Zosia Chustecka

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.

The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.

Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.

The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.

“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.

The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
 

Approval based on response rates

The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.

The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
 

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.

Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).

Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.

Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.

The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.

Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.

The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.

“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.

The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
 

Approval based on response rates

The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.

The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
 

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.

Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).

Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.

Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first-in-class drug belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) has been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have already tried other therapies.

This follows a recommendation for approval on July 15 by an FDA advisory committee, which voted 12-0 in favor of the drug’s benefits outweighing risks in this patient population.

The product has a novel mechanism of action: it targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), a protein that is present on the surface of virtually all multiple myeloma cells but is absent from normal B cells.

The drug had already received an FDA breakthrough therapy designation, which facilitates the development of drugs that have shown clinical promise for conditions in which there is significant unmet need.

Belantamab mafodotin was recommended for conditional marketing approval in the European Union on July 24 and was accepted into the European Medicines Agency PRIME scheme for medicines that have potential to address unmet medical needs.

The new drug is indicated for patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomolatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For patients who no longer respond to these drugs, the outlook is bleak, the EMA comments. There is an unmet medical need for new treatments that improve survival of these patients beyond the currently observed 3 months or less.

“While treatable, refractory multiple myeloma is a significant clinical challenge with poor outcomes for patients whose disease has become resistant to the current standard of care,” commented Sagar Lonial, MD, chief medical officer of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory, and a principal investigator for the clinical trial that led to the approval.

“Due to the limited options currently available, these patients are often retreated with drugs from the same classes after they relapse, which is why the approval of belantamab mafodotin, the first anti-BCMA therapy, is significant for both patients and physicians alike,” he said.

The product is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a monoclonal antibody that targets BCMA with the cytotoxic agent maleimidocaproyl monomethyl auristatin F. It homes in on BCMA on myeloma cell surfaces. Once inside the myeloma cell, the cytotoxic agent is released, leading to apoptosis, the programmed death of the cancerous plasma cells.
 

Approval based on response rates

The accelerated approval from the FDA and the recommendation for conditional approval from the EMA are based on results for overall response rate and duration of response from a phase 2, open-label, randomized, two-arm study known as DREAMM-2. Both agencies said that they are waiting for further data on clinical benefit from ongoing trials.

The DREAMM-2 study investigated the efficacy and safety of two doses of belantamab mafodotin in multiple myeloma patients whose disease was still active after three or more lines of therapy and who no longer responded to treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Six-month results from this study were published in The Lancet Oncology in December. The overall response rate was 31% in the cohort given a 2.5-mg/kg dose of the drug; 30 of 97 patients had outcomes that met the study’s positive threshold.

Another 99 patients in DREAMM-2 received a dose of 3.4 mg/kg, which was judged to have a less favorable safety profile.

The median duration of response had not been reached at the 6-month analysis, but for 73% of responders, DoR was ≥6 months.

The most commonly reported adverse events (≥20%) were keratopathy (changes in the cornea), decreased visual acuity, nausea, blurred vision, pyrexia, infusion-related reactions, and fatigue, the manufacturer notes.
 

Ocular toxicity

One of the most common adverse events with this product affects the eyes.

Ocular adverse reactions occurred in 77% of the 218 patients in the pooled safety population and included keratopathy (76%), changes in visual acuity (55%), blurred vision (27%), and dry eye (19%).

Corneal adverse events were monitored with eye exams prior to each dose, allowing dose reductions or interruptions as appropriate, the manufacturer noted. Patients also used preservative-free eyedrops. Keratopathy leading to treatment discontinuation affected 2.1% of patients in the 2.5-mg/kg cohort.

Because of this ocular toxicity, the company has set up a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for the product. This requires education for all physicians who prescribe the product as well as their patients regarding the ocular risks associated with treatment. It also requires monitoring that includes regular ophthalmic examinations. Information about the scheme can be found at www.blenreprems.com.

At the FDA advisory committee meeting last month, one of the panelists, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn., said belantamab appeared to be well tolerated but for ocular toxicity. Physicians need to acknowledge how severe this risk may be for patients while keeping in mind that belantamab still may be more tolerable for some people than current treatments.

“It’s reasonable to leave open the option for decision making. Patients can express their values and preferences,” Dr. Thanarajasingam said. “There’s adequate, albeit not complete, information to guide this risk-benefit discussion in a REMS program.”

Another panelist, Heidi D. Klepin, MD, a professor at Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, N.C., agreed that the informed consent process should allow patients “to choose whether the trade-off is worth it to them” with belantamab.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).

It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.

The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.

The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.

All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.

The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.

Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).

It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.

The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.

The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.

All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.

The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.

Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).

It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.

The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.

The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.

All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.

The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.

Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Traditionally at this time of year, everyone working in cancer turns their attention toward Chicago, and 40,000 or so travel to the city for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Not this year.

The McCormick Place convention center has been converted to a field hospital to cope with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The cavernous meeting halls have been filled with makeshift wards with 750 acute care beds, as shown in a tweet from Toni Choueiri, MD, chief of genitourinary oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston.

But the annual meeting is still going ahead, having been transferred online.

“We have to remember that even though there’s a pandemic going on and people are dying every day from coronavirus, people are still dying every day from cancer,” Richard Schilsky, MD, PhD, chief medical officer at ASCO, told Medscape Medical News.

“This pandemic will end, but cancer will continue, and we need to be able to continue to get the most cutting edge scientific results out there to our members and our constituents so they can act on those results on behalf of their patients,” he said.

The ASCO Virtual Scientific Program will take place over the weekend of May 30-31.

“We’re certainly hoping that we’re going to deliver a program that features all of the most important science that would have been presented in person in Chicago,” Schilsky commented in an interview.

Most of the presentations will be prerecorded and then streamed, which “we hope will mitigate any of the technical glitches that could come from trying to do a live broadcast of the meeting,” he said.

There will be 250 oral and 2500 poster presentations in 24 disease-based and specialty tracks.

The majority of the abstracts will be released online on May 13. The majority of the on-demand content will be released on May 29. Some of the abstracts will be highlighted at ASCO press briefings and released on those two dates.

But some of the material will be made available only on the weekend of the meeting. The opening session, plenaries featuring late-breaking abstracts, special highlights sessions, and other clinical science symposia will be broadcast on Saturday, May 30, and Sunday, May 31 (the schedule for the weekend program is available on the ASCO meeting website).

Among the plenary presentations are some clinical results that are likely to change practice immediately, Schilsky predicted. These include data to be presented in the following abstracts:

• Abstract LBA4 on the KEYNOTE-177 study comparing immunotherapy using pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co) with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors show microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency;
• Abstract LBA5 on the ADAURA study exploring osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) as adjuvant therapy after complete tumor reseaction in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are EGFR mutation positive;
• Abstract LBA1 on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study exploring maintenance avelumab (Bavencio, Merck and Pfizer) with best supportive care after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

However, some of the material that would have been part of the annual meeting, which includes mostly educational sessions and invited talks, has been moved to another event, the ASCO Educational Program, to be held in August 2020.

“So I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting is going to be compressed a little bit,” Schilsky commented. “Obviously, we can’t deliver all the interactions that happen in the hallways and everywhere else at the meeting that really gives so much energy to the meeting, but, at this moment in our history, probably getting the science out there is what’s most important.”
 

Virtual exhibition hall

There will also be a virtual exhibition hall, which will open on May 29.

“Just as there is a typical exhibit hall in the convention center,” Schilsky commented, most of the companies that were planning to be in Chicago have “now transitioned to creating a virtual booth that people who are participating in the virtual meeting can visit.

“I don’t know exactly how each company is going to use their time and their virtual space, and that’s part of the whole learning process here to see how this whole experiment is going to work out,” he added.

Unlike some of the other conferences that have gone virtual, in which access has been made available to everyone for free, registration is still required for the ASCO meeting. But the society notes that the registration fee has been discounted for nonmembers and has been waived for ASCO members. Also, the fee covers both the Virtual Scientific Program in May and the ASCO Educational Program in August.

Registrants will have access to video and slide presentations, as well as discussant commentaries, for 180 days.

The article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Selpercatinib (Retevmo) becomes the first targeted therapy to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with cancer who have certain tumors that have an alteration (mutation or fusion) in the RET gene.

The drug is indicated for use in RET-positive tumors found in the following:

• Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has spread in adult patients
• Advanced medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) or MTC that has spread in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) who require systemic therapy
• Thyroid cancer that requires systemic therapy and that has stopped responding to or is not appropriate for radioactive iodine therapy in adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients.

Before initiating treatment, a RET gene alteration must be determined via laboratory testing, the FDA emphasized. However, no FDA-approved test is currently available for detecting RET fusions/mutations.
 

Approval based on responses in open-label trial

This was an accelerated approval based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) seen in an open-label clinical trial (the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 study), which involved patients with each of the three types of tumors.

All patients received selpercatinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For this trial, identification of a RET gene alteration was prospectively determined in plasma or tumor tissue by local laboratories using next-generation sequencing, polymerase chain reaction testing, or fluorescence in situ hybridization, according to Eli Lilly, the company marketing selpercatinib. Immunohistochemistry was not used in the clinical trial.

Efficacy for NSCLC was evaluated in 105 adult patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who were previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. The ORR was 64%.

Efficacy was also evaluated in 39 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had not received any previous treatment. The ORR for these patients was 84%.

For both groups, among patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted more than 6 months.

“In the clinical trial, we observed that the majority of metastatic lung cancer patients experienced clinically meaningful responses when treated with selpercatinib, including responses in difficult-to-treat brain metastases,” LIBRETTO-001 lead investigator Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, N.Y., said in an Eli Lilly press release.

“The approval of selpercatinib marks an important milestone in the treatment of NSCLC, making RET-driven cancers now specifically targetable in the same manner as cancers with activating EGFR and ALK alterations, across all lines of therapy,” Dr. Drilon added.

About 1% to 2% of NSCLC tumors are thought to have a RET alteration.

The same trial also included patients with thyroid cancer.

Efficacy for MTC was evaluated in 55 adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had previously been treated with cabozantinib, vandetanib, or both. The ORR in these patients was 69%.

In addition, selpercatinib was evaluated in 88 patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had not received prior treatment with cabozantinib or vandetanib. The ORR for these patients was 73%.

The trial also enrolled 19 patients with RET-positive thyroid cancer whose condition was refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment and who had received another prior systemic treatment. The ORR was 79%. Eight patients had received only RAI. The ORR for these patients was 100%.

In all the cases of thyroid cancer and lung cancer, among the patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted longer than 6 months.

“RET alterations account for the majority of medullary thyroid cancers and a meaningful percentage of other thyroid cancers,” Lori J. Wirth, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, noted in the company release.

A fact sheet from Eli Lilly notes that RET mutations are found in about 60% of sporadic MTC cases and in over 90% of familial MTC cases, and that RET fusions are found in approximately 10% to 20% of papillary thyroid cancers.

“For patients living with these cancers, the approval of selpercatinib means they now have a treatment option that selectively and potently inhibits RET,” Dr. Wirth commented. “Based on the published data for this new medicine, as well as my personal experience treating patients, this may be a good treatment option.”

In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, the rate of discontinuations because of adverse reactions (ARs) was 5%, the company reported. The most common ARs, including laboratory abnormalities (≥25%), were increased aspartate aminotransferase level, increased alanine aminotransferase level, increased glucose level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased albumin level, decreased calcium level, dry mouth, diarrhea, increased creatinine level, increased alkaline phosphatase level, hypertension, fatigue, edema, decreased platelet count, increased total cholesterol level, rash, decreased sodium levels, and constipation. The most frequent serious AR (≥2%) was pneumonia.

The FDA warned that selpercatinib can cause hepatotoxicity, elevation in blood pressure, QT prolongation, bleeding, and allergic reactions. It may also be toxic to a fetus or newborn baby so should not be taken by pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Selpercatinib is currently being assessed in two phase 3 confirmatory trials. LIBRETTO-431 will test the drug in previously untreated patients with RET-positive NSCLC. LIBRETTO-531 involves treatment-naive patients with RET-positive MTC.

The company that developed selpercaptinib, Loxo Oncology, was acquired by Eli Lilly last year in an $8 billion takeover. This drug was billed as the most promising asset in that deal, alongside oral BTK inhibitor LOXO-305, according to a report in Pharmaphorum.

Loxo developed Vitrakvi (larotrectinib), the first TRK inhibitor to reach the market, as well as the follow-up drug LOXO-195. Both were acquired by Bayer ahead of the Lilly takeover, that report notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Selpercatinib (Retevmo) becomes the first targeted therapy to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with cancer who have certain tumors that have an alteration (mutation or fusion) in the RET gene.

The drug is indicated for use in RET-positive tumors found in the following:

• Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has spread in adult patients
• Advanced medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) or MTC that has spread in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) who require systemic therapy
• Thyroid cancer that requires systemic therapy and that has stopped responding to or is not appropriate for radioactive iodine therapy in adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients.

Before initiating treatment, a RET gene alteration must be determined via laboratory testing, the FDA emphasized. However, no FDA-approved test is currently available for detecting RET fusions/mutations.
 

Approval based on responses in open-label trial

This was an accelerated approval based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) seen in an open-label clinical trial (the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 study), which involved patients with each of the three types of tumors.

All patients received selpercatinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For this trial, identification of a RET gene alteration was prospectively determined in plasma or tumor tissue by local laboratories using next-generation sequencing, polymerase chain reaction testing, or fluorescence in situ hybridization, according to Eli Lilly, the company marketing selpercatinib. Immunohistochemistry was not used in the clinical trial.

Efficacy for NSCLC was evaluated in 105 adult patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who were previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. The ORR was 64%.

Efficacy was also evaluated in 39 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had not received any previous treatment. The ORR for these patients was 84%.

For both groups, among patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted more than 6 months.

“In the clinical trial, we observed that the majority of metastatic lung cancer patients experienced clinically meaningful responses when treated with selpercatinib, including responses in difficult-to-treat brain metastases,” LIBRETTO-001 lead investigator Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, N.Y., said in an Eli Lilly press release.

“The approval of selpercatinib marks an important milestone in the treatment of NSCLC, making RET-driven cancers now specifically targetable in the same manner as cancers with activating EGFR and ALK alterations, across all lines of therapy,” Dr. Drilon added.

About 1% to 2% of NSCLC tumors are thought to have a RET alteration.

The same trial also included patients with thyroid cancer.

Efficacy for MTC was evaluated in 55 adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had previously been treated with cabozantinib, vandetanib, or both. The ORR in these patients was 69%.

In addition, selpercatinib was evaluated in 88 patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had not received prior treatment with cabozantinib or vandetanib. The ORR for these patients was 73%.

The trial also enrolled 19 patients with RET-positive thyroid cancer whose condition was refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment and who had received another prior systemic treatment. The ORR was 79%. Eight patients had received only RAI. The ORR for these patients was 100%.

In all the cases of thyroid cancer and lung cancer, among the patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted longer than 6 months.

“RET alterations account for the majority of medullary thyroid cancers and a meaningful percentage of other thyroid cancers,” Lori J. Wirth, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, noted in the company release.

A fact sheet from Eli Lilly notes that RET mutations are found in about 60% of sporadic MTC cases and in over 90% of familial MTC cases, and that RET fusions are found in approximately 10% to 20% of papillary thyroid cancers.

“For patients living with these cancers, the approval of selpercatinib means they now have a treatment option that selectively and potently inhibits RET,” Dr. Wirth commented. “Based on the published data for this new medicine, as well as my personal experience treating patients, this may be a good treatment option.”

In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, the rate of discontinuations because of adverse reactions (ARs) was 5%, the company reported. The most common ARs, including laboratory abnormalities (≥25%), were increased aspartate aminotransferase level, increased alanine aminotransferase level, increased glucose level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased albumin level, decreased calcium level, dry mouth, diarrhea, increased creatinine level, increased alkaline phosphatase level, hypertension, fatigue, edema, decreased platelet count, increased total cholesterol level, rash, decreased sodium levels, and constipation. The most frequent serious AR (≥2%) was pneumonia.

The FDA warned that selpercatinib can cause hepatotoxicity, elevation in blood pressure, QT prolongation, bleeding, and allergic reactions. It may also be toxic to a fetus or newborn baby so should not be taken by pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Selpercatinib is currently being assessed in two phase 3 confirmatory trials. LIBRETTO-431 will test the drug in previously untreated patients with RET-positive NSCLC. LIBRETTO-531 involves treatment-naive patients with RET-positive MTC.

The company that developed selpercaptinib, Loxo Oncology, was acquired by Eli Lilly last year in an $8 billion takeover. This drug was billed as the most promising asset in that deal, alongside oral BTK inhibitor LOXO-305, according to a report in Pharmaphorum.

Loxo developed Vitrakvi (larotrectinib), the first TRK inhibitor to reach the market, as well as the follow-up drug LOXO-195. Both were acquired by Bayer ahead of the Lilly takeover, that report notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Selpercatinib (Retevmo) becomes the first targeted therapy to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients with cancer who have certain tumors that have an alteration (mutation or fusion) in the RET gene.

The drug is indicated for use in RET-positive tumors found in the following:

• Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has spread in adult patients
• Advanced medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) or MTC that has spread in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) who require systemic therapy
• Thyroid cancer that requires systemic therapy and that has stopped responding to or is not appropriate for radioactive iodine therapy in adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients.

Before initiating treatment, a RET gene alteration must be determined via laboratory testing, the FDA emphasized. However, no FDA-approved test is currently available for detecting RET fusions/mutations.
 

Approval based on responses in open-label trial

This was an accelerated approval based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) seen in an open-label clinical trial (the phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 study), which involved patients with each of the three types of tumors.

All patients received selpercatinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For this trial, identification of a RET gene alteration was prospectively determined in plasma or tumor tissue by local laboratories using next-generation sequencing, polymerase chain reaction testing, or fluorescence in situ hybridization, according to Eli Lilly, the company marketing selpercatinib. Immunohistochemistry was not used in the clinical trial.

Efficacy for NSCLC was evaluated in 105 adult patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who were previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. The ORR was 64%.

Efficacy was also evaluated in 39 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who had not received any previous treatment. The ORR for these patients was 84%.

For both groups, among patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted more than 6 months.

“In the clinical trial, we observed that the majority of metastatic lung cancer patients experienced clinically meaningful responses when treated with selpercatinib, including responses in difficult-to-treat brain metastases,” LIBRETTO-001 lead investigator Alexander Drilon, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, N.Y., said in an Eli Lilly press release.

“The approval of selpercatinib marks an important milestone in the treatment of NSCLC, making RET-driven cancers now specifically targetable in the same manner as cancers with activating EGFR and ALK alterations, across all lines of therapy,” Dr. Drilon added.

About 1% to 2% of NSCLC tumors are thought to have a RET alteration.

The same trial also included patients with thyroid cancer.

Efficacy for MTC was evaluated in 55 adult and pediatric (older than 12 years) patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had previously been treated with cabozantinib, vandetanib, or both. The ORR in these patients was 69%.

In addition, selpercatinib was evaluated in 88 patients with advanced or metastatic RET-mutant MTC who had not received prior treatment with cabozantinib or vandetanib. The ORR for these patients was 73%.

The trial also enrolled 19 patients with RET-positive thyroid cancer whose condition was refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment and who had received another prior systemic treatment. The ORR was 79%. Eight patients had received only RAI. The ORR for these patients was 100%.

In all the cases of thyroid cancer and lung cancer, among the patients who responded to treatment, the response lasted longer than 6 months.

“RET alterations account for the majority of medullary thyroid cancers and a meaningful percentage of other thyroid cancers,” Lori J. Wirth, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, noted in the company release.

A fact sheet from Eli Lilly notes that RET mutations are found in about 60% of sporadic MTC cases and in over 90% of familial MTC cases, and that RET fusions are found in approximately 10% to 20% of papillary thyroid cancers.

“For patients living with these cancers, the approval of selpercatinib means they now have a treatment option that selectively and potently inhibits RET,” Dr. Wirth commented. “Based on the published data for this new medicine, as well as my personal experience treating patients, this may be a good treatment option.”

In the LIBRETTO-001 trial, the rate of discontinuations because of adverse reactions (ARs) was 5%, the company reported. The most common ARs, including laboratory abnormalities (≥25%), were increased aspartate aminotransferase level, increased alanine aminotransferase level, increased glucose level, decreased leukocyte count, decreased albumin level, decreased calcium level, dry mouth, diarrhea, increased creatinine level, increased alkaline phosphatase level, hypertension, fatigue, edema, decreased platelet count, increased total cholesterol level, rash, decreased sodium levels, and constipation. The most frequent serious AR (≥2%) was pneumonia.

The FDA warned that selpercatinib can cause hepatotoxicity, elevation in blood pressure, QT prolongation, bleeding, and allergic reactions. It may also be toxic to a fetus or newborn baby so should not be taken by pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Selpercatinib is currently being assessed in two phase 3 confirmatory trials. LIBRETTO-431 will test the drug in previously untreated patients with RET-positive NSCLC. LIBRETTO-531 involves treatment-naive patients with RET-positive MTC.

The company that developed selpercaptinib, Loxo Oncology, was acquired by Eli Lilly last year in an $8 billion takeover. This drug was billed as the most promising asset in that deal, alongside oral BTK inhibitor LOXO-305, according to a report in Pharmaphorum.

Loxo developed Vitrakvi (larotrectinib), the first TRK inhibitor to reach the market, as well as the follow-up drug LOXO-195. Both were acquired by Bayer ahead of the Lilly takeover, that report notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of a new targeted therapy for use in some patients with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer of the bile ducts.

The product is pemigatinib (Pemazyre, Incyte), an oral kinase inhibitor.

It was approved specifically for use in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who have received prior treatment and who have tumors that have a fusion or other rearrangement of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) gene.

These FGFR2 genetic abnormalities are found in about 9% to 14% of patients with cholangiocarcinoma, notes the FDA.

At diagnosis, a majority of patients with cholangiocarcinoma have advanced disease, meaning that the disease is no longer treatable with surgery, the agency also notes. Until now, a combination of chemotherapy drugs has been the standard initial treatment.

Now the subgroup of patients with FGFR2 tumors have the option of a targeted therapy.

“Although cholangiocarcinoma is considered a rare disease, it has been on the rise over the past three decades,” commented Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in a press release. “It is encouraging to have a new targeted treatment option for patients who historically have had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, in which relapse rates remain high.”

The accelerated approval was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in an open-label clinical trial that involved 107 patients (the FIGHT-202 study).

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer will complete and submit the results of a randomized trial demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival or overall survival, the FDA noted.
 

Results from open-label clinical trial

The FIGHT-202 study enrolled 107 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma who had received prior treatment and who had tumors with an FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement.

All patients received pemigatinib once a day for 14 days, followed by 7 days off, in 21-day cycles until the disease progressed or the patient experienced an unreasonable level of side effects. Patients underwent scanning every 8 weeks to assess ORR.

The ORR was 36% (38 of 107 patients), which included 2.8% of patients with a complete response and 33% with partial response.

Among the 38 patients who had a response, 24 patients (63%) had a response that lasted 6 months or longer, and 7 patients (18%) had a response that lasted 12 months or longer.

“With pemigatinib, we considered the observed efficacy results to be clinically meaningful and the overall risk to benefit assessment for patients with tumors harboring FGFR2 gene fusions and other rearrangements to be favorable, particularly when we considered that these patients have no other good options following first-line treatment with chemotherapy,” commented Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in 20% or more of patients who received pemigatinib, were electrolyte disorders (hyperphosphatemia and hypophosphatemia), alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, joint pain, abdominal pain, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity was seen rarely, the agency notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of a new targeted therapy for use in some patients with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer of the bile ducts.

The product is pemigatinib (Pemazyre, Incyte), an oral kinase inhibitor.

It was approved specifically for use in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who have received prior treatment and who have tumors that have a fusion or other rearrangement of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) gene.

These FGFR2 genetic abnormalities are found in about 9% to 14% of patients with cholangiocarcinoma, notes the FDA.

At diagnosis, a majority of patients with cholangiocarcinoma have advanced disease, meaning that the disease is no longer treatable with surgery, the agency also notes. Until now, a combination of chemotherapy drugs has been the standard initial treatment.

Now the subgroup of patients with FGFR2 tumors have the option of a targeted therapy.

“Although cholangiocarcinoma is considered a rare disease, it has been on the rise over the past three decades,” commented Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in a press release. “It is encouraging to have a new targeted treatment option for patients who historically have had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, in which relapse rates remain high.”

The accelerated approval was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in an open-label clinical trial that involved 107 patients (the FIGHT-202 study).

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer will complete and submit the results of a randomized trial demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival or overall survival, the FDA noted.
 

Results from open-label clinical trial

The FIGHT-202 study enrolled 107 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma who had received prior treatment and who had tumors with an FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement.

All patients received pemigatinib once a day for 14 days, followed by 7 days off, in 21-day cycles until the disease progressed or the patient experienced an unreasonable level of side effects. Patients underwent scanning every 8 weeks to assess ORR.

The ORR was 36% (38 of 107 patients), which included 2.8% of patients with a complete response and 33% with partial response.

Among the 38 patients who had a response, 24 patients (63%) had a response that lasted 6 months or longer, and 7 patients (18%) had a response that lasted 12 months or longer.

“With pemigatinib, we considered the observed efficacy results to be clinically meaningful and the overall risk to benefit assessment for patients with tumors harboring FGFR2 gene fusions and other rearrangements to be favorable, particularly when we considered that these patients have no other good options following first-line treatment with chemotherapy,” commented Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in 20% or more of patients who received pemigatinib, were electrolyte disorders (hyperphosphatemia and hypophosphatemia), alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, joint pain, abdominal pain, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity was seen rarely, the agency notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval of a new targeted therapy for use in some patients with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer of the bile ducts.

The product is pemigatinib (Pemazyre, Incyte), an oral kinase inhibitor.

It was approved specifically for use in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who have received prior treatment and who have tumors that have a fusion or other rearrangement of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) gene.

These FGFR2 genetic abnormalities are found in about 9% to 14% of patients with cholangiocarcinoma, notes the FDA.

At diagnosis, a majority of patients with cholangiocarcinoma have advanced disease, meaning that the disease is no longer treatable with surgery, the agency also notes. Until now, a combination of chemotherapy drugs has been the standard initial treatment.

Now the subgroup of patients with FGFR2 tumors have the option of a targeted therapy.

“Although cholangiocarcinoma is considered a rare disease, it has been on the rise over the past three decades,” commented Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in a press release. “It is encouraging to have a new targeted treatment option for patients who historically have had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, in which relapse rates remain high.”

The accelerated approval was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in an open-label clinical trial that involved 107 patients (the FIGHT-202 study).

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer will complete and submit the results of a randomized trial demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival or overall survival, the FDA noted.
 

Results from open-label clinical trial

The FIGHT-202 study enrolled 107 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma who had received prior treatment and who had tumors with an FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement.

All patients received pemigatinib once a day for 14 days, followed by 7 days off, in 21-day cycles until the disease progressed or the patient experienced an unreasonable level of side effects. Patients underwent scanning every 8 weeks to assess ORR.

The ORR was 36% (38 of 107 patients), which included 2.8% of patients with a complete response and 33% with partial response.

Among the 38 patients who had a response, 24 patients (63%) had a response that lasted 6 months or longer, and 7 patients (18%) had a response that lasted 12 months or longer.

“With pemigatinib, we considered the observed efficacy results to be clinically meaningful and the overall risk to benefit assessment for patients with tumors harboring FGFR2 gene fusions and other rearrangements to be favorable, particularly when we considered that these patients have no other good options following first-line treatment with chemotherapy,” commented Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in 20% or more of patients who received pemigatinib, were electrolyte disorders (hyperphosphatemia and hypophosphatemia), alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, joint pain, abdominal pain, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity was seen rarely, the agency notes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The biggest cancer research meeting of the year has been canceled as a reaction to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which has also led to many other medical conferences being canceled or postponed.

The annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) was due to take place April 24-29 in San Diego, California. More than 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors were expected to attend.

There are plans to reschedule it for later this year.

This has been a “difficult decision,” said the AACR board of directors, but “we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus.”

The board goes on to explain that “this evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the annual meeting, including the US government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the US; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by US government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the annual meeting.”

Other cancer conferences that were planned for March and that have been canceled include the following:

• European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC), Barcelona, Spain, which was to have taken place March 18-20. This conference has been postponed and will now take place September 30 to October 2 at the same venue. Abstracts that have been accepted for the initial conference will remain in the program, and organizers will reopen abstract submissions in May.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Orlando, Florida, was scheduled for March 19-22. This conference has been postponed. No new dates have been provided, but the society notes that “NCCN staff is working as quickly as possible to notify all conference registrants about the postponement and further information regarding the refund process.”
• European Association of Urology (EAU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, at which there is always new research presented on prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, was due to take place March 20-24. This conference has been postponed to July 2020.
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), in Toronto, Canada, which was scheduled for March 28-31. SGO is “exploring alternatives for delivering the science and education.”

Overall, the move to cancel medical conferences over the next few months is a good idea, commented F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Program of Applied Translational Research, in a Medscape Medical News commentary.

“There’s a pretty straightforward case here,” he argued. “Medical professionals are at higher risk for exposure to coronavirus because we come into contact with lots and lots of patients. Gathering a large group of medical professionals in a single place increases the risk for exposure further. Factor in airplane flights to and from the conferences, and the chance that infection is spread is significant.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – In young patients who experience relapse after chemotherapy for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), the novel agent blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen) can be used instead of intensive chemotherapy to try to achieve a second remission, experts say.

In fact, blinatumomab should be the new standard of care in these patients because it yielded better overall survival, was less toxic, and allowed more patients to proceed to transplant, said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. Brodsky was commenting on new data presented in a late-breaking abstract (LBA1) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, for which he holds the role of secretary.

These results are “truly practice changing,” he told journalists at a press briefing.

Cure rates for B-ALL in children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are high, but for the small group of patients who experience relapse (about 15%), the prognosis is poor.

When relapse occurs in these patients, “it’s a real problem,” Dr. Brodsky explained. “At that point, the major emphasis is trying to get them back into full remission and get them to a transplant,” he continued, “but it’s very hard to get these patients back into remission.”

The standard treatment approach for these patients includes intensive chemotherapy. In the new study, this was compared to monotherapy with blinatumomab, which is described as a bispecific T-cell engager antibody.

The results were presented by Patrick A. Brown, MD, from the division of pediatric oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University.

The Children’s Oncology Group Study AALL1331 trial was conducted in 208 children and AYA patients with B-ALL after a first relapse. Median follow-up was 1.4 years.

Blinatumomab was superior in achieving both disease-free survival (59.3 plus or minus 5.4% at 2 years vs. 41% plus or minus 6.2% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05) and overall survival (79.4 plus or minus 4.5% at 2 years vs. 59.2 plus or minus 6% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05).

In addition, more patients who received blinatumomab subsequently underwent transplant (79% vs. 45% with chemo; P less than .0001).

The drug was also better tolerated than chemotherapy, causing fewer and less severe toxicities, including fewer cases of grade 3+ infection, sepsis, and mucositis.

Dr. Brown concluded that, for children and AYA patients with high- or intermediate-risk first relapse of B-ALL, blinatumomab is superior to standard chemotherapy as postreinduction consolidation prior to transplant, resulting in fewer and less severe toxicities, higher rates of minimum residual disease response, greater likelihood of proceeding to hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and improved disease-free and overall survival.

Dr. Brown noted that blinatumomab already has conditional approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed ALL in both adults and children, but that approval was based on clinical trial data in adults. This is now the definitive trial in children and AYAs, and it should support full approval for this indication, he said.

Dr. Brown has relationships with Novartis, Servier, and Jazz. Many coauthors also have relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brodsky has relationships with Achillion, Alexion, and UpToDate.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – In young patients who experience relapse after chemotherapy for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), the novel agent blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen) can be used instead of intensive chemotherapy to try to achieve a second remission, experts say.

In fact, blinatumomab should be the new standard of care in these patients because it yielded better overall survival, was less toxic, and allowed more patients to proceed to transplant, said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. Brodsky was commenting on new data presented in a late-breaking abstract (LBA1) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, for which he holds the role of secretary.

These results are “truly practice changing,” he told journalists at a press briefing.

Cure rates for B-ALL in children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are high, but for the small group of patients who experience relapse (about 15%), the prognosis is poor.

When relapse occurs in these patients, “it’s a real problem,” Dr. Brodsky explained. “At that point, the major emphasis is trying to get them back into full remission and get them to a transplant,” he continued, “but it’s very hard to get these patients back into remission.”

The standard treatment approach for these patients includes intensive chemotherapy. In the new study, this was compared to monotherapy with blinatumomab, which is described as a bispecific T-cell engager antibody.

The results were presented by Patrick A. Brown, MD, from the division of pediatric oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University.

The Children’s Oncology Group Study AALL1331 trial was conducted in 208 children and AYA patients with B-ALL after a first relapse. Median follow-up was 1.4 years.

Blinatumomab was superior in achieving both disease-free survival (59.3 plus or minus 5.4% at 2 years vs. 41% plus or minus 6.2% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05) and overall survival (79.4 plus or minus 4.5% at 2 years vs. 59.2 plus or minus 6% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05).

In addition, more patients who received blinatumomab subsequently underwent transplant (79% vs. 45% with chemo; P less than .0001).

The drug was also better tolerated than chemotherapy, causing fewer and less severe toxicities, including fewer cases of grade 3+ infection, sepsis, and mucositis.

Dr. Brown concluded that, for children and AYA patients with high- or intermediate-risk first relapse of B-ALL, blinatumomab is superior to standard chemotherapy as postreinduction consolidation prior to transplant, resulting in fewer and less severe toxicities, higher rates of minimum residual disease response, greater likelihood of proceeding to hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and improved disease-free and overall survival.

Dr. Brown noted that blinatumomab already has conditional approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed ALL in both adults and children, but that approval was based on clinical trial data in adults. This is now the definitive trial in children and AYAs, and it should support full approval for this indication, he said.

Dr. Brown has relationships with Novartis, Servier, and Jazz. Many coauthors also have relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brodsky has relationships with Achillion, Alexion, and UpToDate.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – In young patients who experience relapse after chemotherapy for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), the novel agent blinatumomab (Blincyto, Amgen) can be used instead of intensive chemotherapy to try to achieve a second remission, experts say.

In fact, blinatumomab should be the new standard of care in these patients because it yielded better overall survival, was less toxic, and allowed more patients to proceed to transplant, said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. Brodsky was commenting on new data presented in a late-breaking abstract (LBA1) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, for which he holds the role of secretary.

These results are “truly practice changing,” he told journalists at a press briefing.

Cure rates for B-ALL in children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are high, but for the small group of patients who experience relapse (about 15%), the prognosis is poor.

When relapse occurs in these patients, “it’s a real problem,” Dr. Brodsky explained. “At that point, the major emphasis is trying to get them back into full remission and get them to a transplant,” he continued, “but it’s very hard to get these patients back into remission.”

The standard treatment approach for these patients includes intensive chemotherapy. In the new study, this was compared to monotherapy with blinatumomab, which is described as a bispecific T-cell engager antibody.

The results were presented by Patrick A. Brown, MD, from the division of pediatric oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University.

The Children’s Oncology Group Study AALL1331 trial was conducted in 208 children and AYA patients with B-ALL after a first relapse. Median follow-up was 1.4 years.

Blinatumomab was superior in achieving both disease-free survival (59.3 plus or minus 5.4% at 2 years vs. 41% plus or minus 6.2% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05) and overall survival (79.4 plus or minus 4.5% at 2 years vs. 59.2 plus or minus 6% at 2 years with chemo; P = .05).

In addition, more patients who received blinatumomab subsequently underwent transplant (79% vs. 45% with chemo; P less than .0001).

The drug was also better tolerated than chemotherapy, causing fewer and less severe toxicities, including fewer cases of grade 3+ infection, sepsis, and mucositis.

Dr. Brown concluded that, for children and AYA patients with high- or intermediate-risk first relapse of B-ALL, blinatumomab is superior to standard chemotherapy as postreinduction consolidation prior to transplant, resulting in fewer and less severe toxicities, higher rates of minimum residual disease response, greater likelihood of proceeding to hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and improved disease-free and overall survival.

Dr. Brown noted that blinatumomab already has conditional approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in relapsed ALL in both adults and children, but that approval was based on clinical trial data in adults. This is now the definitive trial in children and AYAs, and it should support full approval for this indication, he said.

Dr. Brown has relationships with Novartis, Servier, and Jazz. Many coauthors also have relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brodsky has relationships with Achillion, Alexion, and UpToDate.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.