2016 ASCO Annual Meeting

Chicago – A newly developed heat shock protein peptide vaccination appears to be safe and effective in treating patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM), according to the results of a phase II single arm study.

In adding the vaccine to standard therapy for 46 patients with newly diagnosed GBM, median overall survival was 23.8 months, and there were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with the vaccine, lead author Dr. Orin Bloch of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Standard therapy typically results in a median survival of 16 months, he said.

“There is a lot of information out there right now regarding CNS and other solid organ tumors particularly in the area of checkpoint modulation and its ability to stimulate an innate immune response against a tumor. I think in GBM we are facing a bit of a different scenario, however, because the tumor exists in a very privileged area behind the blood brain barrier and doesn’t regularly metastasize beyond the CNS,” Dr. Bloch said.

Therefore, only modulating checkpoints without stimulating and educating the immune system may not be the most effective approach. Adaptive immunity through vaccination or some other form of stimulation might be more successful, Dr. Bloch said.

“As a way of inducing immune stimulation and education using tumor-autologous peptides, one can capitalize on the native system of heat shock stimulation. Heat shock proteins are chaperone proteins that are ubiquitously expressed in cells and they’re bound to any number of intracellular peptides at any one time including, in tumor cells, neoantigens. If you extract these heat shock proteins with their bound antigens and deliver them in a naked form into the systemic circulation, their uptake into antigen-presenting cells through the CD91 receptor [will result in] the peptide [being] cleaved and presented on MHC class one and two for stimulation of CD8- and CD4-positive T cell response,” he said.

Heat shock proteins also interact with toll-like receptors and stimulate the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, “acting as their own adjuvant,” Dr. Bloch further explained. Utilizing heat shock proteins activates both the innate and adaptive immune responses.

“This is an ideal platform for developing an immunotherapy for glioblastoma,” Dr. Bloch said.

In this phase II study, 46 adult patients with GBM underwent surgical resection of their tumors followed by chemoradiotherapy. At least four 25-microgram doses of vaccine were generated from tissue obtained during surgery. Within 5 weeks of completing radiotherapy, patients began receiving weekly vaccinations in combination with adjuvant temozolomide. Patients continued receiving vaccines until depletion or until tumor progression.

Median progression-free survival was 17.8 months (95% confidence interval, 11.3-21.6) and median overall survival was 23.8 months (95% CI, 19.8-30.2).

PD-L1 expression on circulating monocytes was also measured from peripheral blood samples obtained during surgery. Patients were classified as having either high PD-L1 expression (54.5% or more of monocytes) or low PD-L1 expression. Among patients classified as having high PD-L1 expression, the median overall survival was 18.0 months (95% CI, 10.0-23.3). Patients who had low PD-L1 expression had a significantly longer median overall survival time of 44.7 months with a confidence interval not calculable (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.36-8.23; P = .003).

Finally, a multivariate proportional hazards model showed the MGMT methylation status and PD-L1 expression were the two greatest independent predictors of survival.

“Survival among patients who received the HSPPV-96 was greater than expected compared to historical controls... These results certainly, we feel, provide rationale for a phase III trial of vaccine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone,” Dr. Bloch said.

“PD-L1 expression on circulating myeloid cells is independently predictive of clinical response to vaccination, and it suggests that the low PD-L1 expressing population will most benefit from this anti-tumor vaccination scheme, but it also suggests that high PD-L1 expressing patients may benefit from combined checkpoint inhibition. Systemic immunosuppression driven by peripheral monocyte expression of PD-L1 is a previously unidentified factor that may mitigate vaccine efficacy,” Dr. Bloch further commented.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Brain Tumor Society, the American Brain Tumor Association, and Accelerated Brain Cancer Cure. Dr. Bloch reporting having no relevant disclosures.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Chicago – A newly developed heat shock protein peptide vaccination appears to be safe and effective in treating patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM), according to the results of a phase II single arm study.

In adding the vaccine to standard therapy for 46 patients with newly diagnosed GBM, median overall survival was 23.8 months, and there were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with the vaccine, lead author Dr. Orin Bloch of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Standard therapy typically results in a median survival of 16 months, he said.

“There is a lot of information out there right now regarding CNS and other solid organ tumors particularly in the area of checkpoint modulation and its ability to stimulate an innate immune response against a tumor. I think in GBM we are facing a bit of a different scenario, however, because the tumor exists in a very privileged area behind the blood brain barrier and doesn’t regularly metastasize beyond the CNS,” Dr. Bloch said.

Therefore, only modulating checkpoints without stimulating and educating the immune system may not be the most effective approach. Adaptive immunity through vaccination or some other form of stimulation might be more successful, Dr. Bloch said.

“As a way of inducing immune stimulation and education using tumor-autologous peptides, one can capitalize on the native system of heat shock stimulation. Heat shock proteins are chaperone proteins that are ubiquitously expressed in cells and they’re bound to any number of intracellular peptides at any one time including, in tumor cells, neoantigens. If you extract these heat shock proteins with their bound antigens and deliver them in a naked form into the systemic circulation, their uptake into antigen-presenting cells through the CD91 receptor [will result in] the peptide [being] cleaved and presented on MHC class one and two for stimulation of CD8- and CD4-positive T cell response,” he said.

Heat shock proteins also interact with toll-like receptors and stimulate the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, “acting as their own adjuvant,” Dr. Bloch further explained. Utilizing heat shock proteins activates both the innate and adaptive immune responses.

“This is an ideal platform for developing an immunotherapy for glioblastoma,” Dr. Bloch said.

In this phase II study, 46 adult patients with GBM underwent surgical resection of their tumors followed by chemoradiotherapy. At least four 25-microgram doses of vaccine were generated from tissue obtained during surgery. Within 5 weeks of completing radiotherapy, patients began receiving weekly vaccinations in combination with adjuvant temozolomide. Patients continued receiving vaccines until depletion or until tumor progression.

Median progression-free survival was 17.8 months (95% confidence interval, 11.3-21.6) and median overall survival was 23.8 months (95% CI, 19.8-30.2).

PD-L1 expression on circulating monocytes was also measured from peripheral blood samples obtained during surgery. Patients were classified as having either high PD-L1 expression (54.5% or more of monocytes) or low PD-L1 expression. Among patients classified as having high PD-L1 expression, the median overall survival was 18.0 months (95% CI, 10.0-23.3). Patients who had low PD-L1 expression had a significantly longer median overall survival time of 44.7 months with a confidence interval not calculable (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.36-8.23; P = .003).

Finally, a multivariate proportional hazards model showed the MGMT methylation status and PD-L1 expression were the two greatest independent predictors of survival.

“Survival among patients who received the HSPPV-96 was greater than expected compared to historical controls... These results certainly, we feel, provide rationale for a phase III trial of vaccine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone,” Dr. Bloch said.

“PD-L1 expression on circulating myeloid cells is independently predictive of clinical response to vaccination, and it suggests that the low PD-L1 expressing population will most benefit from this anti-tumor vaccination scheme, but it also suggests that high PD-L1 expressing patients may benefit from combined checkpoint inhibition. Systemic immunosuppression driven by peripheral monocyte expression of PD-L1 is a previously unidentified factor that may mitigate vaccine efficacy,” Dr. Bloch further commented.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Brain Tumor Society, the American Brain Tumor Association, and Accelerated Brain Cancer Cure. Dr. Bloch reporting having no relevant disclosures.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Chicago – A newly developed heat shock protein peptide vaccination appears to be safe and effective in treating patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM), according to the results of a phase II single arm study.

In adding the vaccine to standard therapy for 46 patients with newly diagnosed GBM, median overall survival was 23.8 months, and there were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with the vaccine, lead author Dr. Orin Bloch of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Standard therapy typically results in a median survival of 16 months, he said.

“There is a lot of information out there right now regarding CNS and other solid organ tumors particularly in the area of checkpoint modulation and its ability to stimulate an innate immune response against a tumor. I think in GBM we are facing a bit of a different scenario, however, because the tumor exists in a very privileged area behind the blood brain barrier and doesn’t regularly metastasize beyond the CNS,” Dr. Bloch said.

Therefore, only modulating checkpoints without stimulating and educating the immune system may not be the most effective approach. Adaptive immunity through vaccination or some other form of stimulation might be more successful, Dr. Bloch said.

“As a way of inducing immune stimulation and education using tumor-autologous peptides, one can capitalize on the native system of heat shock stimulation. Heat shock proteins are chaperone proteins that are ubiquitously expressed in cells and they’re bound to any number of intracellular peptides at any one time including, in tumor cells, neoantigens. If you extract these heat shock proteins with their bound antigens and deliver them in a naked form into the systemic circulation, their uptake into antigen-presenting cells through the CD91 receptor [will result in] the peptide [being] cleaved and presented on MHC class one and two for stimulation of CD8- and CD4-positive T cell response,” he said.

Heat shock proteins also interact with toll-like receptors and stimulate the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, “acting as their own adjuvant,” Dr. Bloch further explained. Utilizing heat shock proteins activates both the innate and adaptive immune responses.

“This is an ideal platform for developing an immunotherapy for glioblastoma,” Dr. Bloch said.

In this phase II study, 46 adult patients with GBM underwent surgical resection of their tumors followed by chemoradiotherapy. At least four 25-microgram doses of vaccine were generated from tissue obtained during surgery. Within 5 weeks of completing radiotherapy, patients began receiving weekly vaccinations in combination with adjuvant temozolomide. Patients continued receiving vaccines until depletion or until tumor progression.

Median progression-free survival was 17.8 months (95% confidence interval, 11.3-21.6) and median overall survival was 23.8 months (95% CI, 19.8-30.2).

PD-L1 expression on circulating monocytes was also measured from peripheral blood samples obtained during surgery. Patients were classified as having either high PD-L1 expression (54.5% or more of monocytes) or low PD-L1 expression. Among patients classified as having high PD-L1 expression, the median overall survival was 18.0 months (95% CI, 10.0-23.3). Patients who had low PD-L1 expression had a significantly longer median overall survival time of 44.7 months with a confidence interval not calculable (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.36-8.23; P = .003).

Finally, a multivariate proportional hazards model showed the MGMT methylation status and PD-L1 expression were the two greatest independent predictors of survival.

“Survival among patients who received the HSPPV-96 was greater than expected compared to historical controls... These results certainly, we feel, provide rationale for a phase III trial of vaccine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone,” Dr. Bloch said.

“PD-L1 expression on circulating myeloid cells is independently predictive of clinical response to vaccination, and it suggests that the low PD-L1 expressing population will most benefit from this anti-tumor vaccination scheme, but it also suggests that high PD-L1 expressing patients may benefit from combined checkpoint inhibition. Systemic immunosuppression driven by peripheral monocyte expression of PD-L1 is a previously unidentified factor that may mitigate vaccine efficacy,” Dr. Bloch further commented.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Brain Tumor Society, the American Brain Tumor Association, and Accelerated Brain Cancer Cure. Dr. Bloch reporting having no relevant disclosures.

jcraig@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

CHICAGO – Combining an immunostimulatory agent with the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab appeared quite safe and very tolerable, in a small phase Ib study.

There were some signs of efficacy against a variety of solid tumors, as well as biomarker trends showing immune activity.

In the phase Ib trial, researchers combined escalating doses (0.45-5.0 mg/kg) of PF-2566, an investigative immunostimulatory agent, with the anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg, with both drugs given intravenously once every 3 weeks for a maximum of 32 cycles. A primary objective of the trial was to determine a maximum tolerated dose. Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and to determine any antitumor responses.

PF-2566 (Utomilumab/PF-05082566) is a monoclonal agonist targeting 4-1BB, a “costimulatory molecule that’s induced upon T-cell receptor activation and ultimately enhances cytotoxic T-cell response and effector status,” said Dr. Anthony Tolcher of the START Center for Cancer Care, San Antonio, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a performance status of 0-1, and had advanced or metastatic solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy or for which no standard therapy was available. They could not have had any form of immunosuppressive therapy in the 2 weeks prior to registration, a monoclonal antibody in the 2 months before the first dose, or any symptomatic or progressing central nervous system primary malignancies. Prior pembrolizumab was permitted.

Twenty-three patients (14 males) were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior therapies (range 0-9) for a variety of cancers, including six non–small-cell lung, five renal cell, three head and neck, and two each pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

Good safety and tolerability profiles

The most prevalent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, rash, cough, nausea, and decreased appetite, affecting 7-10 patients each. All were grade 1/2 except for one grade 3/4 case of fatigue and three cases of grade 3/4 anemia among the 23 patients. Most treatment-related AE’s were grade 1/2, largely fatigue (n = 8) and rash (n = 9). There was one case each of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency and hypokalemia. No patient discontinued the trial because of a treatment-related toxicity. Dr. Tolcher noted that adrenal insufficiency has been reported previously with the use of PD-1 inhibitors. “There does not appear to be any evidence of synergistic or additive toxicity in this patient population,” he said.

Neither drug affected the pharmacokinetics of the other drug or the development of antibodies to the other drug. The maximum tolerated dose of PF-2566 was at least 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks when combined with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed across the PF-2566 dosing range. And there were no treatment-emergent AEs of clinical relevance.

Pharmacodynamics and efficacy

By day 1 of cycle 5, “there [was] a trend toward increasing numbers of activated CD8 [cytotoxic] T cells in patients who ultimately responded or had a complete response, compared to those that had stable disease or progressive disease. The same actually applies to the effector memory T cells,” Dr. Tolcher said but was careful to point out that the sample sizes were small and it was only a trend. Similarly, circulating levels of gamma-interferon, often used as a biomarker of activated T cells, were higher at 6 and 24 hours post dose in cycle 5 for those patients who ultimately had partial or complete responses, compared with those with progressive or stable disease.

Among the 23 patients, there were two confirmed complete responses and four partial responses as well as one unconfirmed partial response. If responses occurred, they often were durable past 1 year and even out close to 2 years.

The strengths of this study were that it enrolled heavily pretreated patients and there were no drug-drug interactions, no dose-limiting toxicities, and no treatment-related AE’s leading to discontinuation, “so in general a very well-tolerated immunotherapy combination,” said discussant Dr. David Spigel of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn. There were also some durable responses, and he said it was interesting to see that there were some blood biomarkers that correlated with responses.

“It was hard for me to find any weaknesses to this,” Dr. Spigel said, beside the fact that it was a small study. “So what does this change?” He said the combination of pembrolizumab and PF-2566 looks promising in light of some sustained responses in refractory tumors and its safety profile. For the future, expansion trial cohorts are still needed to confirm activity and safety, especially hepatic safety based on trial results with similar drugs, and PF-2566 is already being tested with rituximab in lymphoma and with an anti-CCR4 compound (mogamulizumab).

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Tolcher has ties to several companies, including Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Spigel has ties to several companies, including Pfizer.

CHICAGO – Combining an immunostimulatory agent with the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab appeared quite safe and very tolerable, in a small phase Ib study.

There were some signs of efficacy against a variety of solid tumors, as well as biomarker trends showing immune activity.

In the phase Ib trial, researchers combined escalating doses (0.45-5.0 mg/kg) of PF-2566, an investigative immunostimulatory agent, with the anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg, with both drugs given intravenously once every 3 weeks for a maximum of 32 cycles. A primary objective of the trial was to determine a maximum tolerated dose. Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and to determine any antitumor responses.

PF-2566 (Utomilumab/PF-05082566) is a monoclonal agonist targeting 4-1BB, a “costimulatory molecule that’s induced upon T-cell receptor activation and ultimately enhances cytotoxic T-cell response and effector status,” said Dr. Anthony Tolcher of the START Center for Cancer Care, San Antonio, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a performance status of 0-1, and had advanced or metastatic solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy or for which no standard therapy was available. They could not have had any form of immunosuppressive therapy in the 2 weeks prior to registration, a monoclonal antibody in the 2 months before the first dose, or any symptomatic or progressing central nervous system primary malignancies. Prior pembrolizumab was permitted.

Twenty-three patients (14 males) were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior therapies (range 0-9) for a variety of cancers, including six non–small-cell lung, five renal cell, three head and neck, and two each pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

Good safety and tolerability profiles

The most prevalent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, rash, cough, nausea, and decreased appetite, affecting 7-10 patients each. All were grade 1/2 except for one grade 3/4 case of fatigue and three cases of grade 3/4 anemia among the 23 patients. Most treatment-related AE’s were grade 1/2, largely fatigue (n = 8) and rash (n = 9). There was one case each of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency and hypokalemia. No patient discontinued the trial because of a treatment-related toxicity. Dr. Tolcher noted that adrenal insufficiency has been reported previously with the use of PD-1 inhibitors. “There does not appear to be any evidence of synergistic or additive toxicity in this patient population,” he said.

Neither drug affected the pharmacokinetics of the other drug or the development of antibodies to the other drug. The maximum tolerated dose of PF-2566 was at least 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks when combined with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed across the PF-2566 dosing range. And there were no treatment-emergent AEs of clinical relevance.

Pharmacodynamics and efficacy

By day 1 of cycle 5, “there [was] a trend toward increasing numbers of activated CD8 [cytotoxic] T cells in patients who ultimately responded or had a complete response, compared to those that had stable disease or progressive disease. The same actually applies to the effector memory T cells,” Dr. Tolcher said but was careful to point out that the sample sizes were small and it was only a trend. Similarly, circulating levels of gamma-interferon, often used as a biomarker of activated T cells, were higher at 6 and 24 hours post dose in cycle 5 for those patients who ultimately had partial or complete responses, compared with those with progressive or stable disease.

Among the 23 patients, there were two confirmed complete responses and four partial responses as well as one unconfirmed partial response. If responses occurred, they often were durable past 1 year and even out close to 2 years.

The strengths of this study were that it enrolled heavily pretreated patients and there were no drug-drug interactions, no dose-limiting toxicities, and no treatment-related AE’s leading to discontinuation, “so in general a very well-tolerated immunotherapy combination,” said discussant Dr. David Spigel of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn. There were also some durable responses, and he said it was interesting to see that there were some blood biomarkers that correlated with responses.

“It was hard for me to find any weaknesses to this,” Dr. Spigel said, beside the fact that it was a small study. “So what does this change?” He said the combination of pembrolizumab and PF-2566 looks promising in light of some sustained responses in refractory tumors and its safety profile. For the future, expansion trial cohorts are still needed to confirm activity and safety, especially hepatic safety based on trial results with similar drugs, and PF-2566 is already being tested with rituximab in lymphoma and with an anti-CCR4 compound (mogamulizumab).

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Tolcher has ties to several companies, including Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Spigel has ties to several companies, including Pfizer.

CHICAGO – Combining an immunostimulatory agent with the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab appeared quite safe and very tolerable, in a small phase Ib study.

There were some signs of efficacy against a variety of solid tumors, as well as biomarker trends showing immune activity.

In the phase Ib trial, researchers combined escalating doses (0.45-5.0 mg/kg) of PF-2566, an investigative immunostimulatory agent, with the anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg, with both drugs given intravenously once every 3 weeks for a maximum of 32 cycles. A primary objective of the trial was to determine a maximum tolerated dose. Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and to determine any antitumor responses.

PF-2566 (Utomilumab/PF-05082566) is a monoclonal agonist targeting 4-1BB, a “costimulatory molecule that’s induced upon T-cell receptor activation and ultimately enhances cytotoxic T-cell response and effector status,” said Dr. Anthony Tolcher of the START Center for Cancer Care, San Antonio, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a performance status of 0-1, and had advanced or metastatic solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy or for which no standard therapy was available. They could not have had any form of immunosuppressive therapy in the 2 weeks prior to registration, a monoclonal antibody in the 2 months before the first dose, or any symptomatic or progressing central nervous system primary malignancies. Prior pembrolizumab was permitted.

Twenty-three patients (14 males) were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior therapies (range 0-9) for a variety of cancers, including six non–small-cell lung, five renal cell, three head and neck, and two each pancreatic and thyroid cancers.

Good safety and tolerability profiles

The most prevalent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, rash, cough, nausea, and decreased appetite, affecting 7-10 patients each. All were grade 1/2 except for one grade 3/4 case of fatigue and three cases of grade 3/4 anemia among the 23 patients. Most treatment-related AE’s were grade 1/2, largely fatigue (n = 8) and rash (n = 9). There was one case each of grade 3 adrenal insufficiency and hypokalemia. No patient discontinued the trial because of a treatment-related toxicity. Dr. Tolcher noted that adrenal insufficiency has been reported previously with the use of PD-1 inhibitors. “There does not appear to be any evidence of synergistic or additive toxicity in this patient population,” he said.

Neither drug affected the pharmacokinetics of the other drug or the development of antibodies to the other drug. The maximum tolerated dose of PF-2566 was at least 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks when combined with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed across the PF-2566 dosing range. And there were no treatment-emergent AEs of clinical relevance.

Pharmacodynamics and efficacy

By day 1 of cycle 5, “there [was] a trend toward increasing numbers of activated CD8 [cytotoxic] T cells in patients who ultimately responded or had a complete response, compared to those that had stable disease or progressive disease. The same actually applies to the effector memory T cells,” Dr. Tolcher said but was careful to point out that the sample sizes were small and it was only a trend. Similarly, circulating levels of gamma-interferon, often used as a biomarker of activated T cells, were higher at 6 and 24 hours post dose in cycle 5 for those patients who ultimately had partial or complete responses, compared with those with progressive or stable disease.

Among the 23 patients, there were two confirmed complete responses and four partial responses as well as one unconfirmed partial response. If responses occurred, they often were durable past 1 year and even out close to 2 years.

The strengths of this study were that it enrolled heavily pretreated patients and there were no drug-drug interactions, no dose-limiting toxicities, and no treatment-related AE’s leading to discontinuation, “so in general a very well-tolerated immunotherapy combination,” said discussant Dr. David Spigel of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn. There were also some durable responses, and he said it was interesting to see that there were some blood biomarkers that correlated with responses.

“It was hard for me to find any weaknesses to this,” Dr. Spigel said, beside the fact that it was a small study. “So what does this change?” He said the combination of pembrolizumab and PF-2566 looks promising in light of some sustained responses in refractory tumors and its safety profile. For the future, expansion trial cohorts are still needed to confirm activity and safety, especially hepatic safety based on trial results with similar drugs, and PF-2566 is already being tested with rituximab in lymphoma and with an anti-CCR4 compound (mogamulizumab).

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Tolcher has ties to several companies, including Pfizer and Merck. Dr. Spigel has ties to several companies, including Pfizer.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Combining two immunotherapies, one inhibiting immune suppression and the other stimulating immune activation, is well tolerated and shows activity for a variety of solid tumor types, according to a phase I trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Oncology.

Investigators enrolled 51 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors of any type after progression on standard therapy to a phase Ib dose-escalation study using atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, in combination with MOXR0916 (MOXR), an agonist IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting OX40, a costimulatory receptor. Atezolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in May 2016 for use in certain patients with urothelial carcinoma. There were 28 patients in a dose-escalation cohort of the study and 23 in a serial biopsy cohort. The dose of the drug combination was started at 12 mg and escalated to understand pharmacodynamic changes in the tumors.

“The pharmacokinetics of both MOXR0916 and atezolizumab were similar to their single-agent data, suggesting no interaction,” reported Dr. Jeffrey Infante of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

The drug combination was well tolerated through the entire escalation range of MOXR. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and no maximal tolerated dose was reached. There were also no drug-related deaths or grade 4 toxicities or drug-related treatment discontinuations. One case of grade 3 pneumonitis, successfully managed with methylprednisolone and antibiotics, occurred at the MOXR 40-mg dose on cycle 4 of treatment in a patient with non–small-cell lung cancer, he said.

About half the patients (53%) experienced any form of adverse event on the drug combination, and only 8% were grade 2 or 3. There were very few adverse events of any one type, and they did not appear to cluster among patients on the higher MOXR doses. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea, fever, fatigue, and rash, and each was in the 8%-14% range and almost always grade 1.

Many patients showed efficacy of the regimens out to 6-7 cycles regardless of tumor type, and 8 of the 51 patients were still receiving the therapy past cycle 7 with partial responses.

The stimulatory molecule OX40 is not normally expressed on T cells, but it is expressed when antigen interacts with the T-cell receptor, and it can then interact with its ligand, OX40L. The result is production of inflammatory cytokines such as gamma-interferon, activation and survival of effector T cells, and production of memory T cells. At the same time, OX40 activity blocks the suppressive function of regulatory T cells.

“So a molecule that can be a cancer therapeutic such as an OX40 agonist has dual mechanisms of action,” Dr. Infante said. “It can costimulate effector T cells and at the same time inhibit regulatory T cells. Furthermore, there is a reduced risk of toxicity, potentially, as its activity is linked to antigen recognition.”

There is good rationale for using an OX40 agonist such as MOXR, either for its immune stimulatory function or to deactivate immune suppression by regulatory T cells, or both, said discussant Dr. Jedd Wolchok, chief, melanoma and immunotherapeutics service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Dr. Infante’s dose-escalation study was “very nicely designed and showed quite good safety,” Dr. Wolchok said, though one thing he would have liked to have seen was a quantification of regulatory T cells in tumor biopsies.

“This [study] is very important considering that this is an agonist antibody, and the agonist agents need to be dosed very deliberatively, as was done here, to ensure safety of patients,” Dr. Wolchok said, adding that further research needs to target “optimal combinatorial partners” and explore other mechanistic biomarkers.

MOXR was given in this trial at escalating doses on a 3+3 design (0.8-1,200 mg) on the same day as atezolizumab 1,200 mg IV once every 3 weeks with a 21-day window for assessment of MOXR dose-limiting toxicities. MOXR doses of 300 mg maintained trough concentrations sufficient to saturate OX40 receptors. An expansion regimen using 300 mg MOXR with atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks is underway and will assess efficacy in the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

The study was sponsored by Roche. Dr. Infante reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Wolchok owns stock in Potenza Therapeutics and Vesuvius Pharmaceuticals, has received travel expenses and/or has an advisory role with several other companies, and is a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for the treatment of cancer in companion animals.

CHICAGO – Hormonal maintenance therapy after primary treatment was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival when compared with surveillance in a retrospective study of women with stage II-IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum.

The findings are “potentially practice-changing,” Dr. David Marc Gershenson of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©moodboard/Thinkstock

Of 204 women with newly diagnosed low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, 70 received hormonal maintenance therapy after completion of primary chemotherapy and 134 underwent surveillance. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 64.9 vs. 27.3 months, respectively (33 months overall), Dr. Gershenson said.

“To date, 40% of the hormone maintenance therapy group has not relapsed, compared [with] only 12% in the surveillance group,” he said.

Median overall survival was not statistically different, but there was a trend toward an overall survival benefit in the hormonal maintenance therapy group (115.7 vs. 98.8 months). In a subset analysis in women who were clinically disease free at the completion of primary chemotherapy, the median PFS was 29.9 months in 121 women undergoing surveillance, vs. 81.1 months in 27 receiving hormone maintenance therapy. The mean overall survival was also statistically different in the subset analysis (106.8 vs. 191.3 months).

On multivariable analysis, four factors reached significance: hormone maintenance therapy vs. surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.23), peritoneum vs. ovary as primary site (HR, 0.45), no gross residual disease vs. gross residual disease (HR, 0.49),and persistent disease at completion of chemotherapy, vs. no evidence of disease (HR, 0.42).

Patients included in the study presented between 1981 and 2013. They had a median age of 47.6 years, about 3/4 had primary ovarian LGSC, and about 1/4 had primary peritoneal LGSC.

Patients in the hormonal therapy group were treated with letrozole (54%), tamoxifen (29%), anastrozole (3%), leuprolide acetate (7%), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (1%), and leuprolide acetate + tamoxifen or letrozole (3% each). Median duration of hormonal maintenance therapy was 33.3 months (range of 1-223), and follow-up was at least 2 years in those who had not recurred.

LGSC is a rare subtype that accounts for about 10% of serous carcinomas of the ovary or peritoneum. These cancers may arise de novo or after a diagnosis of serous borderline tumor. LGSC, relative to high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is characterized by younger age at diagnosis, chemoresistance, prolonged overall survival, and aberrations within the MAP kinase signaling pathway, Dr. Gershenson said.

The findings are of interest as primary postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard for women with newly diagnosed metastatic ovarian or peritoneal LGSC despite multiple reports indicating that this subtype is relatively chemoresistant. For example, in the AGO database of 5,114 patients accrued to four separate phase III trials, the response rate to chemotherapy in women with suboptimally debulked LGSC was significantly lower than in women with suboptimally debulked HGSC (23% vs. 90%), he said.

However, no prospective clinical trials have been conducted in the front line setting in women with LGSC, he noted.

Recent reports of promising activity of hormonal therapy in the recurrent setting have led to an increase in interest in integrating the modality into the primary treatment setting. One study showed a high frequency of ER and PR expression in LGSC, and another showed that hormonal therapy for recurrent LGSC was associated with an objective response rate of 9%, stable disease rate of 66% and median progression-free survival of 7.4 months.

“Some patients derived several years of benefit,” he said. “In addition, low-grade serous carcinoma bears a striking resemblance to luminal breast cancer in that women who are 35 years of age or younger appear to have a significantly worse prognosis.”

Some have concluded, based on these findings, that platinum-based chemotherapy is of no value in the frontline treatment of LGSC and should be abandoned, Dr. Gershenson said.

The current findings, though limited by factors such as their retrospective nature, missing data, a long study period, and possible referral bias suggest that hormonal maintenance therapy deserves a closer look, Dr. Gershenson said.

“The findings of this hypotheses-generating study are potentially practice changing and warrant further investigation using a prospective trial design,” he concluded.

Dr. Gershenson reported stock ownership in AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting or advisory roles with Clovis Oncology, and patents with Elsevier and UpToDate.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Hormonal maintenance therapy after primary treatment was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival when compared with surveillance in a retrospective study of women with stage II-IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum.

The findings are “potentially practice-changing,” Dr. David Marc Gershenson of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©moodboard/Thinkstock

Of 204 women with newly diagnosed low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, 70 received hormonal maintenance therapy after completion of primary chemotherapy and 134 underwent surveillance. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 64.9 vs. 27.3 months, respectively (33 months overall), Dr. Gershenson said.

“To date, 40% of the hormone maintenance therapy group has not relapsed, compared [with] only 12% in the surveillance group,” he said.

Median overall survival was not statistically different, but there was a trend toward an overall survival benefit in the hormonal maintenance therapy group (115.7 vs. 98.8 months). In a subset analysis in women who were clinically disease free at the completion of primary chemotherapy, the median PFS was 29.9 months in 121 women undergoing surveillance, vs. 81.1 months in 27 receiving hormone maintenance therapy. The mean overall survival was also statistically different in the subset analysis (106.8 vs. 191.3 months).

On multivariable analysis, four factors reached significance: hormone maintenance therapy vs. surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.23), peritoneum vs. ovary as primary site (HR, 0.45), no gross residual disease vs. gross residual disease (HR, 0.49),and persistent disease at completion of chemotherapy, vs. no evidence of disease (HR, 0.42).

Patients included in the study presented between 1981 and 2013. They had a median age of 47.6 years, about 3/4 had primary ovarian LGSC, and about 1/4 had primary peritoneal LGSC.

Patients in the hormonal therapy group were treated with letrozole (54%), tamoxifen (29%), anastrozole (3%), leuprolide acetate (7%), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (1%), and leuprolide acetate + tamoxifen or letrozole (3% each). Median duration of hormonal maintenance therapy was 33.3 months (range of 1-223), and follow-up was at least 2 years in those who had not recurred.

LGSC is a rare subtype that accounts for about 10% of serous carcinomas of the ovary or peritoneum. These cancers may arise de novo or after a diagnosis of serous borderline tumor. LGSC, relative to high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is characterized by younger age at diagnosis, chemoresistance, prolonged overall survival, and aberrations within the MAP kinase signaling pathway, Dr. Gershenson said.

The findings are of interest as primary postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard for women with newly diagnosed metastatic ovarian or peritoneal LGSC despite multiple reports indicating that this subtype is relatively chemoresistant. For example, in the AGO database of 5,114 patients accrued to four separate phase III trials, the response rate to chemotherapy in women with suboptimally debulked LGSC was significantly lower than in women with suboptimally debulked HGSC (23% vs. 90%), he said.

However, no prospective clinical trials have been conducted in the front line setting in women with LGSC, he noted.

Recent reports of promising activity of hormonal therapy in the recurrent setting have led to an increase in interest in integrating the modality into the primary treatment setting. One study showed a high frequency of ER and PR expression in LGSC, and another showed that hormonal therapy for recurrent LGSC was associated with an objective response rate of 9%, stable disease rate of 66% and median progression-free survival of 7.4 months.

“Some patients derived several years of benefit,” he said. “In addition, low-grade serous carcinoma bears a striking resemblance to luminal breast cancer in that women who are 35 years of age or younger appear to have a significantly worse prognosis.”

Some have concluded, based on these findings, that platinum-based chemotherapy is of no value in the frontline treatment of LGSC and should be abandoned, Dr. Gershenson said.

The current findings, though limited by factors such as their retrospective nature, missing data, a long study period, and possible referral bias suggest that hormonal maintenance therapy deserves a closer look, Dr. Gershenson said.

“The findings of this hypotheses-generating study are potentially practice changing and warrant further investigation using a prospective trial design,” he concluded.

Dr. Gershenson reported stock ownership in AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting or advisory roles with Clovis Oncology, and patents with Elsevier and UpToDate.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Hormonal maintenance therapy after primary treatment was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival when compared with surveillance in a retrospective study of women with stage II-IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum.

The findings are “potentially practice-changing,” Dr. David Marc Gershenson of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©moodboard/Thinkstock

Of 204 women with newly diagnosed low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, 70 received hormonal maintenance therapy after completion of primary chemotherapy and 134 underwent surveillance. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 64.9 vs. 27.3 months, respectively (33 months overall), Dr. Gershenson said.

“To date, 40% of the hormone maintenance therapy group has not relapsed, compared [with] only 12% in the surveillance group,” he said.

Median overall survival was not statistically different, but there was a trend toward an overall survival benefit in the hormonal maintenance therapy group (115.7 vs. 98.8 months). In a subset analysis in women who were clinically disease free at the completion of primary chemotherapy, the median PFS was 29.9 months in 121 women undergoing surveillance, vs. 81.1 months in 27 receiving hormone maintenance therapy. The mean overall survival was also statistically different in the subset analysis (106.8 vs. 191.3 months).

On multivariable analysis, four factors reached significance: hormone maintenance therapy vs. surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.23), peritoneum vs. ovary as primary site (HR, 0.45), no gross residual disease vs. gross residual disease (HR, 0.49),and persistent disease at completion of chemotherapy, vs. no evidence of disease (HR, 0.42).

Patients included in the study presented between 1981 and 2013. They had a median age of 47.6 years, about 3/4 had primary ovarian LGSC, and about 1/4 had primary peritoneal LGSC.

Patients in the hormonal therapy group were treated with letrozole (54%), tamoxifen (29%), anastrozole (3%), leuprolide acetate (7%), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (1%), and leuprolide acetate + tamoxifen or letrozole (3% each). Median duration of hormonal maintenance therapy was 33.3 months (range of 1-223), and follow-up was at least 2 years in those who had not recurred.

LGSC is a rare subtype that accounts for about 10% of serous carcinomas of the ovary or peritoneum. These cancers may arise de novo or after a diagnosis of serous borderline tumor. LGSC, relative to high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is characterized by younger age at diagnosis, chemoresistance, prolonged overall survival, and aberrations within the MAP kinase signaling pathway, Dr. Gershenson said.

The findings are of interest as primary postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy remains the standard for women with newly diagnosed metastatic ovarian or peritoneal LGSC despite multiple reports indicating that this subtype is relatively chemoresistant. For example, in the AGO database of 5,114 patients accrued to four separate phase III trials, the response rate to chemotherapy in women with suboptimally debulked LGSC was significantly lower than in women with suboptimally debulked HGSC (23% vs. 90%), he said.

However, no prospective clinical trials have been conducted in the front line setting in women with LGSC, he noted.

Recent reports of promising activity of hormonal therapy in the recurrent setting have led to an increase in interest in integrating the modality into the primary treatment setting. One study showed a high frequency of ER and PR expression in LGSC, and another showed that hormonal therapy for recurrent LGSC was associated with an objective response rate of 9%, stable disease rate of 66% and median progression-free survival of 7.4 months.

“Some patients derived several years of benefit,” he said. “In addition, low-grade serous carcinoma bears a striking resemblance to luminal breast cancer in that women who are 35 years of age or younger appear to have a significantly worse prognosis.”

Some have concluded, based on these findings, that platinum-based chemotherapy is of no value in the frontline treatment of LGSC and should be abandoned, Dr. Gershenson said.

The current findings, though limited by factors such as their retrospective nature, missing data, a long study period, and possible referral bias suggest that hormonal maintenance therapy deserves a closer look, Dr. Gershenson said.

“The findings of this hypotheses-generating study are potentially practice changing and warrant further investigation using a prospective trial design,” he concluded.

Dr. Gershenson reported stock ownership in AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting or advisory roles with Clovis Oncology, and patents with Elsevier and UpToDate.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Long-term maintenance monotherapy with olaparib following a response to platinum therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer was associated with continued benefit vs. placebo in an updated analysis of the randomized phase II Study 19.

The new survival analysis supports prior Study 19 data showing a significant progression-free survival (PFS) advantage and a delay in time to first and second subsequent therapy in the 136 patients in the study with a BRCA 1/2 mutation who were treated with the approved PARP inhibitor, Dr. Jonathan A. Ledermann reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

The PFS in the overall study population of 265 patients in that prior analysis was 8.4 months in the olaparib group vs. 4.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.35). The PFS in the BRCA mutation subpopulation was 11.2 and 4.3 months in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.18), reported Dr. Ledermann of University College London.

“Time to first subsequent therapy or death was significantly improved with olaparib. This represents the time that women are free from the next line of chemotherapy,” he said, adding that time to second subsequent therapy or death was also significantly improved with olaparib.

“[These measures] can demonstrate the benefit beyond the next line of chemotherapy, and also help to address the confounding impact of crossover that occurs in many trials,” he explained.

Neither of two prior data analyses, the first with data maturity of 38% and the second with maturity of 58%, showed an improvement in overall survival in Study 19 participants.

In the current analysis, with a data cut-off of Sept. 31, 2015 (an additional 3 years of follow-up since the last analysis), and data maturity of 77%, overall survival was 29.8 and 27.8 months in 136 treatment group patients and 129 placebo group patients, respectively (HR, 0.73). In the BRCA mutation subgroup, the median overall survival was 34.9 months with treatment, vs. 30.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.62). For 118 patients with BRCA wild type, the hazard ratio was 0.83.

The differences did not meet the criteria for statistical significance, as the study was not powered to show a difference in overall survival, but a restricted means analysis to compare mean survival – a “useful additional way of looking at the data, rather than the point-estimated median PFS, particularly as the data mature” – showed a mean overall survival of 40.1 and 34.9 months in the olaparib and placebo patients, respectively (difference of 5.2 months), and 44.3 and 36.9 months in the BRCA mutation subgroup (difference of 7.4 months).

As for the median time to first subsequent therapy in BRCA mutation patients in the current analysis, the benefit of olaparib is maintained, with a 9.4-month difference between the treatment and placebo groups (15.6 vs. 6.2), and this was highly statistically significant (HR, 0.32; data maturity, 82%). For wild-type patients, the difference in the median was 6 months (12.9 vs. 6.9 months; HR, 0.45; maturity, 91%).

The same was true for the time to second subsequent treatment in BRCA mutation patients (22 vs. 15.3 months; HR, 0.41; data maturity, 79%), he said, noting that 23% of placebo patients crossed over to a PARP inhibitor at some point in their treatment.

A separation between the groups was also seen in BRCA wild-type patients (median of 17 vs. 14.7 months; HR, 0.63; data maturity, 90%), “perhaps maintained by those patients taking the drug for a long time,” Dr. Ledermann said.

At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, 15 patients were still receiving olaparib (11%), including 8 BRCA mutation patients and 7 BRCA wild-type patients. One patient was still receiving placebo.

“So 13% were on the drug for at least 5 years, 15% in the BRCA mutation subgroup were on it for at least 5 years, and 12% of patients with the BRCA wild type were on the drug for at least 5 years,” Dr. Ledermann said, noting that this represents “unprecedented long-term exposure to olaparib.”

Olaparib is a potent oral PARP inhibitor that traps PARP at sites of DNA damage, which blocks base-excision repair and leads to the collapse of DNA replication forks and the accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks, Dr. Ledermann explained, noting that the agent induces synthetic lethality in tumors with deficient hemologous recombination repair, which is most often seen with BRCA 1/2 mutations.

In Study 19, patients received 400 mg of olaparib twice daily or placebo after response to platinum-based therapy. BRCA mutation status was known for 254/265 patients (96%) from germline or tumor tests.

No new safety signals were observed with the longer follow-up, and the frequency of common adverse events, including nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and anemia was consistent with that seen in the overall population, with most adverse events initially reported during the first 2 years, he said.

The greatest benefits, in terms of overall survival and time to first and second subsequent treatment, were seen in patients with BRCA mutation, he concluded.

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ledermann reported that he has participated in advisory boards and lecture symposia and received institutional and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche and Pfizer, and institutional fees from Clovis Oncology and Merck.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Long-term maintenance monotherapy with olaparib following a response to platinum therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer was associated with continued benefit vs. placebo in an updated analysis of the randomized phase II Study 19.

The new survival analysis supports prior Study 19 data showing a significant progression-free survival (PFS) advantage and a delay in time to first and second subsequent therapy in the 136 patients in the study with a BRCA 1/2 mutation who were treated with the approved PARP inhibitor, Dr. Jonathan A. Ledermann reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

The PFS in the overall study population of 265 patients in that prior analysis was 8.4 months in the olaparib group vs. 4.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.35). The PFS in the BRCA mutation subpopulation was 11.2 and 4.3 months in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.18), reported Dr. Ledermann of University College London.

“Time to first subsequent therapy or death was significantly improved with olaparib. This represents the time that women are free from the next line of chemotherapy,” he said, adding that time to second subsequent therapy or death was also significantly improved with olaparib.

“[These measures] can demonstrate the benefit beyond the next line of chemotherapy, and also help to address the confounding impact of crossover that occurs in many trials,” he explained.

Neither of two prior data analyses, the first with data maturity of 38% and the second with maturity of 58%, showed an improvement in overall survival in Study 19 participants.

In the current analysis, with a data cut-off of Sept. 31, 2015 (an additional 3 years of follow-up since the last analysis), and data maturity of 77%, overall survival was 29.8 and 27.8 months in 136 treatment group patients and 129 placebo group patients, respectively (HR, 0.73). In the BRCA mutation subgroup, the median overall survival was 34.9 months with treatment, vs. 30.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.62). For 118 patients with BRCA wild type, the hazard ratio was 0.83.

The differences did not meet the criteria for statistical significance, as the study was not powered to show a difference in overall survival, but a restricted means analysis to compare mean survival – a “useful additional way of looking at the data, rather than the point-estimated median PFS, particularly as the data mature” – showed a mean overall survival of 40.1 and 34.9 months in the olaparib and placebo patients, respectively (difference of 5.2 months), and 44.3 and 36.9 months in the BRCA mutation subgroup (difference of 7.4 months).

As for the median time to first subsequent therapy in BRCA mutation patients in the current analysis, the benefit of olaparib is maintained, with a 9.4-month difference between the treatment and placebo groups (15.6 vs. 6.2), and this was highly statistically significant (HR, 0.32; data maturity, 82%). For wild-type patients, the difference in the median was 6 months (12.9 vs. 6.9 months; HR, 0.45; maturity, 91%).

The same was true for the time to second subsequent treatment in BRCA mutation patients (22 vs. 15.3 months; HR, 0.41; data maturity, 79%), he said, noting that 23% of placebo patients crossed over to a PARP inhibitor at some point in their treatment.

A separation between the groups was also seen in BRCA wild-type patients (median of 17 vs. 14.7 months; HR, 0.63; data maturity, 90%), “perhaps maintained by those patients taking the drug for a long time,” Dr. Ledermann said.

At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, 15 patients were still receiving olaparib (11%), including 8 BRCA mutation patients and 7 BRCA wild-type patients. One patient was still receiving placebo.

“So 13% were on the drug for at least 5 years, 15% in the BRCA mutation subgroup were on it for at least 5 years, and 12% of patients with the BRCA wild type were on the drug for at least 5 years,” Dr. Ledermann said, noting that this represents “unprecedented long-term exposure to olaparib.”

Olaparib is a potent oral PARP inhibitor that traps PARP at sites of DNA damage, which blocks base-excision repair and leads to the collapse of DNA replication forks and the accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks, Dr. Ledermann explained, noting that the agent induces synthetic lethality in tumors with deficient hemologous recombination repair, which is most often seen with BRCA 1/2 mutations.

In Study 19, patients received 400 mg of olaparib twice daily or placebo after response to platinum-based therapy. BRCA mutation status was known for 254/265 patients (96%) from germline or tumor tests.

No new safety signals were observed with the longer follow-up, and the frequency of common adverse events, including nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and anemia was consistent with that seen in the overall population, with most adverse events initially reported during the first 2 years, he said.

The greatest benefits, in terms of overall survival and time to first and second subsequent treatment, were seen in patients with BRCA mutation, he concluded.

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ledermann reported that he has participated in advisory boards and lecture symposia and received institutional and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche and Pfizer, and institutional fees from Clovis Oncology and Merck.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Long-term maintenance monotherapy with olaparib following a response to platinum therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer was associated with continued benefit vs. placebo in an updated analysis of the randomized phase II Study 19.

The new survival analysis supports prior Study 19 data showing a significant progression-free survival (PFS) advantage and a delay in time to first and second subsequent therapy in the 136 patients in the study with a BRCA 1/2 mutation who were treated with the approved PARP inhibitor, Dr. Jonathan A. Ledermann reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

The PFS in the overall study population of 265 patients in that prior analysis was 8.4 months in the olaparib group vs. 4.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.35). The PFS in the BRCA mutation subpopulation was 11.2 and 4.3 months in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.18), reported Dr. Ledermann of University College London.

“Time to first subsequent therapy or death was significantly improved with olaparib. This represents the time that women are free from the next line of chemotherapy,” he said, adding that time to second subsequent therapy or death was also significantly improved with olaparib.

“[These measures] can demonstrate the benefit beyond the next line of chemotherapy, and also help to address the confounding impact of crossover that occurs in many trials,” he explained.

Neither of two prior data analyses, the first with data maturity of 38% and the second with maturity of 58%, showed an improvement in overall survival in Study 19 participants.

In the current analysis, with a data cut-off of Sept. 31, 2015 (an additional 3 years of follow-up since the last analysis), and data maturity of 77%, overall survival was 29.8 and 27.8 months in 136 treatment group patients and 129 placebo group patients, respectively (HR, 0.73). In the BRCA mutation subgroup, the median overall survival was 34.9 months with treatment, vs. 30.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.62). For 118 patients with BRCA wild type, the hazard ratio was 0.83.

The differences did not meet the criteria for statistical significance, as the study was not powered to show a difference in overall survival, but a restricted means analysis to compare mean survival – a “useful additional way of looking at the data, rather than the point-estimated median PFS, particularly as the data mature” – showed a mean overall survival of 40.1 and 34.9 months in the olaparib and placebo patients, respectively (difference of 5.2 months), and 44.3 and 36.9 months in the BRCA mutation subgroup (difference of 7.4 months).

As for the median time to first subsequent therapy in BRCA mutation patients in the current analysis, the benefit of olaparib is maintained, with a 9.4-month difference between the treatment and placebo groups (15.6 vs. 6.2), and this was highly statistically significant (HR, 0.32; data maturity, 82%). For wild-type patients, the difference in the median was 6 months (12.9 vs. 6.9 months; HR, 0.45; maturity, 91%).

The same was true for the time to second subsequent treatment in BRCA mutation patients (22 vs. 15.3 months; HR, 0.41; data maturity, 79%), he said, noting that 23% of placebo patients crossed over to a PARP inhibitor at some point in their treatment.

A separation between the groups was also seen in BRCA wild-type patients (median of 17 vs. 14.7 months; HR, 0.63; data maturity, 90%), “perhaps maintained by those patients taking the drug for a long time,” Dr. Ledermann said.

At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, 15 patients were still receiving olaparib (11%), including 8 BRCA mutation patients and 7 BRCA wild-type patients. One patient was still receiving placebo.

“So 13% were on the drug for at least 5 years, 15% in the BRCA mutation subgroup were on it for at least 5 years, and 12% of patients with the BRCA wild type were on the drug for at least 5 years,” Dr. Ledermann said, noting that this represents “unprecedented long-term exposure to olaparib.”

Olaparib is a potent oral PARP inhibitor that traps PARP at sites of DNA damage, which blocks base-excision repair and leads to the collapse of DNA replication forks and the accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks, Dr. Ledermann explained, noting that the agent induces synthetic lethality in tumors with deficient hemologous recombination repair, which is most often seen with BRCA 1/2 mutations.

In Study 19, patients received 400 mg of olaparib twice daily or placebo after response to platinum-based therapy. BRCA mutation status was known for 254/265 patients (96%) from germline or tumor tests.

No new safety signals were observed with the longer follow-up, and the frequency of common adverse events, including nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and anemia was consistent with that seen in the overall population, with most adverse events initially reported during the first 2 years, he said.

The greatest benefits, in terms of overall survival and time to first and second subsequent treatment, were seen in patients with BRCA mutation, he concluded.

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ledermann reported that he has participated in advisory boards and lecture symposia and received institutional and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche and Pfizer, and institutional fees from Clovis Oncology and Merck.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is efficacious when used as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study – cohort 1 of the IMvigor210 trial – was conducted among 119 cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic or locally advanced disease. All were treated with the antibody atezolizumab, which targets PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1), a negative regulator of the immune system, and thereby promotes the antitumor immune response.

Nearly a quarter of patients had a tumor response to atezolizumab, and median overall survival approached 15 months, first author Dr. Arjun V. Balar of the New York University Langone Medical Center and director of genitourinary medical oncology at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, reported in a session and press briefing.

“Overall, this therapy was efficacious and also very well tolerated,” he commented. “These data make a compelling argument for atezolizumab to be a potential new standard of care in patients with cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial cancer. However, moreover, they could represent the beginning of a seismic shift in our treatment approach to all patients with metastatic disease, irrespective of their eligibility for cisplatin.”

Positive findings from the trial’s cohort 2, patients who had already received platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease, recently led to the agent’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in that population.

Cohort 1 was initially set up as an exploratory study but was expanded, Dr. Balar explained. “I do think that there is a benefit there, but until we have comparative data, it’s going to be really hard to hold that against immunotherapy necessarily,” he acknowledged. “That being said, do I envision a future where there is PD-L1 and PD-1 targeted therapy as a front-line therapy? Yes, absolutely, I think we are headed in that direction. We just need the trials to show it.”

ASCO expert Dr. Charles Ryan, professor of clinical medicine and urology program leader, genitourinary medical oncology, at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, concurred, saying, “I think it is safe at this point to envision a future where PD-L1 therapy could be used in the front line, but we do need to do those confirmatory studies.

“I would just underscore that in this study, the importance is that this is cisplatin ineligible as opposed to carboplatin treated,” Dr. Ryan added. “Cisplatin is the only platinum in bladder cancer that is associated with a survival benefit, so this is a very significant point to make. A very substantial part of the bladder cancer population, many patients out there, are cisplatin ineligible due to a variety of reasons, because organ dysfunction is quite common in advanced urothelial cancer.”

Patients were entered into IMVigor210’s cohort 1 if they had impaired kidney function, peripheral neuropathy, moderate to severe hearing loss, or poor performance status, precluding the use of cisplatin.

All were treated with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) every 3 weeks until investigator-defined progression. To evaluate a potential biomarker for benefit, the investigators assessed PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue.

Study results showed that with a median follow-up of 14.4 months, the centrally confirmed overall response rate, the study’s primary endpoint, was 24% (7% of patients had a complete response and 17% had a partial response), Dr. Balar reported.

Complete responses were seen in all subgroups of patients stratified by PD-L1 expression. Fully 75% of all responses were still ongoing at the time of data cutoff, and the median duration of response has not yet been reached in any of the subgroups.

The median duration of overall survival was 14.8 months, and the 1-year rate of overall survival was 57%, although data for that endpoint are still immature. Survival also appeared to be similar regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Taken together, these efficacy findings compare favorably with those seen historically in similar patients treated with other agents in trials and in real-world settings, according to Dr. Balar.

Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with only 6% of patients experiencing an adverse event leading to trial discontinuation. Most events seen were of grade 1 or 2 severity; a single patient had a grade 5 event (sepsis).

About 15% of patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, about the same as the rate seen in cohort 2. The most common were fatigue and an increase in liver enzymes.

Overall, 14% of patients had an immune-mediated adverse event requiring corticosteroid treatment. “Notably, no patients required any other immunosuppression beyond steroids for the management of an immune-related adverse event,” he reported

The PD-L1 analyses in the trial had some limitations, Dr. Balar said. “PD-L1 testing continues to be the most hotly contested issue,” he said. “Obviously, the immune system is very dynamic, and we were testing something in archival specimens, in a static environment, so there are obviously all the caveats there.”

Some data have suggested that mutational burden may help identify the patient subset who will benefit. However, “to be able to make your decision in the clinic, those types of readouts need to be timely …, and I think that’s the gap,” he commented. “So in the future, is the right biomarker PD-1 or PD-L1? My hunch is no, that is probably not the right biomarker, there are probably better ones, and those are being worked on.”

Dr. Balar disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Cerulean Pharma, Dendreon, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. The trial was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Ventana Medical Systems assisted with PD-L1 testing.

CHICAGO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is efficacious when used as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study – cohort 1 of the IMvigor210 trial – was conducted among 119 cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic or locally advanced disease. All were treated with the antibody atezolizumab, which targets PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1), a negative regulator of the immune system, and thereby promotes the antitumor immune response.

Nearly a quarter of patients had a tumor response to atezolizumab, and median overall survival approached 15 months, first author Dr. Arjun V. Balar of the New York University Langone Medical Center and director of genitourinary medical oncology at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, reported in a session and press briefing.

“Overall, this therapy was efficacious and also very well tolerated,” he commented. “These data make a compelling argument for atezolizumab to be a potential new standard of care in patients with cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial cancer. However, moreover, they could represent the beginning of a seismic shift in our treatment approach to all patients with metastatic disease, irrespective of their eligibility for cisplatin.”

Positive findings from the trial’s cohort 2, patients who had already received platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease, recently led to the agent’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in that population.

Cohort 1 was initially set up as an exploratory study but was expanded, Dr. Balar explained. “I do think that there is a benefit there, but until we have comparative data, it’s going to be really hard to hold that against immunotherapy necessarily,” he acknowledged. “That being said, do I envision a future where there is PD-L1 and PD-1 targeted therapy as a front-line therapy? Yes, absolutely, I think we are headed in that direction. We just need the trials to show it.”

ASCO expert Dr. Charles Ryan, professor of clinical medicine and urology program leader, genitourinary medical oncology, at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, concurred, saying, “I think it is safe at this point to envision a future where PD-L1 therapy could be used in the front line, but we do need to do those confirmatory studies.

“I would just underscore that in this study, the importance is that this is cisplatin ineligible as opposed to carboplatin treated,” Dr. Ryan added. “Cisplatin is the only platinum in bladder cancer that is associated with a survival benefit, so this is a very significant point to make. A very substantial part of the bladder cancer population, many patients out there, are cisplatin ineligible due to a variety of reasons, because organ dysfunction is quite common in advanced urothelial cancer.”

Patients were entered into IMVigor210’s cohort 1 if they had impaired kidney function, peripheral neuropathy, moderate to severe hearing loss, or poor performance status, precluding the use of cisplatin.

All were treated with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) every 3 weeks until investigator-defined progression. To evaluate a potential biomarker for benefit, the investigators assessed PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue.

Study results showed that with a median follow-up of 14.4 months, the centrally confirmed overall response rate, the study’s primary endpoint, was 24% (7% of patients had a complete response and 17% had a partial response), Dr. Balar reported.

Complete responses were seen in all subgroups of patients stratified by PD-L1 expression. Fully 75% of all responses were still ongoing at the time of data cutoff, and the median duration of response has not yet been reached in any of the subgroups.

The median duration of overall survival was 14.8 months, and the 1-year rate of overall survival was 57%, although data for that endpoint are still immature. Survival also appeared to be similar regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Taken together, these efficacy findings compare favorably with those seen historically in similar patients treated with other agents in trials and in real-world settings, according to Dr. Balar.

Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with only 6% of patients experiencing an adverse event leading to trial discontinuation. Most events seen were of grade 1 or 2 severity; a single patient had a grade 5 event (sepsis).

About 15% of patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, about the same as the rate seen in cohort 2. The most common were fatigue and an increase in liver enzymes.

Overall, 14% of patients had an immune-mediated adverse event requiring corticosteroid treatment. “Notably, no patients required any other immunosuppression beyond steroids for the management of an immune-related adverse event,” he reported

The PD-L1 analyses in the trial had some limitations, Dr. Balar said. “PD-L1 testing continues to be the most hotly contested issue,” he said. “Obviously, the immune system is very dynamic, and we were testing something in archival specimens, in a static environment, so there are obviously all the caveats there.”

Some data have suggested that mutational burden may help identify the patient subset who will benefit. However, “to be able to make your decision in the clinic, those types of readouts need to be timely …, and I think that’s the gap,” he commented. “So in the future, is the right biomarker PD-1 or PD-L1? My hunch is no, that is probably not the right biomarker, there are probably better ones, and those are being worked on.”

Dr. Balar disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Cerulean Pharma, Dendreon, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. The trial was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Ventana Medical Systems assisted with PD-L1 testing.

CHICAGO – The immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab is efficacious when used as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study – cohort 1 of the IMvigor210 trial – was conducted among 119 cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic or locally advanced disease. All were treated with the antibody atezolizumab, which targets PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1), a negative regulator of the immune system, and thereby promotes the antitumor immune response.

Nearly a quarter of patients had a tumor response to atezolizumab, and median overall survival approached 15 months, first author Dr. Arjun V. Balar of the New York University Langone Medical Center and director of genitourinary medical oncology at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, reported in a session and press briefing.

“Overall, this therapy was efficacious and also very well tolerated,” he commented. “These data make a compelling argument for atezolizumab to be a potential new standard of care in patients with cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial cancer. However, moreover, they could represent the beginning of a seismic shift in our treatment approach to all patients with metastatic disease, irrespective of their eligibility for cisplatin.”

Positive findings from the trial’s cohort 2, patients who had already received platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease, recently led to the agent’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use in that population.

Cohort 1 was initially set up as an exploratory study but was expanded, Dr. Balar explained. “I do think that there is a benefit there, but until we have comparative data, it’s going to be really hard to hold that against immunotherapy necessarily,” he acknowledged. “That being said, do I envision a future where there is PD-L1 and PD-1 targeted therapy as a front-line therapy? Yes, absolutely, I think we are headed in that direction. We just need the trials to show it.”

ASCO expert Dr. Charles Ryan, professor of clinical medicine and urology program leader, genitourinary medical oncology, at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, concurred, saying, “I think it is safe at this point to envision a future where PD-L1 therapy could be used in the front line, but we do need to do those confirmatory studies.

“I would just underscore that in this study, the importance is that this is cisplatin ineligible as opposed to carboplatin treated,” Dr. Ryan added. “Cisplatin is the only platinum in bladder cancer that is associated with a survival benefit, so this is a very significant point to make. A very substantial part of the bladder cancer population, many patients out there, are cisplatin ineligible due to a variety of reasons, because organ dysfunction is quite common in advanced urothelial cancer.”

Patients were entered into IMVigor210’s cohort 1 if they had impaired kidney function, peripheral neuropathy, moderate to severe hearing loss, or poor performance status, precluding the use of cisplatin.

All were treated with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) every 3 weeks until investigator-defined progression. To evaluate a potential biomarker for benefit, the investigators assessed PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue.

Study results showed that with a median follow-up of 14.4 months, the centrally confirmed overall response rate, the study’s primary endpoint, was 24% (7% of patients had a complete response and 17% had a partial response), Dr. Balar reported.

Complete responses were seen in all subgroups of patients stratified by PD-L1 expression. Fully 75% of all responses were still ongoing at the time of data cutoff, and the median duration of response has not yet been reached in any of the subgroups.

The median duration of overall survival was 14.8 months, and the 1-year rate of overall survival was 57%, although data for that endpoint are still immature. Survival also appeared to be similar regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Taken together, these efficacy findings compare favorably with those seen historically in similar patients treated with other agents in trials and in real-world settings, according to Dr. Balar.

Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with only 6% of patients experiencing an adverse event leading to trial discontinuation. Most events seen were of grade 1 or 2 severity; a single patient had a grade 5 event (sepsis).

About 15% of patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, about the same as the rate seen in cohort 2. The most common were fatigue and an increase in liver enzymes.

Overall, 14% of patients had an immune-mediated adverse event requiring corticosteroid treatment. “Notably, no patients required any other immunosuppression beyond steroids for the management of an immune-related adverse event,” he reported

The PD-L1 analyses in the trial had some limitations, Dr. Balar said. “PD-L1 testing continues to be the most hotly contested issue,” he said. “Obviously, the immune system is very dynamic, and we were testing something in archival specimens, in a static environment, so there are obviously all the caveats there.”

Some data have suggested that mutational burden may help identify the patient subset who will benefit. However, “to be able to make your decision in the clinic, those types of readouts need to be timely …, and I think that’s the gap,” he commented. “So in the future, is the right biomarker PD-1 or PD-L1? My hunch is no, that is probably not the right biomarker, there are probably better ones, and those are being worked on.”

Dr. Balar disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Cerulean Pharma, Dendreon, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. The trial was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. Ventana Medical Systems assisted with PD-L1 testing.

ASCO Annual Meeting 2016
© ASCO/Matt Herp

CHICAGO—Nearly 60% of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who switch to nilotinib from imatinib maintain treatment-free remission for 48 weeks after stopping treatment, according to a new study, ENESTop, presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7054). 

Treatment-free remission (TFR)—stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy after achieving a sustained deep molecular response—is an emerging treatment goal for patients with CML in chronic phase (CML-CP).

Results from Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) demonstrated that patients on long-term imatinib who had not achieved MR4.5 were more likely to achieve this response by switching to nilotinib than by remaining on imatinib. 

“This suggests that, compared with remaining on imatinib, switching to nilotinib may enable more of these patients to reach a molecular response level required for attempting to achieve TFR in clinical trials,” said lead author Timothy Hughes, MD, of University of Adelaide in Australia. 

ENESTop is the first study, providing the largest set of prospective TFR data to date, to specifically assess TFR in patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response after switching from imatinib to nilotinib. 

The trial evaluated 126 patients who were able to achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib, but not with prior imatinib therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients without confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of major molecular response (MMR) within 48 weeks of nilotinib discontinuation in the TFR phase. 

Some 57.9% patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response following at least three years of nilotinib therapy maintained a molecular response 48 weeks after stopping treatment.

Of the 51 patients with confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of MMR who restarted nilotinib, 98.0% regained at least MMR, with 94.1% regaining MR4.0 and 92.2% regaining MR4.5. 

By weeks 12 and 13 of treatment reinitiation with nilotinib, half of retreated patients already achieved MR4.0 and MR4.5, respectively. 

One patient entered the treatment reinitiation phase, but did not regain MMR by 20 weeks and discontinued the study. 

“MR4.5 achieved following the switch from imatinib to nilotinib,” Dr Hughes said, “was durable in most patients; more than three quarters of enrolled patients were eligible to enter the TFR phase.”

No new safety signals were observed, Dr Hughes said. Consistent with reports in imatinib-treated patients, the rates of all grade musculoskeletal pain were 42.1% in the first year of the TFR phase versus 14.3% while still taking nilotinib in the consolidation phase. 

Dr Hughes said the results suggest “TFR can be maintained in the majority of patients who achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib following switch from imatinib.”

He continued, “The results from ENESTop, together with those from ENESTcmr, show that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib achieve MR 4.5, suggesting that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib will achieve TFR compared with patients continuing on imatinib.”

Novartis is the sponsor of ENESTop and the manufacturer of imatinib (Gleevec) and nilotinib (Tasigna). Dr Hughes disclosed that he has received honoraria and research funding from Novartis.

ASCO Annual Meeting 2016
© ASCO/Matt Herp

CHICAGO—Nearly 60% of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who switch to nilotinib from imatinib maintain treatment-free remission for 48 weeks after stopping treatment, according to a new study, ENESTop, presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7054). 

Treatment-free remission (TFR)—stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy after achieving a sustained deep molecular response—is an emerging treatment goal for patients with CML in chronic phase (CML-CP).

Results from Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) demonstrated that patients on long-term imatinib who had not achieved MR4.5 were more likely to achieve this response by switching to nilotinib than by remaining on imatinib. 

“This suggests that, compared with remaining on imatinib, switching to nilotinib may enable more of these patients to reach a molecular response level required for attempting to achieve TFR in clinical trials,” said lead author Timothy Hughes, MD, of University of Adelaide in Australia. 

ENESTop is the first study, providing the largest set of prospective TFR data to date, to specifically assess TFR in patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response after switching from imatinib to nilotinib. 

The trial evaluated 126 patients who were able to achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib, but not with prior imatinib therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients without confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of major molecular response (MMR) within 48 weeks of nilotinib discontinuation in the TFR phase. 

Some 57.9% patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response following at least three years of nilotinib therapy maintained a molecular response 48 weeks after stopping treatment.

Of the 51 patients with confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of MMR who restarted nilotinib, 98.0% regained at least MMR, with 94.1% regaining MR4.0 and 92.2% regaining MR4.5. 

By weeks 12 and 13 of treatment reinitiation with nilotinib, half of retreated patients already achieved MR4.0 and MR4.5, respectively. 

One patient entered the treatment reinitiation phase, but did not regain MMR by 20 weeks and discontinued the study. 

“MR4.5 achieved following the switch from imatinib to nilotinib,” Dr Hughes said, “was durable in most patients; more than three quarters of enrolled patients were eligible to enter the TFR phase.”

No new safety signals were observed, Dr Hughes said. Consistent with reports in imatinib-treated patients, the rates of all grade musculoskeletal pain were 42.1% in the first year of the TFR phase versus 14.3% while still taking nilotinib in the consolidation phase. 

Dr Hughes said the results suggest “TFR can be maintained in the majority of patients who achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib following switch from imatinib.”

He continued, “The results from ENESTop, together with those from ENESTcmr, show that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib achieve MR 4.5, suggesting that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib will achieve TFR compared with patients continuing on imatinib.”

Novartis is the sponsor of ENESTop and the manufacturer of imatinib (Gleevec) and nilotinib (Tasigna). Dr Hughes disclosed that he has received honoraria and research funding from Novartis.

ASCO Annual Meeting 2016
© ASCO/Matt Herp

CHICAGO—Nearly 60% of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who switch to nilotinib from imatinib maintain treatment-free remission for 48 weeks after stopping treatment, according to a new study, ENESTop, presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 7054). 

Treatment-free remission (TFR)—stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy after achieving a sustained deep molecular response—is an emerging treatment goal for patients with CML in chronic phase (CML-CP).

Results from Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) demonstrated that patients on long-term imatinib who had not achieved MR4.5 were more likely to achieve this response by switching to nilotinib than by remaining on imatinib. 

“This suggests that, compared with remaining on imatinib, switching to nilotinib may enable more of these patients to reach a molecular response level required for attempting to achieve TFR in clinical trials,” said lead author Timothy Hughes, MD, of University of Adelaide in Australia. 

ENESTop is the first study, providing the largest set of prospective TFR data to date, to specifically assess TFR in patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response after switching from imatinib to nilotinib. 

The trial evaluated 126 patients who were able to achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib, but not with prior imatinib therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint of the proportion of patients without confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of major molecular response (MMR) within 48 weeks of nilotinib discontinuation in the TFR phase. 

Some 57.9% patients who achieved a sustained deep molecular response following at least three years of nilotinib therapy maintained a molecular response 48 weeks after stopping treatment.

Of the 51 patients with confirmed loss of MR4.0 or loss of MMR who restarted nilotinib, 98.0% regained at least MMR, with 94.1% regaining MR4.0 and 92.2% regaining MR4.5. 

By weeks 12 and 13 of treatment reinitiation with nilotinib, half of retreated patients already achieved MR4.0 and MR4.5, respectively. 

One patient entered the treatment reinitiation phase, but did not regain MMR by 20 weeks and discontinued the study. 

“MR4.5 achieved following the switch from imatinib to nilotinib,” Dr Hughes said, “was durable in most patients; more than three quarters of enrolled patients were eligible to enter the TFR phase.”

No new safety signals were observed, Dr Hughes said. Consistent with reports in imatinib-treated patients, the rates of all grade musculoskeletal pain were 42.1% in the first year of the TFR phase versus 14.3% while still taking nilotinib in the consolidation phase. 

Dr Hughes said the results suggest “TFR can be maintained in the majority of patients who achieve a sustained deep molecular response with nilotinib following switch from imatinib.”

He continued, “The results from ENESTop, together with those from ENESTcmr, show that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib achieve MR 4.5, suggesting that a higher proportion of patients switching to nilotinib will achieve TFR compared with patients continuing on imatinib.”

Novartis is the sponsor of ENESTop and the manufacturer of imatinib (Gleevec) and nilotinib (Tasigna). Dr Hughes disclosed that he has received honoraria and research funding from Novartis.

Chicago – Survivors of childhood cancers face several later risks from treatment, and investigators presented studies evaluating risks in three specific areas – secondary neoplasms, premature menopause, and neurocognitive function – at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussant Paul Nathan, M.D., of The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, said “the whole purpose” of research in this area “is to start to understand the predictors and modifiers of late effects” and then to design risk assessment tools and interventions to reduce long-term toxicity. These interventions include modification of chemotherapy and radiation doses, protective strategies, and disease risk stratification to adjust intensity of therapies.

Other strategies are to use behavioral interventions directed at improving compliance with follow-up to detect problems earlier and the use of real-time monitoring, such as with smart phones or fitness trackers. He said one limitation of this sort of research and implementing interventions to reduce late toxicities is that “you need time to document long-term outcomes.” So tracking newer therapies, such as proton beam radiation, small molecule drugs, and immunotherapy, is “going to take time, perhaps decades, before you understand their impact on patients.”

Risk of secondary neoplasms reduced

Risk-stratifying of disease “has allowed us to make attempts to minimize late effects by modifying therapy over time in certain subgroups of lower-risk patients,” said Dr. Lucie Turcotte of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

To study the effects of these changes, she determined the risk of certain subsequent malignant or benign neoplasms over three periods of therapeutic exposure among 23,603 5-year survivors of childhood cancers diagnosed at less than 21 years of age from 1970 to 1999, drawing from the cohort of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS). The CCSS represents about 20% of childhood cancer survivors in the United States for the study period.

Over the decades of 1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990-1999, the use of any radiation went from 77% to 58% to 41%, respectively. Cranial radiation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) decreased from 85% to 19%, abdominal radiation for Wilms tumor from 78% to 43%, and chest radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma from 87% to 61%. The proportion of children receiving alkylating agents, anthracyclines, and epipodophyllotoxins went up, but the cumulative doses went down (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):833-42).

Dr. Nathan said today, almost no child gets cranial radiation for ALL. “So we’ve slowly learned that our treatments are toxic, and we’ve certainly done what we can to change them.”

But have these changes made a difference? Dr. Turcotte found that survivors remain at increased risk of a secondary neoplasm, but the risk was lower for children treated in later time periods.

Dr. Nathan pointed to Dr. Turcotte’s data showing that the incidence of subsequent malignant neoplasms decreased from 1970 to 1999 by 7% for each 5-year era (15-year risk: 2.3% to 1.6%; P = .001; number needed to treat, NNT = 143). Similarly, non-melanoma skin cancer 15-year risk decreased from 0.7% to 0.1% (P less than .001; NNT = 167). The NNT’s are “certainly important, but these are not major differences over time,” Dr. Nathan said. Knowing the impact of newer, targeted therapeutic approaches will take some time.

Predicting risk of premature menopause

Also using the CCSS data, Dr. Jennifer Levine of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, N.Y., studied the prevalence of and risk factors for nonsurgical premature menopause (NSPM), defined as cessation of menses prior to age 40 years, as well as the effect on reproductive outcomes for survivors of childhood cancers.

Dr. Nathan said when a child is first diagnosed with cancer, seldom does the issue of fertility come up early in the discussion, “but when you treat young adults who are survivors, the number one thing they talk about often is fertility. And so doing a better job in predicting who is at risk for infertility is clearly a priority for survivorship research.”

He said the development of the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) by D.M Green et al. (Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014 Jan;61(1):53-67) has been very helpful for quantifying alkylating agent exposure to make comparisons between studies. The goal is to develop a risk assessment tool to be able to tell patients and families their fertility risk based on demographics, therapy, and biomarkers.

Being able to evaluate risk is critically important because for girls, oocyte or ovarian harvesting or even transvaginal ultrasound is highly invasive, and these procedures should be recommended only if their risk for infertility is very high.

Dr. Levine studied 2,930 female cancer survivors diagnosed at a median age of 6 years between 1979 and 1986 and a median age at follow-up of 34 years, who were compared with 1,399 healthy siblings. Of the survivor cohort, 110 developed NSPM at a median age of 32 years, and the prevalence of NSPM at age 40 years for the entire cohort was 9.1%, giving a relative risk of NSPM of 10.5 compared with siblings, who had a 0.9% NSPM prevalence at age 40.

She found that exposure to alkylating agents and older age at diagnosis put childhood cancer survivors at increased risk of NSPM, which was associated with lower rates of pregnancy and live births after age 31 years. The greatest risk of NSPM occurred if the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose was greater than 6000 mg/m² (odds ratio = 3.6 compared with no CED); if there had been any radiation to the ovaries (less than 5 Gy: OR = 4.0; 5 Gy or more: OR = 20.4); or if the age at diagnosis was greater than 14 years (OR = 2.3).

Women with NSPM, compared with survivors without NSPM, were less likely ever to be pregnant (OR = 0.41) or to have a live birth after age 30 (OR = 0.35). However, these outcomes were no different between the ages of 21 and 30. Dr. Levine said this information can assist clinicians in counseling their patients about the risk for early menopause and planning for alternative reproductive means, such as oocyte or embryo harvesting and preservation.

Neurocognitive functioning after treatment

Dr. Wei Liu of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., studied the neurocognitive function of long-term survivors of ALL.

Dr. Nathan called ALL “the paradigm for how we’ve sort of learned and adjusted how we treat patients based on late effects.” Early on, the disease was treated with craniospinal radiation and intrathecal chemotherapy, and while patients survived, it became obvious that they suffered neurocognitive and endocrine problems, growth abnormalities, and secondary malignancies. These findings forced a reevaluatuon of treatments, leading to elimination of spinal radiation, reduction of cranial radiation dose, intensification of systemic therapy, including methotrexate, and risk stratification allowing modification of therapies.

Survival was sustained, but long-term outcomes were still based on children treated with radiation. So long-term cognitive consequences in the more modern era of therapy were unknown. Only recently have adult cohorts become available who were treated in the chemotherapy-only era.

Dr. Liu studied 159 ALL survivors who had been treated with chemotherapy alone at a mean age of 9.2 years. The follow-up was at a median of 7.6 years off therapy at a mean age of 13.7 years. At the end of the chemotherapy protocol, patients completed tests of sustained attention, and parents rated survivors’ behavior on standard scales.

She found that for these childhood cancer survivors, sustained attention and behavior functioning at the end of chemotherapy predicted long-term attention and processing speed outcomes. Only exposure to chemotherapy, and not end-of-therapy function, predicted that survivors would have poor executive function of fluency and flexibility at long-term follow up.

Dr. Nathan praised the investigators for their foresight to collect data on the methotrexate area under the curve, number of triple intrathecal therapies (cytarabine, methotrexate, and hydrocortisone), and neurocognitive functioning at the end of chemotherapy. “What’s clear is that chemotherapy alone can lead to neurocognitive late effects,” he said. “But what’s also important is that not all late effects can be predicted by end of therapy assessments.” These late effects appear to evolve over time, so ongoing assessments are needed.

Dr. Turcotte, Dr. Liu, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Nathan each reported no financial disclosures.

Chicago – Survivors of childhood cancers face several later risks from treatment, and investigators presented studies evaluating risks in three specific areas – secondary neoplasms, premature menopause, and neurocognitive function – at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussant Paul Nathan, M.D., of The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, said “the whole purpose” of research in this area “is to start to understand the predictors and modifiers of late effects” and then to design risk assessment tools and interventions to reduce long-term toxicity. These interventions include modification of chemotherapy and radiation doses, protective strategies, and disease risk stratification to adjust intensity of therapies.

Other strategies are to use behavioral interventions directed at improving compliance with follow-up to detect problems earlier and the use of real-time monitoring, such as with smart phones or fitness trackers. He said one limitation of this sort of research and implementing interventions to reduce late toxicities is that “you need time to document long-term outcomes.” So tracking newer therapies, such as proton beam radiation, small molecule drugs, and immunotherapy, is “going to take time, perhaps decades, before you understand their impact on patients.”

Risk of secondary neoplasms reduced

Risk-stratifying of disease “has allowed us to make attempts to minimize late effects by modifying therapy over time in certain subgroups of lower-risk patients,” said Dr. Lucie Turcotte of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

To study the effects of these changes, she determined the risk of certain subsequent malignant or benign neoplasms over three periods of therapeutic exposure among 23,603 5-year survivors of childhood cancers diagnosed at less than 21 years of age from 1970 to 1999, drawing from the cohort of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS). The CCSS represents about 20% of childhood cancer survivors in the United States for the study period.

Over the decades of 1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990-1999, the use of any radiation went from 77% to 58% to 41%, respectively. Cranial radiation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) decreased from 85% to 19%, abdominal radiation for Wilms tumor from 78% to 43%, and chest radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma from 87% to 61%. The proportion of children receiving alkylating agents, anthracyclines, and epipodophyllotoxins went up, but the cumulative doses went down (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):833-42).

Dr. Nathan said today, almost no child gets cranial radiation for ALL. “So we’ve slowly learned that our treatments are toxic, and we’ve certainly done what we can to change them.”

But have these changes made a difference? Dr. Turcotte found that survivors remain at increased risk of a secondary neoplasm, but the risk was lower for children treated in later time periods.

Dr. Nathan pointed to Dr. Turcotte’s data showing that the incidence of subsequent malignant neoplasms decreased from 1970 to 1999 by 7% for each 5-year era (15-year risk: 2.3% to 1.6%; P = .001; number needed to treat, NNT = 143). Similarly, non-melanoma skin cancer 15-year risk decreased from 0.7% to 0.1% (P less than .001; NNT = 167). The NNT’s are “certainly important, but these are not major differences over time,” Dr. Nathan said. Knowing the impact of newer, targeted therapeutic approaches will take some time.

Predicting risk of premature menopause

Also using the CCSS data, Dr. Jennifer Levine of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, N.Y., studied the prevalence of and risk factors for nonsurgical premature menopause (NSPM), defined as cessation of menses prior to age 40 years, as well as the effect on reproductive outcomes for survivors of childhood cancers.

Dr. Nathan said when a child is first diagnosed with cancer, seldom does the issue of fertility come up early in the discussion, “but when you treat young adults who are survivors, the number one thing they talk about often is fertility. And so doing a better job in predicting who is at risk for infertility is clearly a priority for survivorship research.”

He said the development of the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) by D.M Green et al. (Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014 Jan;61(1):53-67) has been very helpful for quantifying alkylating agent exposure to make comparisons between studies. The goal is to develop a risk assessment tool to be able to tell patients and families their fertility risk based on demographics, therapy, and biomarkers.

Being able to evaluate risk is critically important because for girls, oocyte or ovarian harvesting or even transvaginal ultrasound is highly invasive, and these procedures should be recommended only if their risk for infertility is very high.

Dr. Levine studied 2,930 female cancer survivors diagnosed at a median age of 6 years between 1979 and 1986 and a median age at follow-up of 34 years, who were compared with 1,399 healthy siblings. Of the survivor cohort, 110 developed NSPM at a median age of 32 years, and the prevalence of NSPM at age 40 years for the entire cohort was 9.1%, giving a relative risk of NSPM of 10.5 compared with siblings, who had a 0.9% NSPM prevalence at age 40.

She found that exposure to alkylating agents and older age at diagnosis put childhood cancer survivors at increased risk of NSPM, which was associated with lower rates of pregnancy and live births after age 31 years. The greatest risk of NSPM occurred if the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose was greater than 6000 mg/m² (odds ratio = 3.6 compared with no CED); if there had been any radiation to the ovaries (less than 5 Gy: OR = 4.0; 5 Gy or more: OR = 20.4); or if the age at diagnosis was greater than 14 years (OR = 2.3).

Women with NSPM, compared with survivors without NSPM, were less likely ever to be pregnant (OR = 0.41) or to have a live birth after age 30 (OR = 0.35). However, these outcomes were no different between the ages of 21 and 30. Dr. Levine said this information can assist clinicians in counseling their patients about the risk for early menopause and planning for alternative reproductive means, such as oocyte or embryo harvesting and preservation.

Neurocognitive functioning after treatment

Dr. Wei Liu of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., studied the neurocognitive function of long-term survivors of ALL.

Dr. Nathan called ALL “the paradigm for how we’ve sort of learned and adjusted how we treat patients based on late effects.” Early on, the disease was treated with craniospinal radiation and intrathecal chemotherapy, and while patients survived, it became obvious that they suffered neurocognitive and endocrine problems, growth abnormalities, and secondary malignancies. These findings forced a reevaluatuon of treatments, leading to elimination of spinal radiation, reduction of cranial radiation dose, intensification of systemic therapy, including methotrexate, and risk stratification allowing modification of therapies.

Survival was sustained, but long-term outcomes were still based on children treated with radiation. So long-term cognitive consequences in the more modern era of therapy were unknown. Only recently have adult cohorts become available who were treated in the chemotherapy-only era.

Dr. Liu studied 159 ALL survivors who had been treated with chemotherapy alone at a mean age of 9.2 years. The follow-up was at a median of 7.6 years off therapy at a mean age of 13.7 years. At the end of the chemotherapy protocol, patients completed tests of sustained attention, and parents rated survivors’ behavior on standard scales.

She found that for these childhood cancer survivors, sustained attention and behavior functioning at the end of chemotherapy predicted long-term attention and processing speed outcomes. Only exposure to chemotherapy, and not end-of-therapy function, predicted that survivors would have poor executive function of fluency and flexibility at long-term follow up.

Dr. Nathan praised the investigators for their foresight to collect data on the methotrexate area under the curve, number of triple intrathecal therapies (cytarabine, methotrexate, and hydrocortisone), and neurocognitive functioning at the end of chemotherapy. “What’s clear is that chemotherapy alone can lead to neurocognitive late effects,” he said. “But what’s also important is that not all late effects can be predicted by end of therapy assessments.” These late effects appear to evolve over time, so ongoing assessments are needed.

Dr. Turcotte, Dr. Liu, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Nathan each reported no financial disclosures.

Chicago – Survivors of childhood cancers face several later risks from treatment, and investigators presented studies evaluating risks in three specific areas – secondary neoplasms, premature menopause, and neurocognitive function – at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Discussant Paul Nathan, M.D., of The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, said “the whole purpose” of research in this area “is to start to understand the predictors and modifiers of late effects” and then to design risk assessment tools and interventions to reduce long-term toxicity. These interventions include modification of chemotherapy and radiation doses, protective strategies, and disease risk stratification to adjust intensity of therapies.

Other strategies are to use behavioral interventions directed at improving compliance with follow-up to detect problems earlier and the use of real-time monitoring, such as with smart phones or fitness trackers. He said one limitation of this sort of research and implementing interventions to reduce late toxicities is that “you need time to document long-term outcomes.” So tracking newer therapies, such as proton beam radiation, small molecule drugs, and immunotherapy, is “going to take time, perhaps decades, before you understand their impact on patients.”

Risk of secondary neoplasms reduced

Risk-stratifying of disease “has allowed us to make attempts to minimize late effects by modifying therapy over time in certain subgroups of lower-risk patients,” said Dr. Lucie Turcotte of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

To study the effects of these changes, she determined the risk of certain subsequent malignant or benign neoplasms over three periods of therapeutic exposure among 23,603 5-year survivors of childhood cancers diagnosed at less than 21 years of age from 1970 to 1999, drawing from the cohort of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS). The CCSS represents about 20% of childhood cancer survivors in the United States for the study period.

Over the decades of 1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990-1999, the use of any radiation went from 77% to 58% to 41%, respectively. Cranial radiation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) decreased from 85% to 19%, abdominal radiation for Wilms tumor from 78% to 43%, and chest radiotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma from 87% to 61%. The proportion of children receiving alkylating agents, anthracyclines, and epipodophyllotoxins went up, but the cumulative doses went down (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):833-42).

Dr. Nathan said today, almost no child gets cranial radiation for ALL. “So we’ve slowly learned that our treatments are toxic, and we’ve certainly done what we can to change them.”

But have these changes made a difference? Dr. Turcotte found that survivors remain at increased risk of a secondary neoplasm, but the risk was lower for children treated in later time periods.

Dr. Nathan pointed to Dr. Turcotte’s data showing that the incidence of subsequent malignant neoplasms decreased from 1970 to 1999 by 7% for each 5-year era (15-year risk: 2.3% to 1.6%; P = .001; number needed to treat, NNT = 143). Similarly, non-melanoma skin cancer 15-year risk decreased from 0.7% to 0.1% (P less than .001; NNT = 167). The NNT’s are “certainly important, but these are not major differences over time,” Dr. Nathan said. Knowing the impact of newer, targeted therapeutic approaches will take some time.

Predicting risk of premature menopause

Also using the CCSS data, Dr. Jennifer Levine of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, N.Y., studied the prevalence of and risk factors for nonsurgical premature menopause (NSPM), defined as cessation of menses prior to age 40 years, as well as the effect on reproductive outcomes for survivors of childhood cancers.

Dr. Nathan said when a child is first diagnosed with cancer, seldom does the issue of fertility come up early in the discussion, “but when you treat young adults who are survivors, the number one thing they talk about often is fertility. And so doing a better job in predicting who is at risk for infertility is clearly a priority for survivorship research.”

He said the development of the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) by D.M Green et al. (Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014 Jan;61(1):53-67) has been very helpful for quantifying alkylating agent exposure to make comparisons between studies. The goal is to develop a risk assessment tool to be able to tell patients and families their fertility risk based on demographics, therapy, and biomarkers.

Being able to evaluate risk is critically important because for girls, oocyte or ovarian harvesting or even transvaginal ultrasound is highly invasive, and these procedures should be recommended only if their risk for infertility is very high.

Dr. Levine studied 2,930 female cancer survivors diagnosed at a median age of 6 years between 1979 and 1986 and a median age at follow-up of 34 years, who were compared with 1,399 healthy siblings. Of the survivor cohort, 110 developed NSPM at a median age of 32 years, and the prevalence of NSPM at age 40 years for the entire cohort was 9.1%, giving a relative risk of NSPM of 10.5 compared with siblings, who had a 0.9% NSPM prevalence at age 40.

She found that exposure to alkylating agents and older age at diagnosis put childhood cancer survivors at increased risk of NSPM, which was associated with lower rates of pregnancy and live births after age 31 years. The greatest risk of NSPM occurred if the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose was greater than 6000 mg/m² (odds ratio = 3.6 compared with no CED); if there had been any radiation to the ovaries (less than 5 Gy: OR = 4.0; 5 Gy or more: OR = 20.4); or if the age at diagnosis was greater than 14 years (OR = 2.3).

Women with NSPM, compared with survivors without NSPM, were less likely ever to be pregnant (OR = 0.41) or to have a live birth after age 30 (OR = 0.35). However, these outcomes were no different between the ages of 21 and 30. Dr. Levine said this information can assist clinicians in counseling their patients about the risk for early menopause and planning for alternative reproductive means, such as oocyte or embryo harvesting and preservation.

Neurocognitive functioning after treatment

Dr. Wei Liu of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., studied the neurocognitive function of long-term survivors of ALL.

Dr. Nathan called ALL “the paradigm for how we’ve sort of learned and adjusted how we treat patients based on late effects.” Early on, the disease was treated with craniospinal radiation and intrathecal chemotherapy, and while patients survived, it became obvious that they suffered neurocognitive and endocrine problems, growth abnormalities, and secondary malignancies. These findings forced a reevaluatuon of treatments, leading to elimination of spinal radiation, reduction of cranial radiation dose, intensification of systemic therapy, including methotrexate, and risk stratification allowing modification of therapies.

Survival was sustained, but long-term outcomes were still based on children treated with radiation. So long-term cognitive consequences in the more modern era of therapy were unknown. Only recently have adult cohorts become available who were treated in the chemotherapy-only era.

Dr. Liu studied 159 ALL survivors who had been treated with chemotherapy alone at a mean age of 9.2 years. The follow-up was at a median of 7.6 years off therapy at a mean age of 13.7 years. At the end of the chemotherapy protocol, patients completed tests of sustained attention, and parents rated survivors’ behavior on standard scales.

She found that for these childhood cancer survivors, sustained attention and behavior functioning at the end of chemotherapy predicted long-term attention and processing speed outcomes. Only exposure to chemotherapy, and not end-of-therapy function, predicted that survivors would have poor executive function of fluency and flexibility at long-term follow up.

Dr. Nathan praised the investigators for their foresight to collect data on the methotrexate area under the curve, number of triple intrathecal therapies (cytarabine, methotrexate, and hydrocortisone), and neurocognitive functioning at the end of chemotherapy. “What’s clear is that chemotherapy alone can lead to neurocognitive late effects,” he said. “But what’s also important is that not all late effects can be predicted by end of therapy assessments.” These late effects appear to evolve over time, so ongoing assessments are needed.

Dr. Turcotte, Dr. Liu, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Nathan each reported no financial disclosures.