Anti-TIGIT antibody improves PD-L1 blockade through myeloid and Treg cells.

Tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody with an active IgG1κ Fc, demonstrated improved outcomes in the phase 2 CITYSCAPE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03563716 ) when combined with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) versus atezolizumab alone1. However, there remains little consensus on the mechanism(s) of response with this combination2. Here we find that a high baseline of intratumoural macrophages and regulatory T cells is associated with better outcomes in patients treated with atezolizumab plus tiragolumab but not with atezolizumab alone. Serum sample analysis revealed that macrophage activation is associated with a clinical benefit in patients who received the combination treatment. In mouse tumour models, tiragolumab surrogate antibodies inflamed tumour-associated macrophages, monocytes and dendritic cells through Fcγ receptors (FcγR), in turn driving anti-tumour CD8+ T cells from an exhausted effector-like state to a more memory-like state. These results reveal a mechanism of action through which TIGIT checkpoint inhibitors can remodel immunosuppressive tumour microenvironments, and suggest that FcγR engagement is an important consideration in anti-TIGIT antibody development.

SKYSCRAPER-02: Tiragolumab in Combination With Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III SKYSCRAPER-02 study determined whether the benefits of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CE) could be enhanced by the addition of tiragolumab in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report final progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses. METHODS: Patients received tiragolumab 600 mg/placebo, plus atezolizumab 1,200 mg and CE (four cycles), then maintenance tiragolumab/placebo plus atezolizumab. Primary end points were investigator-assessed PFS and OS in patients without history/presence of brain metastases (primary analysis set [PAS]). Additional end points included PFS and OS in all patients regardless of brain metastases status (full analysis set [FAS]), response, and safety. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety patients were randomly assigned (FAS): 243 to tiragolumab arm and 247 to control arm. At the cutoff date (February 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 14.3 months [PAS] and 13.9 months [FAS]), final analysis of PFS in the PAS (n = 397) did not reach statistical significance (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; P = .3504; median, 5.4 months tiragolumab v 5.6 months control). At the cutoff date (September 6, 2022; median duration of follow-up, 21.2 months [FAS]), median OS in the PAS at final OS analysis was 13.1 months in both arms (stratified HR, 1.14; P = .2859). Median PFS and OS in the FAS were consistent with the PAS. The proportion of patients with immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) in the tiragolumab and control arms was 54.4% and 49.2%, respectively (grade 3/4: 7.9% and 7.7%). AEs leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 8.4% and 9.3% of tiragolumab- and control-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tiragolumab did not provide additional benefit over atezolizumab and CE in untreated ES-SCLC. The combination was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Anti-TIGIT Antibody Tiragolumab Alone or With Atezolizumab in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase 1a/1b Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Inhibition of the T-cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT)/poliovirus receptor pathway may amplify the antitumor immune response of atezolizumab in programmed death ligand 1-selected tumors. Objective: To evaluate the safety and antitumor activity of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab and its combination with atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GO30103 open-label, first-in-human phase 1a/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 13 sites in 6 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Spain, and the US). The start dates were May 23, 2016, for phase 1a and October 11, 2016, for phase 1b. Patients were aged 18 years or older with measurable disease at baseline. The clinical cutoff date was October 1, 2021. Data analysis was performed on January 24, 2022. Interventions: Patients received fixed-dose intravenous tiragolumab on day 1 of each 21-day cycle (2 mg escalating to 1200 mg) in phase 1a, plus fixed-dose intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) in phase 1b. Patients were treated until disease progression, loss of clinical benefit, or development of unacceptable toxicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points included the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of tiragolumab or combination tiragolumab plus atezolizumab. The secondary end point included the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Counts and percentages are used for categorical variables, and medians and ranges are used for continuous variables. Results: Among the phase 1a (n = 24) and 1b (n = 49) dose-escalation cohorts, the median age was 60 (range, 40-77) and 54 (range, 25-81) years, respectively. More than half of patients were women (14 of 24 [58%] and 25 of 49 [51%]), and more than a third (10 [42%] and 18 [37%]) had received 4 or more prior cancer therapies. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, and the maximum tolerated dose of tiragolumab was not reached (NR). The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (5 of 24 [21%]) in phase 1a and pruritus (5 of 49 [10%]) in phase 1b; the majority of AEs were grade 1 or 2. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) and 29 of 49 (59%) patients during phases 1a and 1b, respectively (primarily grade 1 or 2). The RP2D of tiragolumab was 600 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, which was tested in phase 1b dose expansion. The confirmed ORR was 0% during phase 1a, with evidence of antitumor activity in 6% of patients (n = 3) during phase 1b. The safety profile of combination tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in phase 1b was similar in the dose-escalation and dose-expansion cohorts. The confirmed ORR was 46% (6 of 13) in the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort (median duration of response [DOR], NR) and 28% (5 of 18) in the esophageal cancer (EC) cohort (median DOR, 15.2 [95% CI, 7.0 to NR] months). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, tiragolumab was well tolerated with or without atezolizumab; no new safety signals were observed. Preliminary antitumor activity was demonstrated for the combination regimen in patients with cancer immunotherapy-naive metastatic NSCLC or EC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02794571.

Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics, potential for CYP3A inhibition, and food effect in patients with cancer and healthy subjects receiving ipatasertib.

PURPOSE: To examine the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), CYP3A inhibition potential of ipatasertib, and effect of food on PK of ipatasertib in patients with refractory solid tumors and a dedicated food effect assessment in healthy subjects. METHODS: The Phase I dose-escalation study enrolled patients with solid tumors in a standard 3 + 3 design with a 1 week washout after the first dose, followed by once-daily dosing on a 3-week-on/1-week-off schedule. In the expansion cohort, the effect of ipatasertib on CYP3A substrate (midazolam) was assessed by examining the change in midazolam exposure when dosed in the absence and presence of steady-state ipatasertib at 600 mg. The effect of food on ipatasertib PK was studied with ipatasertib administered in fed or fasted state (6 patients from Phase I patient study and 18 healthy subjects from the dedicated food effect study). RESULTS: Ipatasertib was generally well tolerated at doses up to 600 mg given daily for 21 days. Ipatasertib showed rapid absorption (tmax, 0.5-3 h), was dose-proportional over a range of 200-800 mg, had a median half-life (range) of 45.0 h (27.8-66.9 h), and had approximately two-fold accumulation following once-daily dosing. Midazolam exposure (AUC0-∞) increased by 2.2-fold in the presence of ipatasertib. PK was comparable in subjects administered ipatasertib in a fed or fasted state. CONCLUSION: Ipatasertib exhibited rapid absorption and was dose-proportional over a broad dose range. Ipatasertib appeared to be a moderate CYP3A inhibitor when administered at 600 mg and could be administered with or without food in clinical studies. TRAIL REGISTRATION: NCT01090960 (registered March 23, 2010); NCT02536391 (registered August 31, 2015).

A phase Ib open-label dose escalation study of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cobimetinib (GDC-0973) and ipatasertib (GDC-0068) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib study explored combination dosing of the allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor cobimetinib and the ATP-competitive pan-AKT inhibitor ipatasertib. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled to two dose escalation arms, each using a 3 + 3 design in 28-day cycles. In Arm A, patients received concurrent cobimetinib and ipatasertib on days 1-21. In Arm B, cobimetinib was administered intermittently with ipatasertib for 21 days. Primary objectives evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated doses (MTD), and the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters, MAPK and PI3K pathway alterations, changes in tissue biomarkers, and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. Expansion cohorts included patients with PTEN-deficient triple-negative breast cancer and endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Among 66 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug, all experienced an adverse event (AE). Although no DLTs were reported, 6 patients experienced Cycle 1 DLT-equivalent AEs. The most common treatment-related AEs were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, dermatitis acneiform, and fatigue. Thirty-five (53%) patients experienced drug-related AEs of ≥ grade 3 severity. Cobimetinb/ipatasertib MTDs were 60/200 mg on Arm A and 150/300 mg on Arm B; the latter was chosen as the RP2D. No pharmacokinetic interactions were identified. Biomarker analyses indicated pathway blockade and increases in IFNγ and PD-L1 gene expression following the combination. Three patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer achieved partial response, all with PTEN-low disease and two with tumor also harboring KRAS mutation. CONCLUSION: There was limited tolerability and efficacy for this MEK and AKT inhibitor combination. Nonetheless, pharmacodynamic analyses indicated target engagement and suggest rationale for further exploration of cobimetinib or ipatasertib in combination with other anticancer agents. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01562275.

Phase I study of the anti-endothelin B receptor antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma.

Background Endothelin B receptor (ETBR) is involved in melanoma pathogenesis and is overexpressed in metastatic melanoma. The antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A targets ETBR and is comprised of the humanized anti-ETBR monoclonal antibody conjugated to the anti-mitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). Methods This Phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and anti-tumor activity of DEDN6526A (0.3-2.8 mg/kg) given every 3 weeks (q3w) in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma. Results Fifty-three patients received a median of 6 doses of DEDN6526A (range 1-49). The most common drug-related adverse events (>25% across dose levels) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, diarrhea, alopecia, and chills. Three patients in dose-escalation experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (infusion-related reaction, increased ALT/AST, and drug-induced liver injury). Based on cumulative safety data across all dose levels, the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) for DEDN6526A was 2.4 mg/kg intravenous (IV) q3w. The pharmacokinetics of antibody-conjugated MMAE and total antibody were dose-proportional at doses ranging from 1.8-2.8 mg/kg. A trend toward faster clearance was observed at doses of 0.3-1.2 mg/kg. There were 6 partial responses (11%) in patients with metastatic cutaneous or mucosal melanoma, and 17 patients (32%) had prolonged stable disease ≥6 months. Responses were independent of BRAF mutation status but did correlate with ETBR expression. Conclusion DEDN6526A administered at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg q3w had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of anti-tumor activity in patients with cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522664.

A First-in-Human Phase I Study of the ATP-Competitive AKT Inhibitor Ipatasertib Demonstrates Robust and Safe Targeting of AKT in Patients with Solid Tumors.

Activation of AKT signaling by PTEN loss or PIK3CA mutations occurs frequently in human cancers, but targeting AKT has been difficult due to the mechanism-based toxicities of inhibitors that target the inactive conformation of AKT. Ipatasertib (GDC-0068) is a novel selective ATP-competitive small-molecule inhibitor of AKT that preferentially targets active phosphorylated AKT (pAKT) and is potent in cell lines with evidence of AKT activation. In this phase I study, ipatasertib was well tolerated; most adverse events were gastrointestinal and grade 1-2 in severity. The exposures of ipatasertib ≥200 mg daily in patients correlated with preclinical TGI90, and pharmacodynamic studies confirmed that multiple targets (i.e., PRAS40, GSK3ß, and mTOR) were inhibited in paired on-treatment biopsies. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed; 16 of 52 patients (30%), with diverse solid tumors and who progressed on prior therapies, had radiographic stable disease, and many of their tumors had activation of AKT. SIGNIFICANCE: Potent inhibition of AKT signaling with ipatasertib was associated with a tolerable safety profile and meaningful disease control in a subgroup of patients. Targeting pAKT with an ATP-competitive inhibitor provides a greater therapeutic window than allosteric inhibitors. Further investigation with ipatasertib is ongoing in phase II studies. Cancer Discov; 7(1); 102-13. ©2016 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1.

A randomized controlled trial of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation video in advance care planning for progressive pancreas and hepatobiliary cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important advance directive (AD) topic in patients with progressive cancer; however such discussions are challenging. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates whether video educational information about CPR engenders broader advance care planning (ACP) discourse. METHODS: Patients with progressive pancreas or hepatobiliary cancer were randomized to an educational CPR video or a similar CPR narrative. The primary end-point was the difference in ACP documentation one month posttest between arms. Secondary end-points included study impressions; pre- and post-intervention knowledge of and preferences for CPR and mechanical ventilation; and longitudinal patient outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects were consented and analyzed. Rates of ACP documentation (either formal ADs or documented discussions) were 40% in the video arm (12/30) compared to 15% in the narrative arm (4/26), OR=3.6 [95% CI: 0.9-18.0], p=0.07. Post-intervention knowledge was higher in both arms. Posttest, preferences for CPR had changed in the video arm but not in the narrative arm. Preferences regarding mechanical ventilation did not change in either arm. The majority of subjects in both arms reported the information as helpful and comfortable to discuss, and they recommended it to others. More deaths occurred in the video arm compared to the narrative arm, and more subjects died in hospice settings in the video arm. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot randomized trial addressing downstream ACP effects of video versus narrative decision tools demonstrated a trend towards more ACP documentation in video subjects. This trend, as well as other video effects, is the subject of ongoing study.

gamma-Secretase inhibitors abrogate oxaliplatin-induced activation of the Notch-1 signaling pathway in colon cancer cells resulting in enhanced chemosensitivity.

Because Notch signaling is implicated in colon cancer tumorigenesis and protects cells from apoptosis by inducing prosurvival targets, it was hypothesized that inhibition of Notch signaling with gamma-secretase inhibitors (GSI) may enhance the chemosensitivity of colon cancer cells. We first show that the Notch-1 receptor, as well as its downstream target Hes-1, is up-regulated with colon cancer progression, similar to other genes involved in chemoresistance. We then report that chemotherapy induces Notch-1, as oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), or SN-38 (the active metabolite of irinotecan) induced Notch-1 intracellular domain (NICD) protein and activated Hes-1. Induction of NICD by oxaliplatin was caused by an increase in the activity and expression of gamma-secretase complex, as suppression of the protein subunit nicastrin with small interfering RNA (siRNA) prevented NICD induction after oxaliplatin. Subsequent inhibition of Notch-1 signaling with a sulfonamide GSI (GSI34) prevented the induction of NICD by chemotherapy and blunted Hes-1 activation. Blocking the activation of Notch signaling with GSI34 sensitized cells to chemotherapy and was synergistic with oxaliplatin, 5-FU, and SN-38. This chemosensitization was mediated by Notch-1, as inhibition of Notch-1 with siRNA enhanced chemosensitivity whereas overexpression of NICD increased chemoresistance. Down-regulation of Notch signaling also prevented the induction of prosurvival pathways, most notably phosphoinositide kinase-3/Akt, after oxaliplatin. In summary, colon cancer cells may up-regulate Notch-1 as a protective mechanism in response to chemotherapy. Therefore, combining GSIs with chemotherapy may represent a novel approach for treating metastatic colon cancers by mitigating the development of chemoresistance.