Molecular assessment of intratumoral immune cell subsets and potential mechanisms of resistance to odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R B-NHL) have a significant need for effective treatment options. Odronextamab is an Fc-silenced, human, CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing cells via T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity independent of T-cell/major histocompatibility complex interaction. Phase I results in patients with R/R B-NHL demonstrated that odronextamab monotherapy could achieve deep and durable responses with a generally manageable safety profile (ELM-1; NCT02290951). As part of a biomarker analysis of the same study, we investigated potential biomarkers and mechanisms of resistance to odronextamab. METHODS: Patients with R/R B-NHL enrolled in ELM-1 received one time per week doses of intravenous odronextamab for 4×21 day cycles, then doses every 2 weeks thereafter. Patient tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline, on-treatment, and at progression. Immune cell markers were analyzed by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, single-cell RNA sequencing, and whole genome sequencing. RESULTS: Baseline tumor biopsies showed that almost all patients had high proportions of B cells that expressed the CD20 target antigen, whereas expression of other B-cell surface antigens (CD19, CD22, CD79b) was more variable. Responses to odronextamab in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were not related to the relative level of baseline CD20 expression, cell of origin, or high-risk molecular subtype. A potential link was observed between greater tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression and increased likelihood of response to odronextamab. Similarly, a trend was observed between clinical response and increased levels of CD8 T cells and regulatory T cells at baseline. We also identified an on-treatment pharmacodynamic shift in intratumoral immune cell subsets. Finally, loss of CD20 expression through inactivating gene mutations was identified as a potential mechanism of resistance in patients who were treated with odronextamab until progression, as highlighted in two detailed patient cases reported here. CONCLUSIONS: This biomarker analysis expands on clinical findings of odronextamab in patients with R/R B-NHL, providing verification of the suitability of CD20 as a therapeutic target, as well as evidence for potential mechanisms of action and resistance.

Translational findings for odronextamab: From preclinical research to a first-in-human study in patients with CD20+ B-cell malignancies.

Odronextamab is a fully-human IgG4-based CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody that binds to CD3 on T cells and CD20 on B cells, triggering T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity independent of T-cell-receptor recognition. Adequate safety, tolerability, and encouraging durable complete responses have been observed in an ongoing first-in-human (FIH) study of odronextamab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL; NCT02290951). We retrospectively evaluated the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and antitumor characteristics of odronextamab in a series of in vitro/in vivo preclinical experiments, to assess their translational value to inform dose escalation for the FIH study. Half-maximal effective concentration values from in vitro cytokine release assays (range: 0.05-0.08 mg/L) provided a reasonable estimate of odronextamab concentrations in patients associated with cytokine release at a 0.5 mg dose (maximum serum concentration: 0.081 mg/L) on week 1/day 1, which could therefore be used to determine the week 1 clinical dose. Odronextamab concentrations resulting in 100% inhibition of tumor growth in a Raji xenograft tumor mouse model (1-10 mg/L) were useful to predict efficacious concentrations in patients and inform dose-escalation strategy. Although predicted human pharmacokinetic parameters derived from monkey data overestimated projected odronextamab exposure, they provided a conservative estimate for FIH starting doses. With step-up dosing, the highest-tested weekly odronextamab dose in patients (320 mg) exceeded the 1 mg/kg single dose in monkeys without step-up dosing. In conclusion, combination of odronextamab in vitro cytokine data, efficacious concentration data from mouse tumor models, and pharmacokinetic evaluations in monkeys has translational value to inform odronextamab FIH study design in patients with R/R B-NHL.

Safety and Efficacy of Apixaban vs Enoxaparin for Preventing Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism in Women Undergoing Surgery for Gynecologic Malignant Neoplasm: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current guidelines recommend a 28-day course of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic cancer. The high cost of this medication and the low adherence rates observed in prior studies provide an opportunity to benefit patients by demonstrating the safety of a more cost-effective, easier to use thromboprophylactic. Objective: To investigate the safety and efficacy of an oral treatment alternative for thromboprophylaxis in postoperative patients with gynecologic cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a patient-based, multicenter, open-label, blinded, end point, randomized clinical trial conducted May 2015 to March 2019 in outpatient and inpatient gynecologic oncology settings. Women undergoing surgery for suspected or confirmed gynecologic cancer were approached for recruitment. The trial compared rates of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events during a 90-day follow-up period in patients taking apixaban or enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis using a modified intent-to-treat analysis. Data analysis was performed from October to December 2019. Interventions: Women were randomized to 28 days of apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneously daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included incidence of venous thromboembolic events, adverse events, medication adherence, participant quality of life, and medication satisfaction. Results: Of 500 women recruited for the study, 400 were enrolled and randomized (median age, 58.0 years; range, 18.0-89.0 years); 204 received apixaban and 196 received enoxaparin. Treatment groups did not differ in terms of race/ethnicity, cancer stage, or surgery modality (open vs robotic). There were no statistically significant differences between the apixaban and enoxaparin groups in terms of rates of major bleeding events (1 patient [0.5%] vs 1 patient [0.5%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.07-16.76; P > .99), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (12 patients [5.4%] vs 19 patients [9.7%]; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.87-4.1; P = .11), venous thromboembolic events (2 patients [1.0%] vs 3 patients [1.5%]; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.26-9.50; P = .68), adverse events, medication adherence, or quality of life between the groups. Participant satisfaction was significantly greater in the apixaban group with regard to ease of taking the medication (186 patients [98.9%] vs 110 patients [58.8%]; OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001) and pain associated with taking the medication (4 patients [2.1%] vs 92 patients [49.2%]; OR, 9.20; 95% CI, 2.67-31.82; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that oral apixaban is a potentially safe, less painful, and easier-to-take alternative to subcutaneous enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic cancer. The efficacy of apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolic events is hypothesized as being equivalent. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02366871.

Non-prescription cannabis use for symptom management amongst women with gynecologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate interest in and patterns of use of non-prescription cannabis products for symptom management amongst gynecologic cancer patients living in states with legal access to medical and recreational marijuana. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using a novel 35-question survey distributed to women diagnosed with gynecologic cancer within two academic centers in California and Colorado. The survey queries demographic and disease traits, and both objective and subjective issues surrounding use of cannabis products for symptom management. Surveys were distributed to patients actively receiving treatment or under surveillance. RESULTS: Enrollment began July 16, 2018 and was completed December 1, 2018. Survey return rate was 52.7%. A total of 225 participants met inclusion criteria.Sixty-two percent reported that they have used or would be interested in using cannabis products for symptom management; 60 (26.7%) are using non-prescription cannabis for treatment of cancer related symptoms, and 80 (35.6%) are interested in using cannabis derivatives under direction of their oncologist. Reasons cited for use of cannabis included: pain control (n = 41, 68.3), insomnia (n = 33, 55.0%), anxiety (n = 29, 48.3%), nausea (n = 26, 43.3%), and appetite stimulation (n = 21, 35.0%). Of the women using cannabis products, almost half report decreased prescription narcotic use after initiation of cannabis products (n = 27, 45.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancer report a strong interest in the use of non-prescription cannabis products for management of cancer-related symptoms. Practitioners in the field of gynecologic oncology should be aware of the frequency of use of non-prescription cannabis amongst their patients as well as the growing desire for guidance about the use of cannabis derivatives. A substantial number of patients report decreased reliance on opioids when using cannabis derivatives for pain control.

Pre-operative opioid use in gynecologic oncology: a common comorbidity relevant to the peri-operative period.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-operative opioid use is common and should be considered a comorbidity among surgical candidates. Our objective was to describe the rate of pre-operative opioid use and patterns of post-operative outpatient opioid prescribing in a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 448 gynecologic oncology surgical patients undergoing surgery for a suspected or known cancer diagnosis from January 2016 to December 2016. Pre-operative opioid users (n=97) were identified. Patient and surgical characteristics were abstracted, as was post-operative opioid prescription (type of opioid, oral morphine equivalents amount) and length of stay. For pre-operative opioid users, the type of opioid prescribed post-operatively was compared with the type of pre-operative opioid. Pre-operative opioid users were compared with non-users, stratified by surgery type. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using χ2 statistic, and medians were compared using a Mann-Whitney U statistic. RESULTS: Pre-operative opioid prescriptions were noted in 21% of patients, and 24% of these had two or more opioid prescriptions before surgery. The majority of pre-operative opioid users (51%) were maintained on the same agent post-operatively at the time of discharge, but 36% were switched to a different opioid and 7% were prescribed an additional opioid. Overall and in laparotomies, pre-operative opioid users received higher volume post-operative prescriptions than non-users. There was no difference in post-operative prescription volume for minimally invasive surgeries or in length of stay between pre-operative users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative opioid use is common in gynecologic oncology patients and should be considered during pre-operative planning. Pre-operative opioid use was associated with a higher volume and wider range of post-operative prescription. Over 40% of opioid users were discharged with either an additional opioid or a new opioid, highlighting a potential missed opportunity to optimize opioid safety. Further research is needed to characterize the relationship between pre-operative opioid use and peri-operative outcomes and to develop strategies to manage pain effectively in this population without compromising opioid safety.

Radiation therapy is not an independent risk factor for decreased sexual function in women with gynecologic cancers.

AIM: To evaluate the associations of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and intracavitary brachytherapy (IB) with decreased sexual function. BACKGROUND: There's inconsistent evidence on whether radiation for gynecologic cancers has an impact on sexual health. IB, an underutilized treatment modality, is thought to have less adverse effects than EBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study examining decreased sexual function following radiation for gynecologic cancers. A decrease in sexual function was measured as a change in the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) from before to after treatment, with a significant decrease determined by Reliable Change Index Statistic (RCIS). Chi-square and t-tests were employed. RESULTS: 171 women completed the survey; 35% (n = 60) received radiation, of whom 29 received EBRT and IB (48%), 15 EBRT alone (25%), 16 IB alone (27%). Women who received radiation had similar rates of decreased sexual function as women who did not (47% vs. 38%, P = 0.262). EBRT and IB had similar rates of decreased sexual function compared to women with no radiation (50% vs. 38% P = 0.166 and 47% vs. 38% P = 0.309). Women experiencing decreased sexual function were more likely to be under 50 years old (OR 5.4, 95%CI 1.6-18.1), have received chemotherapy (OR 5.7, 95%CI 1.4-22.9), and have cervical cancer (OR 7.8, 95%CI 2.1-28.8). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EBRT or IB does not appear to impair sexual function in women with gynecologic cancer. Age less than 50, concurrent chemotherapy, and cervical cancer may place women with gynecologic cancer at higher risk for decreased sexual function following radiation.

Priorities in Fertility Decisions for Reproductive-Aged Cancer Patients: Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study.

PURPOSE: The Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study (FACTS) aims at better understanding the reasons and priorities of young adult cancer patients making decisions for fertility preservation (FP). Identifying the factors that center around a patient's fertility decisions will support the development of educational tools for providers and improve clinical care to meet patients' reproductive needs. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted of 27 newly diagnosed male and female cancer patients who had presented for an oncofertility consultation. Interviews lasted ∼30 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted to explore the factors driving decisions for future fertility. Themes were grouped to address the following topics: reasons for/against FP, patient priorities, informational needs, support, wellness, and satisfaction with information. Strength of the theme was determined by examining the frequency of a response. RESULTS: Patients who chose FP versus those who did not choose FP and men versus women proved to be more similar than different in their reasoning, priorities, and informational needs for FP decisions. Patients who chose FP identified a "concern for future fertility" as a top reason to do so and "parenthood" as a top priority. For those who did not choose FP, "cancer treatment" was identified as their top priority. For patients identifying financial barriers, 50% of them were able to overcome this to pursue FP. CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive-aged patients diagnosed with a new cancer should be referred to a reproductive specialist and provided the opportunity to come to a fertility decision on their own before initiating cancer treatment.

Sexual and Marital Dysfunction in Women With Gynecologic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Sexual dysfunction can be a long-term issue for women with gynecologic cancer. This study assesses the extent of sexual and marital dysfunction women face following treatment of a gynecologic cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of women with gynecologic cancer was conducted using a 181-item survey. Sexual dysfunction was measured by change in the Female Sexual Function Index score; marital dysfunction was measured by change in Intimate Bond Measure from prediagnosis to posttreatment. Paired t tests and Fisher exact test were used to compare women with dysfunction to those without dysfunction. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty women were enrolled (mean age, 56.0 [SD, 12.0] years). Among all women, sexual function declined from a score of 21.3 (SD, 10.4) prior to 15.3 (SD, 10.2) (P < 0.001), and sexual activity decreased from 6.1 (SD, 6.8) to 2.6 (SD, 4.9) times per month following treatment (P < 0.001). Among the 208 women who were sexually active at the time of study, sexual dysfunction after treatment was associated with younger age (50.9 [SD, 11.7] years to 57.3 [SD, 12.3] years), ovarian (40.7% vs 30.7%) or cervical (21.0% vs 10.2%) cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy treatment (72.8% vs 50.4%), and being in a relationship (97.3% vs 82.7%). Among women in relationships, 27% experienced marital dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are younger, have an ovarian or cervical cancer diagnosis, receive chemotherapy, or are in a committed relationship are at particularly high risk of sexual dysfunction. These women should be provided information about the risks associated with their cancer treatment.

A Review of the Oncology Patient's Challenges for Utilizing Fertility Preservation Services.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology issued practice guidelines in 2006 to provide critical information about fertility impact to adolescents and young adults (AYA) at the time of cancer diagnosis. Survivors continue to express concerns about their long-term reproductive health after cancer therapy even as treatment options for fertility preservation evolve. An underutilization of fertility preservation methods by cancer patients continues to persist. A review of the literature cites barriers and challenges that limit fertility information and preservation options for AYA cancer patients. METHODS: A review of medical literature was conducted to examine current practice for patients receiving fertility information and the barriers to patients receiving fertility preservation services. RESULTS: A total of 69 publications were included in this review. The review summarizes (1) patient experiences with receiving fertility information and (2) patient desires, barriers, and challenges to utilizing fertility preservation services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in fertility preservation, there are challenges for patients to utilizing fertility preservation services. Barriers include the following: urgency to initiate treatment, inadequate information, clinic time constraints, and perceptions around patients' gender, age, cost, parity, race, relationship, and sociodemographic status influence whether patients receive fertility preservation consultation. Patients report a lack of adequate information to make informed fertility decisions.

Do Patient Characteristics Decide if Young Adult Cancer Patients Undergo Fertility Preservation?

PURPOSE: The Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study (FACTS) is a two-phase research initiative aimed to understand factors involved with decision making for future fertility. The FACTS will improve services and utilization of fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. Phase-I examined patient characteristics as associated with FP decision. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 108 reproductive-aged (18-45 years) males and females who received a fertility consultation before cancer treatment from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014 was conducted. Chi-square, student's t-test, and logistic regression were conducted to examine associations with FP decision. RESULTS: The utilization rate of FP following fertility consultation was 49%. Gender was the most significant factor contributing to FP decision; 74% of those who choose FP were male (odds ratio = 12.5; 95% confidence interval 5.1-31.4). Those who opted for FP were more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.042), have a solid tumor (p = 0.03), and have a shorter time from diagnosis to fertility consultation (29.5 vs. 58.8 days; p = 0.017). Age, relationship, tumor location, treatment plan, and parity were not significant predictors of FP. CONCLUSIONS: Current perceptions about patient demographics do not predict FP utilization by young adult cancer patients. Providing patients an informed fertility consultation has demonstrated an increase in FP utilization to nearly one-half of patients. Despite gender being a significant factor in choosing FP, the study did not provide reasons as to why. The phase-II study will explore patients' reasons for FP decision in a qualitative design to understand these differences.