User login
SAN FRANCISCO – , according to final results of the German and Austrian phase 2 randomized LICC trial. However, information gleaned from the results, which were reported at the 2019 GI Cancers Symposium, will help inform future research.
“Hepatic metastectomy … is deemed the only potential curative treatment for stage IV colorectal cancer with limited liver disease. However, high recurrence rates after resection remain a major challenge: They range up to 50%-75% within the first 2 years,” said lead investigator Carl C. Schimanski, MD, PhD, of the Klinikum Darmstadt GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany.
Tecemotide is a liposome carrying mucin 1 (MUC1) antigen and an adjuvant that is taken up by antigen-presenting cells, ultimately leading to production of MUC1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes that target tumors. “MUC1 has been described to be expressed in up to 100% of colorectal cancer metastasis, so we thought this might be a good target,” Dr. Schimanski explained.
All 121 patients in the LICC trial had recently undergone primary or secondary resection, with either R0 or R1 outcome, for liver-only metastases of colorectal cancer. They were treated on a double-blind basis with a single dose of cyclophosphamide to reduce regulatory T cells, followed by tecemotide (weekly for 8 weeks, then every 6 weeks for up to 2 years) or with placebo.
Results showed that recurrence-free survival was actually shorter, by more than 5 months, with the vaccine versus placebo. In addition, the 3-year rate of overall survival was lower by an absolute 10%. Interestingly, tumor expression of MUC1 did not influence benefit from the vaccine.
But Dr. Schimanski noted that survival was better than expected at the trial’s outset. For example, the 65-month median overall survival among all patients in LICC undergoing secondary resection was about a year longer than that of similar patients in the CELIM trial (54 months) and the FIRE-3 trial (56 months).
“The LICC trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of significantly improving recurrence-free survival or overall survival with tecemotide. We had unexpectedly high overall survival in both arms, highlighting the critical importance of accurate staging and intensive surveillance, in our eyes,” he concluded. “We have further analysis of a very large translational program, and we hope to learn a lot about recurrence independent of tecemotide.”
A good space for testing immune therapies
In 2009, a consensus panel of immunologists ranked MUC1 as the second-best cancer antigen for translational research, “so there was clearly a feeling that this was a good target at that time for going forward,” noted invited discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, a professor in the department of gastrointestinal medical oncology, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He agreed with the LICC investigators’ conclusions that the trial was negative and that MUC1 expression does not appear to predict outcome. “Whether that’s the wrong target, or whether it was the wrong formulation in regards to cancer vaccine, I think we do not know. I do think that survival was encouraging,” he said.
“There’s many unanswered questions in regards to the LICC study and in regards to cancer vaccines in general,” Dr. Overman noted. Among them, what are the optimal antigens to target, what are the optimal vaccine formulations and adjuvant agents, what is the best way to address the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and what is the correct disease setting for vaccine testing?
“The LICC study is very impressive in demonstrating that we can enroll in this posthepatectomy space, postmetastectomy space. It’s a very increasingly interesting space for, potentially, drug development and immunologic exploration,” he maintained. “One of the benefits of this space when we talk about a minimal residual disease setting is that you potentially do not have the suppressive effects from the tumor microenvironment that potentially are hindering success in regards to having immune therapy response. So I would say that this is a space we should consider for drug development going forward.”
Study details
In the LICC trial, tecemotide and placebo yielded a respective median recurrence-free survival of 6.1 months and 11.4 months (P = .1754) and a respective overall survival of 62.8 months and not reached (P = .2141), Dr. Schimanski reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The 3-year overall survival rate was 69.1% with tecemotide and 79.1% with placebo.
That survival “was astonishing for us,” Dr. Schimanski said. “We think – but we cannot prove it – that has resulted from careful staging due to the retrospective radiological review and the initial staging, and a very tight surveillance program.”
Findings were similar regardless of whether patients had low, medium, or high tumor MUC1 expression; therefore, “we have to conclude that the target is not really validated.”
Patients in the tecemotide arm had higher rates of any-grade nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and viral upper respiratory tract infections, at least some of which was likely attributable to the single dose of cyclophosphamide, according to Dr. Schimanski. They also had higher (but still low) rates of grade 3 or 4 back pain, anemia, ileus, cholestatic jaundice, and increased blood uric acid levels (2.5% for each). There was a single death in that arm from Merkel cell carcinoma that was deemed potentially related to the vaccine.
Dr. Schimanski disclosed that an immediate family member is employed by Merck and that he receives research funding from Merck KGaA (institutional). The trial was funded by Merck KGaA.
SOURCE: Schimanski CC et al. GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 480.
SAN FRANCISCO – , according to final results of the German and Austrian phase 2 randomized LICC trial. However, information gleaned from the results, which were reported at the 2019 GI Cancers Symposium, will help inform future research.
“Hepatic metastectomy … is deemed the only potential curative treatment for stage IV colorectal cancer with limited liver disease. However, high recurrence rates after resection remain a major challenge: They range up to 50%-75% within the first 2 years,” said lead investigator Carl C. Schimanski, MD, PhD, of the Klinikum Darmstadt GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany.
Tecemotide is a liposome carrying mucin 1 (MUC1) antigen and an adjuvant that is taken up by antigen-presenting cells, ultimately leading to production of MUC1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes that target tumors. “MUC1 has been described to be expressed in up to 100% of colorectal cancer metastasis, so we thought this might be a good target,” Dr. Schimanski explained.
All 121 patients in the LICC trial had recently undergone primary or secondary resection, with either R0 or R1 outcome, for liver-only metastases of colorectal cancer. They were treated on a double-blind basis with a single dose of cyclophosphamide to reduce regulatory T cells, followed by tecemotide (weekly for 8 weeks, then every 6 weeks for up to 2 years) or with placebo.
Results showed that recurrence-free survival was actually shorter, by more than 5 months, with the vaccine versus placebo. In addition, the 3-year rate of overall survival was lower by an absolute 10%. Interestingly, tumor expression of MUC1 did not influence benefit from the vaccine.
But Dr. Schimanski noted that survival was better than expected at the trial’s outset. For example, the 65-month median overall survival among all patients in LICC undergoing secondary resection was about a year longer than that of similar patients in the CELIM trial (54 months) and the FIRE-3 trial (56 months).
“The LICC trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of significantly improving recurrence-free survival or overall survival with tecemotide. We had unexpectedly high overall survival in both arms, highlighting the critical importance of accurate staging and intensive surveillance, in our eyes,” he concluded. “We have further analysis of a very large translational program, and we hope to learn a lot about recurrence independent of tecemotide.”
A good space for testing immune therapies
In 2009, a consensus panel of immunologists ranked MUC1 as the second-best cancer antigen for translational research, “so there was clearly a feeling that this was a good target at that time for going forward,” noted invited discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, a professor in the department of gastrointestinal medical oncology, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He agreed with the LICC investigators’ conclusions that the trial was negative and that MUC1 expression does not appear to predict outcome. “Whether that’s the wrong target, or whether it was the wrong formulation in regards to cancer vaccine, I think we do not know. I do think that survival was encouraging,” he said.
“There’s many unanswered questions in regards to the LICC study and in regards to cancer vaccines in general,” Dr. Overman noted. Among them, what are the optimal antigens to target, what are the optimal vaccine formulations and adjuvant agents, what is the best way to address the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and what is the correct disease setting for vaccine testing?
“The LICC study is very impressive in demonstrating that we can enroll in this posthepatectomy space, postmetastectomy space. It’s a very increasingly interesting space for, potentially, drug development and immunologic exploration,” he maintained. “One of the benefits of this space when we talk about a minimal residual disease setting is that you potentially do not have the suppressive effects from the tumor microenvironment that potentially are hindering success in regards to having immune therapy response. So I would say that this is a space we should consider for drug development going forward.”
Study details
In the LICC trial, tecemotide and placebo yielded a respective median recurrence-free survival of 6.1 months and 11.4 months (P = .1754) and a respective overall survival of 62.8 months and not reached (P = .2141), Dr. Schimanski reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The 3-year overall survival rate was 69.1% with tecemotide and 79.1% with placebo.
That survival “was astonishing for us,” Dr. Schimanski said. “We think – but we cannot prove it – that has resulted from careful staging due to the retrospective radiological review and the initial staging, and a very tight surveillance program.”
Findings were similar regardless of whether patients had low, medium, or high tumor MUC1 expression; therefore, “we have to conclude that the target is not really validated.”
Patients in the tecemotide arm had higher rates of any-grade nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and viral upper respiratory tract infections, at least some of which was likely attributable to the single dose of cyclophosphamide, according to Dr. Schimanski. They also had higher (but still low) rates of grade 3 or 4 back pain, anemia, ileus, cholestatic jaundice, and increased blood uric acid levels (2.5% for each). There was a single death in that arm from Merkel cell carcinoma that was deemed potentially related to the vaccine.
Dr. Schimanski disclosed that an immediate family member is employed by Merck and that he receives research funding from Merck KGaA (institutional). The trial was funded by Merck KGaA.
SOURCE: Schimanski CC et al. GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 480.
SAN FRANCISCO – , according to final results of the German and Austrian phase 2 randomized LICC trial. However, information gleaned from the results, which were reported at the 2019 GI Cancers Symposium, will help inform future research.
“Hepatic metastectomy … is deemed the only potential curative treatment for stage IV colorectal cancer with limited liver disease. However, high recurrence rates after resection remain a major challenge: They range up to 50%-75% within the first 2 years,” said lead investigator Carl C. Schimanski, MD, PhD, of the Klinikum Darmstadt GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany.
Tecemotide is a liposome carrying mucin 1 (MUC1) antigen and an adjuvant that is taken up by antigen-presenting cells, ultimately leading to production of MUC1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes that target tumors. “MUC1 has been described to be expressed in up to 100% of colorectal cancer metastasis, so we thought this might be a good target,” Dr. Schimanski explained.
All 121 patients in the LICC trial had recently undergone primary or secondary resection, with either R0 or R1 outcome, for liver-only metastases of colorectal cancer. They were treated on a double-blind basis with a single dose of cyclophosphamide to reduce regulatory T cells, followed by tecemotide (weekly for 8 weeks, then every 6 weeks for up to 2 years) or with placebo.
Results showed that recurrence-free survival was actually shorter, by more than 5 months, with the vaccine versus placebo. In addition, the 3-year rate of overall survival was lower by an absolute 10%. Interestingly, tumor expression of MUC1 did not influence benefit from the vaccine.
But Dr. Schimanski noted that survival was better than expected at the trial’s outset. For example, the 65-month median overall survival among all patients in LICC undergoing secondary resection was about a year longer than that of similar patients in the CELIM trial (54 months) and the FIRE-3 trial (56 months).
“The LICC trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of significantly improving recurrence-free survival or overall survival with tecemotide. We had unexpectedly high overall survival in both arms, highlighting the critical importance of accurate staging and intensive surveillance, in our eyes,” he concluded. “We have further analysis of a very large translational program, and we hope to learn a lot about recurrence independent of tecemotide.”
A good space for testing immune therapies
In 2009, a consensus panel of immunologists ranked MUC1 as the second-best cancer antigen for translational research, “so there was clearly a feeling that this was a good target at that time for going forward,” noted invited discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, a professor in the department of gastrointestinal medical oncology, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He agreed with the LICC investigators’ conclusions that the trial was negative and that MUC1 expression does not appear to predict outcome. “Whether that’s the wrong target, or whether it was the wrong formulation in regards to cancer vaccine, I think we do not know. I do think that survival was encouraging,” he said.
“There’s many unanswered questions in regards to the LICC study and in regards to cancer vaccines in general,” Dr. Overman noted. Among them, what are the optimal antigens to target, what are the optimal vaccine formulations and adjuvant agents, what is the best way to address the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and what is the correct disease setting for vaccine testing?
“The LICC study is very impressive in demonstrating that we can enroll in this posthepatectomy space, postmetastectomy space. It’s a very increasingly interesting space for, potentially, drug development and immunologic exploration,” he maintained. “One of the benefits of this space when we talk about a minimal residual disease setting is that you potentially do not have the suppressive effects from the tumor microenvironment that potentially are hindering success in regards to having immune therapy response. So I would say that this is a space we should consider for drug development going forward.”
Study details
In the LICC trial, tecemotide and placebo yielded a respective median recurrence-free survival of 6.1 months and 11.4 months (P = .1754) and a respective overall survival of 62.8 months and not reached (P = .2141), Dr. Schimanski reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The 3-year overall survival rate was 69.1% with tecemotide and 79.1% with placebo.
That survival “was astonishing for us,” Dr. Schimanski said. “We think – but we cannot prove it – that has resulted from careful staging due to the retrospective radiological review and the initial staging, and a very tight surveillance program.”
Findings were similar regardless of whether patients had low, medium, or high tumor MUC1 expression; therefore, “we have to conclude that the target is not really validated.”
Patients in the tecemotide arm had higher rates of any-grade nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and viral upper respiratory tract infections, at least some of which was likely attributable to the single dose of cyclophosphamide, according to Dr. Schimanski. They also had higher (but still low) rates of grade 3 or 4 back pain, anemia, ileus, cholestatic jaundice, and increased blood uric acid levels (2.5% for each). There was a single death in that arm from Merkel cell carcinoma that was deemed potentially related to the vaccine.
Dr. Schimanski disclosed that an immediate family member is employed by Merck and that he receives research funding from Merck KGaA (institutional). The trial was funded by Merck KGaA.
SOURCE: Schimanski CC et al. GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 480.
REPORTING FROM THE 2019 GI CANCERS SYMPOSIUM
Key clinical point: Tecemotide did not improve outcomes among patients with resected liver-only metastases of CRC.
Major finding: Tecemotide was not superior to placebo with respect to median recurrence-free survival (6.1 vs. 11.4 months; P = .1754) or overall survival (62.8 months vs. not reached; P = .2141).
Study details: A phase 2 randomized controlled trial among 121 patients having had R0/R1 resection of isolated liver CRC metastases (LICC trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Schimanski disclosed that an immediate family member is employed by Merck and that he receives research funding from Merck KGaA (institutional). The trial was funded by Merck KGaA.
Source: Schimanski CC et al. GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 480.