Bintrafusp alfa and chemotherapy as first-line treatment in biliary tract cancer: A randomized phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We compared the safety and efficacy of bintrafusp alfa (BA) in combination with gemcitabine+cisplatin (GemCis), to those of GemCis alone, in patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC). APPROACH AND RESULTS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive design phase 2/3 trial (NCT04066491) included treatment-naïve adults with locally advanced/metastatic BTC. Patients (N=297) were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of BA (2400 mg once/3 wk) plus GemCis (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2+cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8/3 wk; 8 cycles) (BA group, n=148) or placebo+GemCis (placebo group, n=149). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). For adaptation analysis (phase 2-phase 3; data cut-off: May 20, 2021), efficacy was assessed in the first 150 patients who were antibiotic-naïve, when 80 progression-free survival events had occurred and ≥19 weeks of follow-up had been completed (BA, n=73; placebo, n=77). Median OS (95% CI) for the BA (11.5 mo [9.3-not estimable, NE]) and placebo (11.5 mo [10.0-NE]) groups was comparable (hazard ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.66-2.28]; p=0.7394); OS data maturity was 27.2% (41 events/151 patients). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was anemia (BA, 26.0%; placebo, 22.8%). Bleeding adverse events were reported more frequently in the BA group (28.8%) versus the placebo group (7.4%). Deaths within 60 days of the first dose were reported in 7.5% and 1.3% of patients in the BA and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BA+GemCis did not provide a clinically meaningful benefit compared to GemCis alone as first-line treatment for BTC and the study was discontinued early (terminated: August 20, 2021).

Bintrafusp Alfa With CCRT Followed by Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Placebo With CCRT Followed by Durvalumab in Patients With Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: A Phase 2 Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical evaluation of bintrafusp alfa (BA) combined with radiotherapy revealed greater antitumor effects than BA or radiotherapy alone. In a phase 1 study, BA exhibited encouraging clinical activity in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received previous treatment. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, controlled phase 2 study (NCT03840902) evaluated the safety and efficacy of BA with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by BA (BA group) versus placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab (durvalumab group) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. On the basis of the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, the study was discontinued before the maturity of overall survival data (secondary end point). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were randomized to either BA (n = 75) or durvalumab groups (n = 78). The median progression-free survival was 12.8 months versus 14.6 months (stratified hazard ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.69-3.17]), in the BA and durvalumab groups, respectively. Trends for overall response rate (29.3% versus 32.1%) and disease control rate (66.7% versus 70.5%) were similar between the two groups. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 94.6% versus 96.1% of patients in the BA versus durvalumab groups, respectively. Bleeding events in the BA group were mostly grade 1 (21.6%) or 2 (9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: BA with cCRT followed by BA exhibited no efficacy benefit over placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC.

Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Programmed Death-Ligand 1-High Advanced NSCLC: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1-16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1-15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo-not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo-NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885-1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo-NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo-NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796-1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high, advanced NSCLC.

Dual inhibition of TGF-ß and PD-L1: a novel approach to cancer treatment.

Transforming growth factor-ß (TGF-ß) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) initiate signaling pathways with complementary, nonredundant immunosuppressive functions in the tumor microenvironment (TME). In the TME, dysregulated TGF-ß signaling suppresses antitumor immunity and promotes cancer fibrosis, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, and angiogenesis. Meanwhile, PD-L1 expression inactivates cytotoxic T cells and restricts immunosurveillance in the TME. Anti-PD-L1 therapies have been approved for the treatment of various cancers, but TGF-ß signaling in the TME is associated with resistance to these therapies. In this review, we discuss the importance of the TGF-ß and PD-L1 pathways in cancer, as well as clinical strategies using combination therapies that block these pathways separately or approaches with dual-targeting agents (bispecific and bifunctional immunotherapies) that may block them simultaneously. Currently, the furthest developed dual-targeting agent is bintrafusp alfa. This drug is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein that consists of the extracellular domain of the TGF-ßRII receptor (a TGF-ß 'trap') fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody blocking PD-L1. Given the immunosuppressive effects of the TGF-ß and PD-L1 pathways within the TME, colocalized and simultaneous inhibition of these pathways may potentially improve clinical activity and reduce toxicity.

RAS mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in French clinical practice: A status report in 2014.

BACKGROUND: RAS (NRAS + KRAS) mutation testing is required in addition to simple KRAS testing prior to initiating anti-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor (EGFR) antibodies (MAb) as in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). AIMS: To assess prescription and implementation rates of RAS/KRAS mutation testing. To describe the RAS/KRAS mutation test procedure and its impact on therapeutic strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study conducted from June to September 2014 in all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. RESULTS: Data from 375 patients (male: 57.8%; mean age, 65.7 ±â€¯11.7 years) were analysed. RAS/KRAS mutation testing was prescribed in 90.1% of patients (338/375). The test was prescribed within 1 month around mCRC diagnosis and prior to first-line therapy in 73.1% (242/331) and 85.4% (280/328) of patients, respectively. Time from test request to receipt of results was 24.6 ±â€¯17.2 days. 59.7% of patients (190/318) had a mutation, mainly KRAS (47.9%; 152/317). Anti-EGFR MAb was prescribed in 90.9% of RAS-wild-type cases (60/66), consistent with the goal of genotyping-testing in this population. CONCLUSION: In 2014, RAS genotyping-testing in addition to KRAS testing was routinely prescribed and performed in mCRC patients in France. Time to receive results remains long and must be reduced so as to match clinical practice.

Rationale for combination of therapeutic antibodies targeting tumor cells and immune checkpoint receptors: Harnessing innate and adaptive immunity through IgG1 isotype immune effector stimulation.

Immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 antibodies stimulate antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). Cetuximab, an IgG1 isotype monoclonal antibody, is a standard-of-care treatment for locally advanced and recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Here we review evidence regarding the clinical relevance of cetuximab-mediated ADCC and other immune functions and provide a biological rationale concerning why this property positions cetuximab as an ideal partner for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and other emerging immunotherapies. We performed a nonsystematic review of available preclinical and clinical data involving cetuximab-mediated immune activity and combination approaches of cetuximab with other immunotherapies, including ICIs, in SCCHN and CRC. Indeed, cetuximab mediates ADCC activity in the intratumoral space and primes adaptive and innate cellular immunity. However, counterregulatory mechanisms may lead to immunosuppressive feedback loops. Accordingly, there is a strong rationale for combining ICIs with cetuximab for the treatment of advanced tumors, as targeting CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 can ostensibly overcome these immunosuppressive counter-mechanisms in the tumor microenvironment. Moreover, combining ICIs (or other immunotherapies) with cetuximab is a promising strategy for boosting immune response and enhancing response rates and durability of response. Cetuximab immune activity-including, but not limited to, ADCC-provides a strong rationale for its combination with ICIs or other immunotherapies to synergistically and fully mobilize the adaptive and innate immunity against tumor cells. Ongoing prospective studies will evaluate the clinical effect of these combination regimens and their immune effect in CRC and SCCHN and in other indications.

Optimising the use of cetuximab in the continuum of care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and has demonstrated efficacy in later lines. Progressive disease (PD) occurs when tumours develop resistance to a therapy, although controversy remains about whether PD on a combination of chemotherapy and targeted agents implies resistance to both components. Here, we propose that some patients may gain additional clinical benefit from the reuse of cetuximab after having PD on regimens including cetuximab in an earlier treatment line. We conducted a non-systematic literature search in PubMed and reviewed published and ongoing clinical trials, focusing on later-line cetuximab reuse in patients with mCRC. Evidence from multiple studies suggests that cetuximab can be an efficacious and tolerable treatment when continued or when fit patients with mCRC are retreated with it after a break from anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, on the basis of available preclinical and clinical evidence, we propose that longitudinal monitoring of RAS status may identify patients suitable for such a strategy. Patients who experience progression on cetuximab plus chemotherapy but have maintained RAS wt tumour status may benefit from continuation of cetuximab with a chemotherapy backbone switch because they have probably developed resistance to the chemotherapeutic agents rather than the biologic component of the regimen. Conversely, patients whose disease progresses on cetuximab-based therapy due to drug-selected clonal expansion of RAS-mutant tumour cells may regain sensitivity to cetuximab following a defined break from anti-EGFR therapy. Looking to the future, we propose that RAS status determination at disease progression by liquid, needle or excisional biopsy may identify patients eligible for cetuximab continuation and rechallenge. With this approach, treatment benefit can be extended, adding to established continuum-of-care strategies in patients with mCRC.