, 3.9%). Of 47 patients who had at least one postbaseline assessment, the confirmed objective response rate was 25.5% (12/47) and disease control rate was 63.8% (30/47). Among 19 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, 5 patients (26.3%) achieved partial response (PR). Efficacy signals were also observed in patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and both MMR deficient and pMMR endometrial cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Ivonescimab demonstrated manageable safety profiles and promising efficacy signals in multiple solid tumors. Exploration of alternative dosing regimens of ivonescimab monotherapy and combination therapies is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04047290.

A gut microbial signature for combination immune checkpoint blockade across cancer types.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) can induce remarkable, yet unpredictable, responses across a variety of cancers. Studies suggest that there is a relationship between a cancer patient's gut microbiota composition and clinical response to ICB; however, defining microbiome-based biomarkers that generalize across cohorts has been challenging. This may relate to previous efforts quantifying microbiota to species (or higher taxonomic rank) abundances, whereas microbial functions are often strain specific. Here, we performed deep shotgun metagenomic sequencing of baseline fecal samples from a unique, richly annotated phase 2 trial cohort of patients with diverse rare cancers treated with combination ICB (n = 106 discovery cohort). We demonstrate that strain-resolved microbial abundances improve machine learning predictions of ICB response and 12-month progression-free survival relative to models built using species-rank quantifications or comprehensive pretreatment clinical factors. Through a meta-analysis of gut metagenomes from a further six comparable studies (n = 364 validation cohort), we found cross-cancer (and cross-country) validity of strain-response signatures, but only when the training and test cohorts used concordant ICB regimens (anti-PD-1 monotherapy or combination anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4). This suggests that future development of gut microbiome diagnostics or therapeutics should be tailored according to ICB treatment regimen rather than according to cancer type.

Decentralized Clinical Trials as a New Paradigm of Trial Delivery to Improve Equity of Access.

Importance: The need to maintain clinical trial recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the rapid uptake of digital health for the conduct of clinical trials. Different terms are used in different jurisdictions and clinical contexts, including digital trials, networked trials, teletrials (TT), and decentralized clinical trials (DCT) with a need to agree to terms. Observations: This clinical care review summarized publications and gray literature, including government policies for the safe conduct of clinical trials using digital health. It compares 2 frequently used methodologies, DCT and TT, first developed before the COVID-19 pandemic by trialists and stakeholders in Australia to improve access to cancer clinical trials for geographically dispersed populations. TT uses a networked approach to implement clinical trials to share care between facilities and uses an agreement between sites or a supervision plan to improve governance and safety. Government regulators have adapted existing regulations and invested in the rollout of the TT model. The term DCT emerged in the northern hemisphere and has been the subject of guidance from regulatory agencies. DCT uses digital health to deliver care in nontraditional sites, such as participants' homes, but does not mandate a networked approach between health facilities or require a supervision plan to be in place. Conclusions and Relevance: TT can be considered as a specific type of DCT with several potential advantages, including upskilling across a network. DCT is a new paradigm for the use of digital health in the safe conduct of clinical trials and is a transformative issue in cancer care, addressing disparities in access to clinical trials and improving clinical outcomes.

Telehealth in oncology: a cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact of implementing regional trial hubs within a phase 3 cancer clinical trial.

This cost analysis, from a societal perspective, compared the cost difference of a networked teletrial model (NTTM) with four regional hubs versus conventional trial operation at a single metropolitan specialist centre. The Australian phase 3 cancer interventional randomised controlled trial included 152 of 328 regional participants (patient enrolment 2018-2021; 6-month primary end point). The NTTM significantly reduced (AU$2155 per patient) patient travel cost and time and lost productivity.