Epigenetic silencing of retinoblastoma gene regulates pathologic differentiation of myeloid cells in cancer.

Two major populations of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), monocytic MDSCs (M-MDSCs) and polymorphonuclear MDSCs (PMN-MDSCs) regulate immune responses in cancer and other pathologic conditions. Under physiologic conditions, Ly6C(hi)Ly6G(-) inflammatory monocytes, which are the normal counterpart of M-MDSCs, differentiate into macrophages and dendritic cells. PMN-MDSCs are the predominant group of MDSCs that accumulates in cancer. Here we show that a large proportion of M-MDSCs in tumor-bearing mice acquired phenotypic, morphological and functional features of PMN-MDSCs. Acquisition of this phenotype, but not the functional attributes of PMN-MDSCs, was mediated by transcriptional silencing of the retinoblastoma gene through epigenetic modifications mediated by histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC-2). These data demonstrate a new regulatory mechanism of myeloid cells in cancer.

Anti-4-1BB immunotherapy enhances systemic immune effects of radiotherapy to induce B and T cell-dependent anti-tumor immune activation and improve tumor control at unirradiated sites.

Radiation therapy (RT) can prime and boost systemic anti-tumor effects via STING activation, resulting in enhanced tumor antigen presentation and antigen recognition by T cells. It is increasingly recognized that optimal anti-tumor immune responses benefit from coordinated cellular (T cell) and humoral (B cell) responses. However, the nature and functional relevance of the RT-induced immune response are controversial, beyond STING signaling, and agonistic interventions are lacking. Here, we show that B and CD4+ T cell accumulation at tumor beds in response to RT precedes the arrival of CD8+ T cells, and both cell types are absolutely required for abrogated tumor growth in non-irradiated tumors. Further, RT induces increased expression of 4-1BB (CD137) in both T and B cells; both in preclinical models and in a cohort of patients with small cell lung cancer treated with thoracic RT. Accordingly, the combination of RT and anti-41BB therapy leads to increased immune cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment and significant abscopal effects. Thus, 4-1BB therapy enhances radiation-induced tumor-specific immune responses via coordinated B and T cell responses, thereby preventing malignant progression at unirradiated tumor sites. These findings provide a rationale for combining RT and 4-1bb therapy in future clinical trials.

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).

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenously] plus cisplatin [75 mg/m2 intravenously] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously]) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64-75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months [IQR 26·7-32·9]), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months [95% CI 16·8-21·4] vs 14·1 months [12·4-16·2]; hazard ratio 0·74 [96·6% CI 0·60-0·91]; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1-46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9-32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Trends in real-world biomarker testing and overall survival in US patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Trends/outcomes associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended biomarker testing to guide advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment were assessed. Methods: Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were included using a nationwide electronic health record-derived database (1/1/2015-10/31/2021). Trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), factors associated with testing and associations between testing and outcomes were assessed. Results: PD-L1/genomic aberration testing rates increased from 33% (2016) to 81% (2018), then plateaued. Certain clinical and demographic factors were associated with a greater likelihood of PD-L1 testing. Patients tested for PD-L1 or genomic aberrations had longer overall survival (OS). Conclusion: Biomarker testing may be associated with improved OS in aNSCLC, though not all patients had equal access to testing.

Molecular diagnostics play a critical role in precision medicine. Treatment guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend that patients newly diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) undergo molecular testing for PD-L1 and genomic aberrations to guide treatment choices. Based on the results of such biomarker testing, physicians can select optimal treatments for individual patients. The aim of this study was to describe the latest trends and disparities in real-world biomarker testing with a focus on PD-L1 and to explore the impact of biomarker testing on outcomes in first-line treatment of aNSCLC in the United States. Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were identified in the Flatiron Health database (1/1/2015­10/31/2021; N = 30,631). Annual trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing, and associations between PD-L1 and/or ≥1 genomic aberration testing and outcomes (e.g., overall survival [OS], time-to-next treatment [TTNT]) were assessed. Biomarker testing in patients receiving first-line treatment for aNSCLC increased between 2015 and 2017 and plateaued between 2018 and 2021. By 2021, approximately 20% of patients did not receive PD-L1 testing before first-line treatment and not all patients had equal access to testing. Both PD-L1 and genomic aberration testing were associated with improved OS and TTNT. This is likely due to enhanced treatment decisions leading to optimal treatment selection. Future research is warranted to understand interventions to improve biomarker testing and reduce disparities between different patient populations to improve treatment outcomes.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Characterization of Sentinel Lymph Node Immune Signatures and Implications for Risk Stratification for Adjuvant Therapy in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard procedure used to identify patients at risk for melanoma recurrence, it fails to risk-stratify certain patients accurately. Because processes in SLNs regulate anti-tumor immune responses, the authors hypothesized that SLN gene expression may be used for risk stratification. METHODS: The Nanostring nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel was used to quantify expression of 730 immune-related genes in 60 SLN specimens (31 positive [pSLNs], 29 negative [nSLNs]) from a retrospective melanoma cohort. A multivariate prediction model for recurrence-free survival (RFS) was created by applying stepwise variable selection to Cox regression models. Risk scores calculated on the basis of the model were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. The predictive power of the model was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 6.3 years, 20 patients (33.3%) experienced recurrence (pSLN, 45.2% [14/31] vs nSLN, 20.7% [6/29]; p = 0.0445). A fitted Cox regression model incorporating 12 genes accurately predicted RFS (C-index, 0.9919). Improved RFS was associated with increased expression of TIGIT (p = 0.0326), an immune checkpoint, and decreased expression of CXCL16 (p = 0.0273), a cytokine important in promoting dendritic and T cell interactions. Independent of SLN status, the model in this study was able to stratify patients into cohorts at high and low risk for recurrence (p < 0.001, log-rank). CONCLUSIONS: Expression profiles of the SLN gene are associated with melanoma recurrence and may be able to identify patients as high or low risk regardless of SLN status, potentially enhancing patient selection for adjuvant therapy.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Aged.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Large phase III trials have established the benefit of checkpoint blockade across multiple tumor types, but patient representation is limited in some subgroups including the aged population. There are several changes in the immune system that occur with age (termed immunosenescence) that could potentially limit efficacy in aged populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the concerns stated above, available evidence from prospective trials, retrospective cohorts, and registry data suggest that elderly patients achieve similar benefit with immune checkpoint blockade in comparison to the general population and do not have increased toxicity. However, as patients age, they are at higher risk of developing a decline in multiple physiologic systems (including the immune system) and reduced ability to recover from illness. Clinical evidence shows that patients who have a poor performance status have inferior outcomes and limited clinical benefit from checkpoint blockade. Clinicians should take an individualized approach that accounts for each patient's health status rather than considering age alone when determining who should be offered checkpoint blockade therapy.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumor PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT)-related variables on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from PACIFIC. Patients & methods: PACIFIC was a Phase III study of durvalumab versus placebo after CRT in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. If available, pre-CRT tumor tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumor-cell expression, scored at prespecified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cut-offs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ C30/-LC13. Results: Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time across PD-L1 and CRT subgroups, with few clinically relevant differences between treatment arms. Time to deterioration was generally similar to the ITT population. Conclusion: Neither PD-L1 expression nor prior CRT-related variables influenced PROs with durvalumab therapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT02125461 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Four-year survival with nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. METHODS: We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FINDINGS: Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11-17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15-24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7-16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11-18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3-7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12-0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29-0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37-0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61-1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Phase 1 trial of dasatinib combined with afatinib for epidermal growth factor receptor- (EGFR-) mutated lung cancer with acquired tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance.

BACKGROUND: Bypass activation of Src family kinases can confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) based on preclinical models. We prospectively assessed the safety and clinical activity of dasatinib and afatinib in combination for patients with resistant EGFR-mutant lung cancer. METHODS: An open-label, dose-escalation phase 1/2 trial (NCT01999985) with 2-stage expansion was conducted with 25 lung cancer patients. Dose expansion required activating EGFR mutations and progression following prior EGFR TKI. RESULTS: Patients were 72% Caucasian and received median of 2 prior lines of therapy. Maximum-tolerated dose was 30 mg afatinib with 100 mg dasatinib. New or increased pleural effusions were observed in 56% of patients. No radiologic responses were observed, although several EGFR-mutant TKI-resistant patients (26%) had prolonged stable disease over 6 months. The combination reduced the EGFR mutation and T790M variant allele frequency in cell-free DNA (p < .05). Nonetheless, the threshold for futility was met, based on 6-month progression-free survival. For EGFR TKI-resistant patients, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3-5.0) and overall survival was 14.7 months (95% CI, 8.5-20.9). CONCLUSIONS: The combination had a manageable toxicity profile and in vivo T790M modulation, but no objective clinical responses were observed.

Randomized-controlled phase II trial of salvage chemotherapy after immunization with a TP53-transfected dendritic cell-based vaccine (Ad.p53-DC) in patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer.

Small cell lung cancer TP53 mutations lead to expression of tumor antigens that elicits specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses. In this phase II study, dendritic cells transfected with wild-type TP53 (vaccine) were administered to patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer after chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to arm A (observation), arm B (vaccine alone), or arm C (vaccine plus all-trans-retinoic acid). Vaccine was administered every 2 weeks (3 times), and all patients were to receive paclitaxel at progression. Our primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to paclitaxel. The study was not designed to detect overall response rate differences between arms. Of 69 patients enrolled (performance status 0/1, median age 62 years), 55 were treated in stage 1 (18 in arm A, 20 in arm B, and 17 in arm C) and 14 in stage 2 (arm C only), per 2-stage Simon Minimax design. The vaccine was safe, with mostly grade 1/2 toxicities, although 1 arm-B patient experienced grade 3 fatigue and 8 arm-C patients experienced grade 3 toxicities. Positive immune responses were obtained in 20% of arm B (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-48.6) and 43.3% of arm C (95% CI 23.9-65.1). The ORRs to the second-line chemotherapy (including paclitaxel) were 15.4% (95% CI 2.7-46.3), 16.7% (95% CI 2.9-49.1), and 23.8% (95% CI 9.1-47.5) for arms A, B, and C, with no survival differences between arms. Although our vaccine failed to improve ORRs to the second-line chemotherapy, its safety profile and therapeutic immune potential remain. Combinations with the other immunotherapeutic agents are reasonable options.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

A phase I/randomized phase II study of GM.CD40L vaccine in combination with CCL21 in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

The GM.CD40L vaccine, which recruits and activates dendritic cells, migrates to lymph nodes, activating T cells and leading to systemic tumor cell killing. When combined with the CCL21 chemokine, which recruits T cells and enhances T-cell responses, additive effects have been demonstrated in non-small cell lung cancer mouse models. Here, we compared GM.CD40L versus GM.CD40L plus CCL21 (GM.CD40L.CCL21) in lung adenocarcinoma patients with ≥ 1 line of treatment. In this phase I/II randomized trial (NCT01433172), patients received intradermal vaccines every 14 days (3 doses) and then monthly (3 doses). A two-stage minimax design was used. During phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were shown in three patients who received GM.CD40L.CCL21. During phase II, of evaluable patients, 5/33 patients (15.2%) randomized for GM.DCD40L (p = .023) and 3/32 patients (9.4%) randomized for GM.DCD40L.CCL21 (p = .20) showed 6-month progression-free survival. Median overall survival was 9.3 versus 9.5 months with GM.DCD40L versus GM.DCD40L.CCL21 (95% CI 0.70-2.25; p = .44). For GM.CD40L versus GM.CD40L.CCL21, the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were grade 1/2 injection site reaction (51.4% versus 61.1%) and grade 1/2 fatigue (35.1% versus 47.2%). Grade 1 immune-mediated TRAEs were isolated to skin. No patients showed evidence of pseudo-progression or immune-related TRAEs of grade 1 or greater of pneumonitis, endocrinopathy, or colitis, and none discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Although we found no significant associations between vaccine immunogenicity and outcomes, in limited biopsies, one patient treated with GMCD40L.CCL21 displayed abundant tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. This possible effectiveness warrants further investigation of GM.CD40L in combination approaches.

Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient. INTERPRETATION: Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has shown improved survival in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. We assessed the safety and activity of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC. METHODS: The open-label, phase 1, multicohort study (CheckMate 012) cohorts reported here were enrolled at eight US academic centres. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent stage IIIb or stage IV, chemotherapy-naive NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 12 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal of consent. Data from the latter two cohorts, which were considered potentially suitable for further clinical development, are presented in this report; data from the other cohort (as well as several earlier cohorts) are described in the appendix. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, assessed in all treated patients. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01454102. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2014, and March 25, 2015, 78 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 12 weeks (n=38) or nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 6 weeks (n=40). One patient in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort was excluded before treatment; therefore 77 patients actually received treatment (38 in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort; 39 in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort). At data cut-off on Jan 7, 2016, 29 (76%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 32 (82%) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort had discontinued treatment. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (37%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (33%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (three [8%] and no patients), pneumonitis (two [5%] and one [3%] patients), adrenal insufficiency (one [3%] and two [5%] patients), and colitis (one [3%] and two [5%] patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 12 (32%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11 (28%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) prompted treatment discontinuation in four (11%) patients in the every-12-weeks cohort and five (13%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Confirmed objective responses were achieved in 18 (47% [95% CI 31-64]) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 15 (38% [95% CI 23-55]) patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort; median duration of response was not reached in either cohort, with median follow-up times of 12·8 months (IQR 9·3-15·5) in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11·8 months (6·7-15·9) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. In patients with PD-L1 of 1% or greater, confirmed objective responses were achieved in 12 (57%) of 21 patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (57%) of 23 patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. INTERPRETATION: In NSCLC, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile and showed encouraging clinical activity characterised by a high response rate and durable response. To our knowledge, the results of this study are the first suggestion of improved benefit compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy in patients with NSCLC, supporting further assessment of this combination in a phase 3 study. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.