Dual inhibition of MEK and PI3Kß/δ-a potential therapeutic strategy in PTEN-wild-type docetaxel-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Background: Docetaxel remains the standard treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, resistance frequently emerges as a result of hyperactivation of the PI3K/AKT and the MEK/ERK pathways. Therefore, the inhibition of these pathways presents a potential therapeutic approach. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of simultaneous inhibition of the PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK pathways in docetaxel-resistant mCRPC, both in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Docetaxel-sensitive and docetaxel-resistant mCRPC cells were treated with selumetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor), AZD8186 (PI3Kß/δ inhibitor) and capivasertib (pan-AKT inhibitor) alone and in combination. Efficacy and toxicity of selumetinib+AZD8186 were tested in docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice. CRISPR-Cas9 generated a PTEN-knockdown docetaxel-resistant cell model. Changes in phosphorylation of AKT, ERK and downstream targets were analyzed by Western blot. Antiapoptotic adaptations after treatments were detected by dynamic BH3 profiling. Results: PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK pathways were hyperactivated in PTEN-wild-type (wt) docetaxel-resistant cells. Selumetinib+AZD8186 decreased cell proliferation and increased apoptosis in PTEN-wt docetaxel-resistant cells. This observation was further confirmed in vivo, where docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice treated with selumetinib+AZD8186 exhibited reduced tumor growth without additional toxicity. Conclusion: Our findings on the activity of selumetinib+AZD8186 in PTEN-wt cells and in docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice provide an excellent rationale for a novel therapeutic strategy for PTEN-wt mCRPC patients resistant to docetaxel, in whom, unlike PTEN-loss patients, a clinical benefit of treatment with single-agent PI3K and AKT inhibitors has not been demonstrated. A phase I-II trial of this promising combination is warranted.

A phase Ib/II study of galunisertib in combination with nivolumab in solid tumors and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this phase Ib/II open-label study, tumor immune suppression was targeted in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors and patients with recurrent/refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using galunisertib with nivolumab. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and were treatment-naive for anti-programmed cell death-1, its ligand, or transforming growth factor ß receptor 1 kinase inhibitors. Phase Ib was an open-label, dose-escalation assessment of the safety and tolerability of galunisertib with nivolumab in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Phase II evaluated the safety of galunisertib with nivolumab in NSCLC patients who had received prior platinum-based treatment but were immuno-oncology agent-naive. RESULTS: This trial was conducted between October 2015 and August 2020. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in phase I. In the phase II NSCLC cohort (n = 25), patients received 150 mg twice daily galunisertib (14 days on/14 days off dosing schedule for all phases) plus nivolumab at 3 mg/kg (intravenously every 2 weeks). In this phase, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n = 9, 36%), fatigue (n = 8, 32%), and decreased appetite (n = 7, 28%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs were observed. Six (24%) patients had confirmed partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) had stable disease; 1 additional patient had confirmed PR after initial pseudo-progression. The median duration of response was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.75, NR). Among the 7 responders, including the delayed responder, 1 had high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%). The median progression-free survival was 5.26 months (95% CI: 1.77, 9.20) and the median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI: 8.15, NR). Interferon gamma response genes were induced post-treatment and cell adhesion genes were repressed, although the association of these observations with tumor response and clinical outcomes was not statistically powered due to limited samples available. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary endpoint as galunisertib combined with nivolumab was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed in a subset of patients in the Phase 2 NSCLC cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02423343; 22.04.2015).

Prognostic Role of Neutrophil, Monocyte and Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratios in Advanced Ovarian Cancer According to the Time of Debulking Surgery.

Despite a multimodal radical treatment, mortality of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains high. Host-related factors, such as systemic inflammatory response and its interplay with the immune system, remain underexplored. We hypothesized that the prognostic impact of this response could vary between patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) and those undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS). Therefore, we evaluated the outcomes of two surgical groups of newly diagnosed AEOC patients according to the neutrophil, monocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratios (NLR, MLR, PLR), taking median ratio values as cutoffs. In the PDS group (n = 61), low NLR and PLR subgroups showed significantly better overall survival (not reached (NR) vs. 72.7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.9-95.2, p = 0.019; and NR vs. 56.1 months, 95% CI: 40.9-95.2, p = 0.004, respectively) than those with high values. Similar results were observed in progression free survival. NLR and PLR-high values resulted in negative prognostic factors, adjusting for residual disease, BRCA1/2 status and stage (HR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.03-5.99, p = 0.043, and HR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.11-7.64, p = 0.03, respectively). In the IDS group (n = 85), ratios were not significant prognostic factors. We conclude that NLR and PLR may have prognostic value in the PDS setting, but none in IDS, suggesting that time of surgery can modulate the prognostic impact of baseline complete blood count (CBC).

Exploring the Immunogenicity of Noncanonical HLA-I Tumor Ligands Identified through Proteogenomics.

PURPOSE: Tumor antigens are central to antitumor immunity. Recent evidence suggests that peptides from noncanonical (nonC) aberrantly translated proteins can be presented on HLA-I by tumor cells. Here, we investigated the immunogenicity of nonC tumor HLA-I ligands (nonC-TL) to better understand their contribution to cancer immunosurveillance and their therapeutic applicability. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Peptides presented on HLA-I were identified in 9 patient-derived tumor cell lines from melanoma, gynecologic, and head and neck cancer through proteogenomics. A total of 507 candidate tumor antigens, including nonC-TL, neoantigens, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens, were tested for T-cell recognition of preexisting responses in patients with cancer. Donor peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) were in vitro sensitized against 170 selected nonC-TL to isolate antigen-specific T-cell receptors (TCR) and evaluate their therapeutic potential. RESULTS: We found no recognition of the 507 nonC-TL tested by autologous ex vivo expanded tumor-reactive T-cell cultures while the same cultures demonstrated reactivity to mutated, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens. However, in vitro sensitization of donor PBL against 170 selected nonC-TL, led to the identification of TCRs specific to three nonC-TL, two of which mapped to the 5' UTR regions of HOXC13 and ZKSCAN1, and one mapping to a noncoding spliced variant of C5orf22C. T cells targeting these nonC-TL recognized cancer cell lines naturally presenting their corresponding antigens. Expression of the three immunogenic nonC-TL was shared across tumor types and barely or not detected in normal cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings predict a limited contribution of nonC-TL to cancer immunosurveillance but demonstrate they may be attractive novel targets for widely applicable immunotherapies. See related commentary by Fox et al., p. 2173.

Low-dose irradiation for reversing immunotherapy resistance: how to translate?

The use of low-dose irradiation (LDI) for mobilizing innate and adaptive immunity is gaining interest among the scientific community. Recent evidence suggests that LDI can reprogramme the tumor microenvironment, induce inflammation and turn cold tumors susceptible to immunecheckpoint blockade therapy. Translating immuno-radiation preclinical findings in the clinic is more challenging than expected. We propose therapeutic strategies for combining LDI with immunotherapy, and emphasize the importance of pursuing clinical research to determine optimal radiation dosage, fractionation, volumes, and sequencing to stimulate immune-mediated tumor responses.

Phase I/II study of the LAG-3 inhibitor ieramilimab (LAG525) ± anti-PD-1 spartalizumab (PDR001) in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) is an inhibitory immunoreceptor that negatively regulates T-cell activation. This paper presents preclinical characterization of the LAG-3 inhibitor, ieramilimab (LAG525), and phase I data for the treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors with ieramilimab ±the anti-programmed cell death-1 antibody, spartalizumab. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced/metastatic solid tumors and progressed after, or were unsuitable for, standard-of-care therapy, including checkpoint inhibitors in some cases. Patients received ieramilimab ±spartalizumab across various dose-escalation schedules. The primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). RESULTS: In total, 255 patients were allocated to single-agent ieramilimab (n=134) and combination (n=121) treatment arms. The majority (98%) had received prior antineoplastic therapy (median, 3). Four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities in each treatment arm across various dosing cohorts. No MTD was reached. The RP2D on a 3-week schedule was declared as 400 mg ieramilimab plus 300 mg spartalizumab and, on a 4-week schedule (once every 4 weeks; Q4W), as 800 mg ieramilimab plus 400 mg spartalizumab; tumor target (LAG-3) suppression with 600 mg ieramilimab Q4W was predicted to be similar to the Q4W, RP2D schedule. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 75 (56%) and 84 (69%) patients in the single-agent and combination arms, respectively. Most common TRAEs were fatigue, gastrointestinal, and skin disorders, and were of mild severity; seven patients experienced at least one treatment-related serious adverse event in the single-agent (5%) and combination group (5.8%). Antitumor activity was observed in the combination arm, with 3 (2%) complete responses and 10 (8%) partial responses in a mixed population of tumor types. In the combination arm, eight patients (6.6%) experienced stable disease for 6 months or longer versus six patients (4.5%) in the single-agent arm. Responding patients trended towards having higher levels of immune gene expression, including CD8 and LAG3, in tumor tissue at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Ieramilimab was well tolerated as monotherapy and in combination with spartalizumab. The toxicity profile of ieramilimab in combination with spartalizumab was comparable to that of spartalizumab alone. Modest antitumor activity was seen with combination treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02460224.

Low-Dose Radiotherapy Reverses Tumor Immune Desertification and Resistance to Immunotherapy.

Developing strategies to inflame tumors is critical for increasing response to immunotherapy. Here, we report that low-dose radiotherapy (LDRT) of murine tumors promotes T-cell infiltration and enables responsiveness to combinatorial immunotherapy in an IFN-dependent manner. Treatment efficacy relied upon mobilizing both adaptive and innate immunity and depended on both cytotoxic CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. LDRT elicited predominantly CD4+ cells with features of exhausted effector cytotoxic cells, with a subset expressing NKG2D and exhibiting proliferative capacity, as well as a unique subset of activated dendritic cells expressing the NKG2D ligand RAE1. We translated these findings to a phase I clinical trial administering LDRT, low-dose cyclophosphamide, and immune checkpoint blockade to patients with immune-desert tumors. In responsive patients, the combinatorial treatment triggered T-cell infiltration, predominantly of CD4+ cells with Th1 signatures. Our data support the rational combination of LDRT with immunotherapy for effectively treating low T cell-infiltrated tumors. SIGNIFICANCE: Low-dose radiation reprogrammed the tumor microenvironment of tumors with scarce immune infiltration and together with immunotherapy induced simultaneous mobilization of innate and adaptive immunity, predominantly CD4+ effector T cells, to achieve tumor control dependent on NKG2D. The combination induced important responses in patients with metastatic immune-cold tumors.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1.

A promising platform for predicting toxicity.

Organ-on-chip approaches could help researchers to better predict the toxicity of cancer immunotherapy drugs.

Phase I prognostic online (PIPO): A web tool to improve patient selection for oncology early phase clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Patient selection in phase 1 clinical trials (Ph1t) continues to be a challenge. The aim of this study was to develop a user-friendly prognostic calculator for predicting overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients to be included in Ph1t with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted agents (TAs) based on clinical parameters assessed at baseline. METHODS: Using a training cohort with consecutive patients from the VHIO phase 1 unit, we constructed a prognostic model to predict median OS (mOS) as a primary endpoint and 3-month (3m) OS rate as a secondary endpoint. The model was validated in an internal cohort after temporal data splitting and represented as a web application. RESULTS: We recruited 799 patients (training and validation sets, 558 and 241, respectively). Median follow-up was 21.2 months (m), mOS was 10.2 m (95% CI, 9.3-12.7) for ICIs cohort and 7.7 m (95% CI, 6.6-8.6) for TAs cohort. In the multivariable analysis, six prognostic variables were independently associated with OS - ECOG, number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio [dNLR], albumin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The phase 1 prognostic online (PIPO) calculator showed adequate discrimination and calibration performance for OS, with C-statistics of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78) in the validation set. The overall accuracy of the model for 3m OS prediction was 87.2% (95% CI 85%-90%). CONCLUSIONS: PIPO is a user-friendly objective and interactive tool to calculate specific survival probabilities for each patient before enrolment in a Ph1t. The tool is available at https://pipo.vhio.net/.

Tumor-Associated Microbiome: Where Do We Stand?

The study of the human microbiome in oncology is a growing and rapidly evolving field. In the past few years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of studies investigating associations of microbiome and cancer, from oncogenesis and cancer progression to resistance or sensitivity to specific anticancer therapies. The gut microbiome is now known to play a significant role in antitumor immune responses and in predicting the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients. Beyond the gut, the tumor-associated microbiome-microbe communities located either in the tumor or within its body compartment-seems to interact with the local microenvironment and the tumor immune contexture, ultimately impacting cancer progression and treatment outcome. However, pre-clinical research focusing on causality and mechanistic pathways as well as proof-of-concept studies are still needed to fully understand the potential clinical utility of microbiome in cancer patients. Moreover, there is a need for the standardization of methodology and the implementation of quality control across microbiome studies to allow for a better interpretation and greater comparability of the results reported between them. This review summarizes the accumulating evidence in the field and discusses the current and upcoming challenges of microbiome studies.

A CT-based Radiomics Signature Is Associated with Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Solid Tumors.

Background Reliable predictive imaging markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed. Purpose To develop and validate a pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced solid tumors. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, a radiomics signature was developed in patients with advanced solid tumors (including breast, cervix, gastrointestinal) treated with anti-programmed cell death-1 or programmed cell death ligand-1 monotherapy from August 2012 to May 2018 (cohort 1). This was tested in patients with bladder and lung cancer (cohorts 2 and 3). Radiomics variables were extracted from all metastases delineated at pretreatment CT and selected by using an elastic-net model. A regression model combined radiomics and clinical variables with response as the end point. Biologic validation of the radiomics score with RNA profiling of cytotoxic cells (cohort 4) was assessed with Mann-Whitney analysis. Results The radiomics signature was developed in 85 patients (cohort 1: mean age, 58 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 43 men) and tested on 46 patients (cohort 2: mean age, 70 years ± 12; 37 men) and 47 patients (cohort 3: mean age, 64 years ± 11; 40 men). Biologic validation was performed in a further cohort of 20 patients (cohort 4: mean age, 60 years ± 13; 14 men). The radiomics signature was associated with clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (area under the curve [AUC], 0.70; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.77; P < .001). In cohorts 2 and 3, the AUC was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.76) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.77; P < .001), respectively. A radiomics-clinical signature (including baseline albumin level and lymphocyte count) improved on radiomics-only performance (AUC, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.63, 0.84; P < .001]; Akaike information criterion, 107.00 and 109.90, respectively). Conclusion A pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature is associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, likely reflecting the tumor immunophenotype. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Summers in this issue.

OX40 Agonist BMS-986178 Alone or in Combination With Nivolumab and/or Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I/IIa study (NCT02737475) evaluated the safety and activity of BMS-986178, a fully human OX40 agonist IgG1 mAb, ± nivolumab and/or ipilimumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (with non-small cell lung, renal cell, bladder, other advanced cancers) received BMS-986178 (20-320 mg) ± nivolumab (240-480 mg) and/or ipilimumab (1-3 mg/kg). The primary endpoint was safety. Additional endpoints included immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: Twenty patients received BMS-986178 monotherapy, and 145 received combination therapy in various regimens (including two patients receiving nivolumab monotherapy). With a follow-up of 1.1 to 103.6 weeks, the most common (≥5%) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included fatigue, pruritus, rash, pyrexia, diarrhea, and infusion-related reactions. Overall, grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in one of 20 patients (5%) receiving BMS-986178 monotherapy, six of 79 (8%) receiving BMS-986178 plus nivolumab, zero of two receiving nivolumab monotherapy, six of 41 (15%) receiving BMS-986178 plus ipilimumab, and three of 23 (13%) receiving BMS-986178 plus nivolumab plus ipilimumab. No deaths occurred. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed with monotherapy, and the MTD was not reached in either the monotherapy or the combination escalation cohorts. No objective responses were seen with BMS-986178 alone; objective response rates ranged from 0% to 13% across combination therapy cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, BMS-986178 ± nivolumab and/or ipilimumab appeared to have a manageable safety profile, but no clear efficacy signal was observed above that expected for nivolumab and/or ipilimumab.

PSA Kinetics as Prognostic Markers of Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Abiraterone Acetate.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (AA) is widely used in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, a significant percentage of patients will still progress, highlighting the need to identify patients more likely to benefit from AA. Parameters linked to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are promising prognostic markers. We have examined clinical and PSA-related factors potentially associated with overall survival (OS) in patients treated with AA. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2014, 104 patients with mCRPC treated with AA after progression to docetaxel at centers of the Catalan Institute of Oncology were included in this retrospective study. Patients were assessed monthly. Baseline characteristics and variables related to PSA kinetics were included in univariate and multivariate analyses of OS. RESULTS: Median OS was 16.4 months (range 12.4-20.6) for all patients. The univariate analysis identified the following baseline characteristics as significantly associated with OS: ECOG PS, location of metastases, time between starting androgen deprivation therapy and starting AA, time between stopping docetaxel treatment and starting AA, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), alkaline phosphatase levels, and PSA levels. Factors related to PSA kinetics associated with longer OS were PSA response >50%, early PSA response (>30% decline at four weeks), PSA decline >50% at week 12, PSA nadir <2.4ng/mL, time to PSA nadir >140 days, the combination of PSA nadir and time to PSA nadir, and low end-of-treatment PSA levels. The multivariate analysis identified ECOG PS (HR 37.46; p<0.001), NLR (HR 3.7; p<0.001), early PSA response (HR 1.22; p=0.002), and time to PSA nadir (HR 0.39; p=0.002) as independent prognostic markers. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate an association between PSA kinetics, especially early PSA response, and outcome to AA after progression to docetaxel. Taken together with other factors, lack of an early PSA response could identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from AA and who could be closely monitored with a view to offering alternative therapies.

High versus low dose irradiation for tumor immune reprogramming.

Local administration of ionizing radiation to tumors can promote anticancer immune responses that lead to the abscopal regression of distant metastases, especially in patients receiving systemic immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Growing preclinical evidence indicates that high-dose irradiation administered locally to destroy malignant lesions, can promote the release of danger-associated molecular patterns that lead to the recruitment of immune cells, thus inducing a systemic response against tumor antigens that protects against local disease relapse and also mediates distant antineoplastic effects. An accumulating body of preclinical evidence supports also the implementation of low-dose irradiation to induce tumor immune reprogramming. Here, we provide the rationale for a clinical research agenda to refine future clinical practice based on innovative combinations of radiation-immunotherapy.

Turning up the heat on non-immunoreactive tumours: opportunities for clinical development.

Notable advances have been achieved in the treatment of cancer since the advent of immunotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown clinical benefit across a wide variety of tumour types. Nevertheless, most patients still progress on these treatments, highlighting the importance of unravelling the underlying mechanisms of primary resistance to immunotherapy. A well described biomarker of non-responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors is the absence or low presence of lymphocytes in the tumour microenvironment, so-called cold tumours. There are five mechanisms of action that have the potential to turn cold tumours into so-called hot and inflamed tumours, hence increasing the tumour's responsiveness to immunotherapy-increasing local inflammation, neutralising immunosuppression at the tumour site, modifying the tumour vasculature, targeting the tumour cells themselves, or increasing the frequency of tumour-specific T cells. In this Review, we discuss preclinical data that serves as the basis for ongoing immunotherapy clinical trials for the treatment of non-immunoreactive tumours, as well as reviewing clinical and translational data where available. We explain how improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of primary resistance to immunotherapy will help elucidate an increasingly granular view of the tumour microenvironment cellular composition, functional status, and cellular localisation, with the goal of further therapy refinement.

Guillain-Barré syndrome after adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is a promising experimental immunotherapy that has shown high objective responses in patients with melanoma. Current protocols use a lymphodepletive chemotherapy before infusion of ex vivo expanded TILs, followed by high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2). Treatment-related toxicities are mainly attributable to the chemotherapy regimen and to the high-dose IL-2 and are generally reversible. Neurological side effects have rarely been described. Nevertheless, due to improvements in cell production techniques and due to combinations with other immunomodulating molecules, side effects not previously described may be encountered. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 53-year-old heavily pretreated patient with melanoma who developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) 19 days after ACT using autologous TILs, given in the context of a phase I trial. He presented with dorsal back pain, unsteady gait and numbness in hands and feet. Lumbar puncture showed albuminocytological dissociation, and nerve conduction studies revealed prolonged distal motor latencies in median, ulnar, tibial and peroneal nerves, compatible with a GBS. The patient was treated with intravenous immunoglobulins and intensive neurological rehabilitation, with progressive and full recovery at 21 months post-TIL-ACT. Concomitant to the onset of GBS, a cytomegalovirus reactivation on immunosuppression was detected and considered as the most plausible cause of this neurological side effect. CONCLUSION: We describe for the first time a case of GBS occurring shortly after TIL-ACT for melanoma, even though we could not identify with certainty the triggering agent. The report of such rare cases is of extreme importance to build on the knowledge of immune cellular therapies and their specific spectrum of toxicities.

A first-in-human phase 1 dose escalation study of spartalizumab (PDR001), an anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Spartalizumab is a humanized IgG4κ monoclonal antibody that binds programmed death-1 (PD-1) and blocks its interaction with PD-L1 and PD-L2. This phase 1/2 study was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of spartalizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: In the phase 1 part of the study, 58 patients received spartalizumab, intravenously, at doses of 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg, administered every 2 weeks (Q2W), or 3 or 5 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W). RESULTS: Patients had a wide range of tumor types, most commonly sarcoma (28%) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (10%); other tumor types were reported in ≤3 patients each. Most patients (93%) had received prior antineoplastic therapy (median three prior lines) and two-thirds of the population had tumor biopsies negative for PD-L1 expression at baseline. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The recommended phase 2 doses were selected as 400 mg Q4W or 300 mg Q3W. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and adverse events included those typical of other PD-1 antibodies. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (22%), diarrhea (17%), pruritus (14%), hypothyroidism (10%), and nausea (10%). Partial responses occurred in two patients (response rate 3.4%); one with atypical carcinoid tumor of the lung and one with anal cancer. Paired tumor biopsies from patients taken at baseline and on treatment suggested an on-treatment increase in CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration in patients with clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Spartalizumab was well tolerated at all doses tested in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors. On-treatment immune activation was seen in tumor biopsies; however, limited clinical activity was reported in this heavily pretreated, heterogeneous population. The phase 2 part of this study is ongoing in select tumor types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02404441.

Capturing Hyperprogressive Disease with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors Using RECIST 1.1 Criteria.

PURPOSE: Most hyperprogression disease (HPD) definitions are based on tumor growth rate (TGR). However, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate this phenomenon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated two independent cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I trials with (i) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy or combination and (ii) targeted agents (TA) in unapproved indications. A Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1-based definition of hyperprogression was developed. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the rate of HPD in patients treated with ICIs or TAs using both criteria (RECIST and TGR) and the impact on overall survival (OS) in patients who achieved PD as best response. RESULTS: Among 270 evaluable patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, 29 PD-1/PD-L1-treated patients (10.7%) had HPD by RECIST definition. This group had a significantly lower OS (median of 5.23 months; 95% CI, 3.97-6.45) when compared with the non-HPD progressor group (median, 7.33 months; 95% CI, 4.53-10.12; HR = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.05-2.85; P = 0.04). In a subset of 221 evaluable patients, 14 (6.3%) were categorized as HPD using TGR criteria, differences in median OS (mOS) between this group (mOS 4.2 months; 95% IC, 2.07-6.33) and non-HPD progressors (n = 44) by TGR criteria (mOS 6.27 months; 95% CI, 3.88-8.67) were not statistically significant (HR 1.4, 95% IC, 0.70-2.77; P = 0.346). Among 239 evaluable patients treated with TAs, 26 (10.9%) were classified as having HPD by RECIST and 14 using TGR criteria in a subset of patients. No differences in OS were observed between HPD and non-HPD progressors treated with TAs. CONCLUSIONS: HPD measured by TGR or by RECIST was observed in both cohorts of patients; however, in our series, there was an impact on survival only in the immune-checkpoint inhibitor cohort when evaluated by RECIST. We propose a new way to capture HPD using RECIST criteria that is intuitive and easy to use in daily clinical practice.

Phase I Study of the Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) Inhibitor Navoximod (GDC-0919) Administered with PD-L1 Inhibitor (Atezolizumab) in Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: IDO1 induces immune suppression in T cells through l-tryptophan (Trp) depletion and kynurenine (Kyn) accumulation in the local tumor microenvironment, suppressing effector T cells and hyperactivating regulatory T cells (Treg). Navoximod is an investigational small-molecule inhibitor of IDO1. This phase I study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of navoximod in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study consisted of a 3+3 dose-escalation stage (n = 66) and a tumor-specific expansion stage (n = 92). Navoximod was given orally every 12 hours continuously for 21 consecutive days of each cycle with the exception of cycle 1, where navoximod administration started on day -1 to characterize pharmacokinetics. Atezolizumab was administered by intravenous infusion 1,200 mg every 3 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. RESULTS: Patients (n = 157) received navoximod at 6 dose levels (50-1,000 mg) in combination with atezolizumab. The maximum administered dose was 1,000 mg twice daily; the MTD was not reached. Navoximod demonstrated a linear pharmacokinetic profile, and plasma Kyn generally decreased with increasing doses of navoximod. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (22%), rash (22%), and chromaturia (20%). Activity was observed at all dose levels in various tumor types (melanoma, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, cervical, neural sheath, non-small cell lung cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial bladder cancer): 6 (9%) dose-escalation patients achieved partial response, and 10 (11%) expansion patients achieved partial response or complete response. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of navoximod and atezolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics for patients with advanced cancer. Although activity was observed, there was no clear evidence of benefit from adding navoximod to atezolizumab.