PD-L1 diagnostics in the neoadjuvant setting: implications of intratumoral heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in triple negative breast cancer for assessment in small biopsies.

PURPOSE: PD-L1 expression is a predictive biomarker for anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). In the neoadjuvant setting, immunohistochemical (IHC) evaluation of PD-L1 expression can only be performed on small tissue biopsies. In our study we investigated heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in TNBC, and how reliably PD-L1 expression in small tissue samples reflects PD-L1 expression in larger tumor sections in TNBC. METHODS: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed from surgical specimens of 110 patients with TNBC. TMAs contained 4 cores (1 mm in diameter) per patient. To evaluate PD-L1 expression, TMAs were stained with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 PharmDx. Single-core PD-L1 expression was compared to overall PD-L1 expression of each patient's tumor, to ascertain how often small samples of tumor tissue show the same PD-L1 expression as larger tumor samples. RESULTS: Our study found substantial heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression between different TMA cores from the same patient. Heterogeneity was greater in immune cells (ICs) than in tumor cells, in large part due to the uneven distribution of ICs in the tumor. For IC PD-L1 expression, we found that sensitivity can be as low as 0.81 for detecting PD-L1 expression at the 1% threshold most commonly used in breast cancer. Negative predictive value for ICs was 0.7. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression between small tissue samples from the same TNBC tumor, especially for IC expression. This poses challenges for evaluation of PD-L1 expression in the neoadjuvant setting. Negative biopsies should prompt further investigation, and multiple biopsies might be necessary.

An open label phase 1 study evaluation safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of oral administration of irinotecan in combination with capecitabine.

PURPOSE: Oral administration of chemotherapy offers several advantages in comparison with intravenous administration. Previously, data on a new oral formulation of irinotecan have been published. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of the new oral irinotecan formulation in combination with oral capecitabine. METHODS: The study was an open label, phase 1, single center, extension part in which oral irinotecan was investigated in combination with capecitabine. The MTD of irinotecan in combination with capecitabine was 17.5 mg/m2 once daily for 14 consecutive days in combination with capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily. Eligible patients were adults with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors for which no standard curative or palliative therapies existed. RESULTS: 14 patients were included in the extension part. No grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities were observed. Non-hematological toxicities included grade 1 and 2 diarrhea, fatigue, cholinergic syndrome, vomiting, and weight loss. Totally, 3 grade 3 toxicities and no grade 4 event were reported. No objective responses were observed. Five patients had stable disease lasting median 14 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine in combination with oral irinotecan could be a new treatment option offering a more convenient and patient friendly treatment strategy compared to intravenous irinotecan. The combination is fairly tolerated; however, further investigations are needed to assess the efficacy of this regimen.

Oral administration of irinotecan in patients with solid tumors: an open-label, phase I, dose escalating study evaluating safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: Oral drug formulations have several advantages compared to intravenous formulation. Apart from patient convenience and favorable pharmacoeconomics, they offer the possibility of frequent drug administration at home. In this study, we present a new oral irinotecan formulation designed as an enteric coated immediate release tablet which in pre-clinical studies has shown good exposure with low variability. METHODS: A phase I, dose escalating study to assess safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of an oral irinotecan formulation and to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Each treatment cycle was once-daily irinotecan for 14 days followed by 1 week rest. RESULTS: 25 patients were included across four cohorts; 3 patients were included in cohort 1 (20 mg/m2), 7 patients were included in cohort 2 (30 mg/m2), 3 patients were included in cohort 3 (25 mg/m2) and 12 patients were included in cohort 4 (21 mg/m2). Median age was 67 years, 52% were performance status (PS) 0 while 48% were PS 1. Median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-6). MTD was established at 21 mg/m2. No responses were observed. Nine patients (36%) had stable disease (SD), lasting median 19 weeks (range 7-45 weeks). Among these five patients had previously received irinotecan. No grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were reported. Totally six patients experienced grade 1/2 anemia, three patients had grade 1/2 leucopenia and 1 patient had grade 1 thrombocytopenia. Most common non-hematological grade 1 and 2 adverse events were nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting and cholinergic syndrome. Grade 3 toxicities included diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, no grade 4 events were reported. PK data showed consistent daily exposures during treatment at days 1 and 14 and no drug accumulation. SN-38 interpatient variability was in the same range as after infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Oral irinotecan was generally well tolerated; side effects were manageable and similar in type to those observed with intravenous irinotecan. Hematological toxicities were few and only grade 1/2. In this heavily pre-treated patient population, oral irinotecan demonstrated activity even among patients previously treated with irinotecan.