Ponatinib vs Imatinib in Frontline Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), disease progression due to acquired resistance to first- or second-generation BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors is common. Ponatinib inhibits BCR::ABL1 and all single-mutation variants, including T315I. Objective: To compare frontline ponatinib vs imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. Design, Setting, and Participants: Global registrational, phase 3, open-label trial in adults aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. From January 2019 to May 2022, eligible patients at 77 sites were randomized 2:1 to ponatinib (30 mg/d) or imatinib (600 mg/d) with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after the cycle 20 phase of the trial. The last date of follow-up for this analysis was August 12, 2022. Intervention: Patients received ponatinib, 30 mg/d, or imatinib, 600 mg/d, with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after cycle 20. The ponatinib dose was reduced to 15 mg on achievement of minimal residual disease-(MRD) negative complete remission. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of this interim analysis was MRD-negative complete remission (≤0.01% BCR::ABL1 [MR4] centrally assessed by reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction), with complete remission maintained for at least 4 weeks at the end of cycle 3. The key secondary end point was event-free survival. Results: Of 245 patients randomized (median age, 54 years; 133 [54.3%] female), 232 (ponatinib, n = 154; imatinib, n = 78) who had p190 or p210 dominant isoforms verified by the central laboratory were analyzed for the primary end point. The MRD-negative complete remission rate (primary end point) was significantly higher with ponatinib (34.4% [53/154]) vs imatinib (16.7% [13/78]) (risk difference, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06-0.29]; P = .002). At the data cutoff, event-free survival had not met the prespecified number of events. Median event-free survival was not reached in the ponatinib group and was 29 months in the imatinib group. The most common adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and comparable between groups (ponatinib, 2.5%; imatinib, 1.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: Ponatinib demonstrated a superior rate of MRD-negative complete remission at the end of induction vs imatinib when combined with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. The safety profile of ponatinib was comparable with imatinib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03589326.

Update on the psychometric properties and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds of the FACT-M questionnaire for use in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: For valid and reliable assessment of patients' Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), it is crucial to use psychometrically robust instruments. In the context of rare diseases such as Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), validated disease-specific instruments are often not available. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Melanoma (FACT-M) was originally developed for use in melanoma. Its psychometric performance for use in MCC and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds have been previously reported based on a cohort of metastatic MCC patients who had disease progression following one or more prior line of chemotherapy (NCT02155647 Part A; n = 70). Since then, new data from the phase II JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial among treatment-naïve patients are available (NCT02155647 Part B; n = 102). This study aims to increase accuracy and precision of previously established psychometric properties and MID thresholds of FACT-M in metastatic MCC patients. METHODS: Published qualitative research suggests that patients with metastatic MCC had similar experiences and described similar concepts associated with their disease independent of whether they were treatment naïve or had prior treatment. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to pool FACT-M data from Part A (previously treated) and Part B (treatment-naïve) cohorts for this study. Construct validity was assessed by evaluating item-factor correlations (convergent validity) and known-groups validity using ECOG performance status 0 versus 1. Concurrent validity was assessed using EQ-5D items. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to derive MID thresholds. RESULTS: Overall, psychometric tests based on various validity (convergent, known-groups, concurrent) and reliability (Cronbach α) analyses confirmed previous findings in that FACT-M performs well in MCC patients. MID thresholds derived from this study are largely in line with previously established thresholds with some minor adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rare diseases, which often have limited data available for psychometric testing, a reasonably large MCC patient sample was available for this study, enhancing accuracy and precision of previously established FACT-M psychometric properties and MID thresholds with only small deviations for use in metastatic MCC patients. Results suggest that the FACT-M is suitable for Merkel cell carcinoma regardless of patients' treatment status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a pre-planned post-hoc analysis conducted on data collected in Part A and Part B of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. This trial was registered on 2 June 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647.

Evaluation of the potential for QTc prolongation with avelumab.

PURPOSE: To report integrated electrocardiogram (ECG) summary and exposure-QTc analyses for avelumab, a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds programmed cell death 1 ligand 1, to assess potential effects on cardiac repolarization. METHODS: Data were pooled from three-phase 1/2 studies of patients with advanced solid tumors who received avelumab monotherapy (22,000 ECGs from 1818 patients). All analyses used 12-lead singlet ECGs taken using local ECG machines before and approximately 2 h after avelumab infusion on prespecified days. The exposure-QTc and outlier analyses used locally read ECGs; since larger variability is known to be associated with local reading, outlier ECGs were subsequently reevaluated by central read. QTc derived from Fridericia's formula (QTcF) and a project-specific formula (QTcP) were analyzed. Multivariable linear mixed-effects models were used to describe the relationship between serum concentration of avelumab and QTc absolute value or change from baseline (ΔQTc). RESULTS: Exposure-QTc models showed that the effect of avelumab on QTc or ΔQTc was minimal and not statistically significant for both QTcP and QTcF. In addition, models including avelumab concentration and diphenhydramine premedication use did not show a clinically meaningful effect on the QT interval. The frequency of QTc outliers in both short and long ranges was overestimated by local reads. Six patients (0.3%) were QTc outliers; all had either received concomitant medication known to cause QT prolongation or had a preexisting cardiac condition. CONCLUSION: Avelumab does not have any clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization.

Early objective response to avelumab treatment is associated with improved overall survival in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Response rates are primary endpoints in many oncology trials; however, correlation with overall survival (OS) is not uniform across cancer types, treatments, or lines of therapy. This study explored the association between objective response (OR) and OS in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma who received avelumab (anti-PD-L1). METHODS: Eighty-eight patients enrolled in JAVELIN Merkel 200 (part A; NCT02155647) received i.v. avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Using conditional landmark analyses, we compared OS in patients with and without confirmed OR (RECIST v1.1). We applied a Cox model that included OR as a time-varying covariate and adjusted for age, visceral disease, and number of previous therapies. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients had confirmed OR; 20 by study week 7 and 7 more between study weeks 7 and 13. Survival probabilities 18 months after treatment initiation were 90% [95% confidence interval (CI) 65.6-97.4] in patients with OR at week 7 and 26.2% (95% CI 15.7-37.8) in patients without OR but who were alive at week 7. Median OS was not reached in patients with OR and was 8.8 months (95% CI 6.4-12.9) in patients without. Similar results were observed for the week 13 landmark. The adjusted Cox model showed OR was associated with a 95% risk reduction of death [hazard ratio 0.052 (95% CI 0.018-0.152)] compared with a nonresponse. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OR by 7 or 13 weeks had significantly longer OS than patients without, confirming that early OR is an endpoint of major importance.

Avelumab Immunotherapy: Management of Adverse Events Associated With New Treatment for Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is a rare skin cancer with poor prognosis. Avelumab is the first approved treatment option for patients with mMCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as avelumab, are associated with unique toxicities that can be effectively addressed with prompt recognition and appropriate management. OBJECTIVES: This article discusses the use of avelumab for the treatment of mMCC and management of associated toxicities. METHODS: Literature on mMCC disease state and clinical trial data for avelumab were reviewed. FINDINGS: Avelumab has been investigated in patients with mMCC either following disease progression after one or more prior lines of chemotherapy or no prior systemic therapy. These patients experience clinically meaningful benefit. About 70% of patients receiving avelumab experience treatment-related adverse events. Given the limited benefit of chemotherapy, managing symptoms related to avelumab is key to administering this effective treatment to patients with mMCC.

Comparative effectiveness of avelumab versus chemotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma: innovative use of patient insights.

AIM: To assess patient experience with chemotherapy and avelumab in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC). METHODS: In the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial, chemotherapy-refractory mMCC patients could participate in optional qualitative interviews at baseline documenting recollection of previous chemotherapy experience, and at weeks 13/25 documenting current experience with avelumab. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy subscale for melanoma questionnaire (FACT-M) was administered in parallel. RESULTS: In our sample, chemotherapy was associated with an unpleasant experience. On selected FACT-M items addressing chemotherapy-impacted concepts, most patients receiving avelumab were improved or stable; few worsened. In addition, a few patients spontaneously reported experiencing less toxicity with avelumab than experienced during previous chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: This approach merging qualitative and quantitative data suggests that mMCC patients report a better experience with avelumab than with chemotherapy.

How to address the challenges of evaluating treatment benefits-risks in rare diseases? A convergent mixed methods approach applied within a Merkel cell carcinoma phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Demonstrating treatment benefits within clinical trials in the context of rare diseases is often methodologically and practically challenging. Mixed methods research offers an approach to overcome these challenges by combining quantitative and qualitative data, thus providing a better understanding of the research question. A convergent mixed methods design in the context of Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare skin cancer, was used during the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647). METHODS: Nine patients receiving avelumab in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial were interviewed at baseline prior to receiving study treatment, and at 13 weeks and 25 weeks after first avelumab administration. Key concepts of interest identified from the baseline interviews were physical functioning, fatigue/energy, and pain. Patient perceptions of the overall change in their cancer-related health status since starting study treatment were also recorded. During qualitative analysis, at each time-point, each concept of interest was assigned a category describing the trend in change (e.g. newly emerged, no change/stable, improved, worsened, ceased/disappeared). In parallel, patients' tumour status was determined by the clinical overall response status as per the clinical trial protocol. RESULTS: A high concordance between patient-reported qualitative data and assessed tumour response was observed. All eight patients who clinically improved had perceived a subjective improvement in their disease since the beginning of the study; the single patient whose disease worsened had a perceived deterioration. Patient perceived benefit in physical functioning, fatigue/energy and pain was subsequent to the measured change in clinical status as assessed by tumour response. This suggests that patient-reported assessment should be examined over the long term in order to optimally capture meaningful treatment effect. CONCLUSION: Embedding qualitative research in clinical trials to complement the quantitative data is an innovative approach to characterise meaningful treatment effect. This application of mixed methods research has the potential to overcome the hurdles associated with clinical outcomes assessment in rare diseases.

Efficacy and Safety of First-line Avelumab Treatment in Patients With Stage IV Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Preplanned Interim Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

Importance: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive skin cancer that is associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with distant metastatic disease. Results of part A of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (avelumab in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma) showed that avelumab, an anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, demonstrated efficacy in second-line or later treatment of patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC). Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of avelumab as first-line treatment for patients with distant mMCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: JAVELIN Merkel 200 part B is an international, multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of first-line avelumab monotherapy. Eligible patients were adults with mMCC who had not received prior systemic treatment for metastatic disease. Patients were not selected for PD-L1 expression or Merkel cell polyomavirus status. Data were collected from April 15, 2016, to March 24, 2017, and enrollment is ongoing. Interventions: Patients received avelumab, 10 mg/kg, by 1-hour intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Tumor status was assessed every 6 weeks and evaluated by independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary end point was durable response, defined as an objective response with a duration of at least 6 months. Secondary end points include best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival, safety, and tolerability. Results: As of March 24, 2017, 39 patients were enrolled (30 men and 9 women; median age, 75 years [range, 47-88 years]), with a median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.3-11.3 months). In a preplanned analysis, efficacy was assessed in 29 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up; the confirmed objective response rate was 62.1% (95% CI, 42.3%-79.3%), with 14 of 18 responses (77.8%) ongoing at the time of analysis. In responding patients, the estimated proportion with duration of response of at least 3 months was 93% (95% CI, 61%-99%); duration of response of at least 6 months, 83% (95% CI, 46%-96%). First-line avelumab treatment was generally well tolerated, and no treatment-related deaths or grade 4 adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of response to first-line avelumab therapy in patients with distant mMCC build on previously reported antitumor activity after second-line or later treatment, and maturing progression-free survival data suggest that responses are durable. These data further support avelumab's approval in the United States and European Union and use as a standard-of-care treatment for mMCC. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02155647.

Updated efficacy of avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma after ≥1 year of follow-up: JAVELIN Merkel 200, a phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with distant metastatic disease (mMCC). In an initial analysis from JAVELIN Merkel 200, a phase 2, prospective, open-label, single-arm trial in mMCC, avelumab-a human anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody-showed promising efficacy and a safety profile that was generally manageable and tolerable. Here, we report the efficacy of avelumab after ≥1 year of follow-up in patients with distant mMCC that had progressed following prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg by 1-h intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was best overall response. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients (N = 88) were followed for a minimum of 12 months. The confirmed objective response rate was 33.0% (95% CI, 23.3%-43.8%; complete response: 11.4%). An estimated 74% of responses lasted ≥1 year, and 72.4% of responses were ongoing at data cutoff. Responses were durable, with the median DOR not yet reached (95% CI, 18.0 months-not estimable), and PFS was prolonged; 1-year PFS and OS rates were 30% (95% CI, 21%-41%) and 52% (95% CI, 41%-62%), respectively. Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI, 7.5-not estimable). Subgroup analyses suggested a higher probability of response in patients receiving fewer prior lines of systemic therapy, with a lower baseline disease burden, and with PD-L1-positive tumors; however, durable responses occurred irrespective of baseline factors, including tumor Merkel cell polyomavirus status. CONCLUSIONS: With longer follow-up, avelumab continues to show durable responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with distant mMCC whose disease had progressed after chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02155647.

Nonprogression with avelumab treatment associated with gains in quality of life in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

AIM: To assess the association between tumor response and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with the anti-PD-L1 avelumab. MATERIALS & METHODS: Phase II single-arm trial (NCT02155647) data of 88 patients were analyzed. Correlations between percentage reduction in tumor size and change from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), FACT - Melanoma (FACT-M) and EuroQol-5 Dimension scores were calculated. HRQoL and utility by tumor response (per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1) was estimated. RESULTS: Tumor shrinkage correlated positively with patients' change from baseline in the FACT-M total (0.364 [95% CI: 0.050-0.607]) and subscale scores. Differences in HRQoL and utility between nonprogressive disease and progressive disease were clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, nonprogression during treatment with avelumab correlated with gains in HRQoL.

Nanomedicine drug development: a scientific symposium entitled "Charting a roadmap to commercialization".

The use of nanotechnology in medicine holds great promise for revolutionizing a variety of therapies. The past decade witnessed dramatic advancements in scientific research in nanomedicines, although significant challenges still exist in nanomedicine design, characterization, development, and manufacturing. In March 2013, a two-day symposium "Nanomedicines: Charting a Roadmap to Commercialization," sponsored and organized by the Nanomedicines Alliance, was held to facilitate better understanding of the current science and investigative approaches and to identify and discuss challenges and knowledge gaps in nanomedicine development programs. The symposium provided a forum for constructive dialogue among key stakeholders in five distinct areas: nanomedicine design, preclinical pharmacology, toxicology, CMC (chemistry, manufacturing, and control), and clinical development. In this meeting synopsis, we highlight key points from plenary presentations and focus on discussions and recommendations from breakout sessions of the symposium.

Experiences of participants in a collaborative to develop performance measures for hospice care.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing attention paid to quality assessment in hospice as the industry has grown and diversified. In response, policymakers have called for standardized approaches to monitoring hospice quality. The experiences of a set of hospices involved with the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Collaborative, which was designed to test the use of a standardized patient symptom assessment tool as an exemplar of efforts to standardize symptom assessment in hospice, were examined. METHODS: Transcripts of semistructured telephone interviews with 24 individuals from eight of the nine participating hospices, which were conducted in July-August 2007, were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Interview questions centered on the collaborative's impact on the process of quality assessment at the hospices. FINDINGS: The collaborative activities influenced several hospices' quality assessment processes, most beneficially by prompting greater attention to quality assessment processes, by promoting the adoption of quality assessment tools, and by creating a supportive community. Challenges included the limits of distance communication technology, participants' misconceptions about data to be received, and potential lack of support and resources for quality assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of the participating hospices in the NAHC collaborative are intended to inform the design of future interorganizational learning efforts to promote quality assessment initiatives within hospice settings. Future hospice collaboratives should use multiple methods of communication to build a close participant network and be clear about collaborative goals and participant expectations and about the reciprocal relationship of the collaborative and the participants.

Benefits and challenges in use of a standardized symptom assessment instrument in hospice.

BACKGROUND: Hospices are now mandated to perform routine quality assessment under the final Medicare Hospice Conditions of Participation, creating an opportunity to explore standardized approaches to monitoring hospice quality. OBJECTIVE: We report hospice staff experiences using a standardized symptom assessment instrument, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), in a pilot study designed to develop and test quality measures on symptom management. Use of the ESAS illustrates the benefits and challenges arising with standardized symptom assessment for quality monitoring in hospice. METHODS: We interviewed 24 individuals representing 8 hospices involved with the National Association for Home Care & Hospice Quality Assessment Collaborative, which pilot tested the ESAS as a source of standardized data for quality assessment. Transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported benefits and challenges with the ESAS. Benefits were that the ESAS was a brief and easy tool that identified areas of concern, engaged patients in symptom assessment, and monitored symptom changes over time. Additionally, the ESAS was viewed as a useful teaching tool for less experienced staff. Challenges included lack of clarity about inclusion rules and frequency of assessments; difficulty interpreting the numeric symptom rating scale, difficulty incorporating patient preferences with symptoms, and a sense that the use of standard assessment instruments was "unnatural." DISCUSSION: Recommendations to promote effective use of ESAS data for quality monitoring of hospice care include standardizing implementation procedures, adding patients' preferences to the ESAS form, and staff education to enhance comfort with the instrument before implementation.