User login
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts PFS in advanced NSCLC with high tumor mutational burden
CHICAGO – The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), in comparison with platinum based chemotherapy, as initial treatment for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a high tumor mutation burden (TMB), regardless of PDL-1 status, according to the first analysis of Checkmate 227.
Median PFS was 7.2 months for patients receiving the immunotherapy combination (95% confidence interval, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) for those receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001).
The trial results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection, Matthew D. Hellmann, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
“Checkmate 227 is the pivotal phase 3 study to validate TMB as an important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive advanced NSCLC,” he said.
Overall survival data with the combination versus chemotherapy was “encouraging” but not yet complete in patients with high TMB, Dr. Hellmann said.
Results from this first analysis (part 1) of Checkmate 227, a multipart trial, were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial was designed prior to emerging data about TMB. The study was later amended prior to initial analysis to include a second coprimary endpoint evaluating PFS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a tumor mutational burden of at least 10 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb), irrespective of PD-L1 expression level.
For part 1 of the trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus low-dose ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks; histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles; and nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 360 mg plus histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab monotherapy.
Of all randomized patients in part 1 (n=1,739), 1,004 (58%) were evaluable for TMB analyses. Of all TMB-evaluable patients, 444 (44%) had TMB greater than or equal to 10 mut/Mb, including 139 patients randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 160 patients randomized to chemotherapy. TMB was assessed using the validated assay, FoundationOne CDx.
One-year PFS was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among all randomized patients in part 1 (30.9% vs. 17.0%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96).
The PFS was significantly prolonged with the combination, compared with chemotherapy among patients with a high TMB; the 1-year PFS rate was 42.6% versus 13.2%, respectively, and the median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) respectively (HR for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001). In a subgroup analysis, PFS was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy for patients with a programmed death ligand 1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%, reported Dr. Hellmann of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Safety was manageable and consistent with previous reports of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in NSCLC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events with the combination were skin reactions (34%), endocrine (23%), gastrointestinal (18%), hepatic (15%), pulmonary (8%), hypersensitivity (4%), and renal (4%) events. Overall, treatment-related deaths occurred in 1% of patients treated in both the combination and chemotherapy arms.
Results from Checkmate 227 may introduce two new standards of care for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Hellmann said. The immunotherapy combination is introduced as a new option for the first-line treatment of NSCLC with a high TMB, sparing first-line chemotherapy, and it validates TMB as an “important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive, advanced NSCLC,” he concluded.
Dr. Hellmann disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen, Mirati, and Shattuck Labs.
SOURCE: Hellmann MD et al. AACR Annual Meeting, Abstract CT077.
CHICAGO – The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), in comparison with platinum based chemotherapy, as initial treatment for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a high tumor mutation burden (TMB), regardless of PDL-1 status, according to the first analysis of Checkmate 227.
Median PFS was 7.2 months for patients receiving the immunotherapy combination (95% confidence interval, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) for those receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001).
The trial results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection, Matthew D. Hellmann, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
“Checkmate 227 is the pivotal phase 3 study to validate TMB as an important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive advanced NSCLC,” he said.
Overall survival data with the combination versus chemotherapy was “encouraging” but not yet complete in patients with high TMB, Dr. Hellmann said.
Results from this first analysis (part 1) of Checkmate 227, a multipart trial, were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial was designed prior to emerging data about TMB. The study was later amended prior to initial analysis to include a second coprimary endpoint evaluating PFS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a tumor mutational burden of at least 10 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb), irrespective of PD-L1 expression level.
For part 1 of the trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus low-dose ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks; histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles; and nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 360 mg plus histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab monotherapy.
Of all randomized patients in part 1 (n=1,739), 1,004 (58%) were evaluable for TMB analyses. Of all TMB-evaluable patients, 444 (44%) had TMB greater than or equal to 10 mut/Mb, including 139 patients randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 160 patients randomized to chemotherapy. TMB was assessed using the validated assay, FoundationOne CDx.
One-year PFS was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among all randomized patients in part 1 (30.9% vs. 17.0%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96).
The PFS was significantly prolonged with the combination, compared with chemotherapy among patients with a high TMB; the 1-year PFS rate was 42.6% versus 13.2%, respectively, and the median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) respectively (HR for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001). In a subgroup analysis, PFS was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy for patients with a programmed death ligand 1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%, reported Dr. Hellmann of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Safety was manageable and consistent with previous reports of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in NSCLC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events with the combination were skin reactions (34%), endocrine (23%), gastrointestinal (18%), hepatic (15%), pulmonary (8%), hypersensitivity (4%), and renal (4%) events. Overall, treatment-related deaths occurred in 1% of patients treated in both the combination and chemotherapy arms.
Results from Checkmate 227 may introduce two new standards of care for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Hellmann said. The immunotherapy combination is introduced as a new option for the first-line treatment of NSCLC with a high TMB, sparing first-line chemotherapy, and it validates TMB as an “important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive, advanced NSCLC,” he concluded.
Dr. Hellmann disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen, Mirati, and Shattuck Labs.
SOURCE: Hellmann MD et al. AACR Annual Meeting, Abstract CT077.
CHICAGO – The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), in comparison with platinum based chemotherapy, as initial treatment for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with a high tumor mutation burden (TMB), regardless of PDL-1 status, according to the first analysis of Checkmate 227.
Median PFS was 7.2 months for patients receiving the immunotherapy combination (95% confidence interval, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) for those receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001).
The trial results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection, Matthew D. Hellmann, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
“Checkmate 227 is the pivotal phase 3 study to validate TMB as an important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive advanced NSCLC,” he said.
Overall survival data with the combination versus chemotherapy was “encouraging” but not yet complete in patients with high TMB, Dr. Hellmann said.
Results from this first analysis (part 1) of Checkmate 227, a multipart trial, were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The trial was designed prior to emerging data about TMB. The study was later amended prior to initial analysis to include a second coprimary endpoint evaluating PFS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a tumor mutational burden of at least 10 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb), irrespective of PD-L1 expression level.
For part 1 of the trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus low-dose ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks; histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles; and nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 360 mg plus histology-based platinum-doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab monotherapy.
Of all randomized patients in part 1 (n=1,739), 1,004 (58%) were evaluable for TMB analyses. Of all TMB-evaluable patients, 444 (44%) had TMB greater than or equal to 10 mut/Mb, including 139 patients randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 160 patients randomized to chemotherapy. TMB was assessed using the validated assay, FoundationOne CDx.
One-year PFS was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among all randomized patients in part 1 (30.9% vs. 17.0%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96).
The PFS was significantly prolonged with the combination, compared with chemotherapy among patients with a high TMB; the 1-year PFS rate was 42.6% versus 13.2%, respectively, and the median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.5-13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) respectively (HR for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001). In a subgroup analysis, PFS was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy for patients with a programmed death ligand 1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%, reported Dr. Hellmann of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Safety was manageable and consistent with previous reports of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in NSCLC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events with the combination were skin reactions (34%), endocrine (23%), gastrointestinal (18%), hepatic (15%), pulmonary (8%), hypersensitivity (4%), and renal (4%) events. Overall, treatment-related deaths occurred in 1% of patients treated in both the combination and chemotherapy arms.
Results from Checkmate 227 may introduce two new standards of care for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Hellmann said. The immunotherapy combination is introduced as a new option for the first-line treatment of NSCLC with a high TMB, sparing first-line chemotherapy, and it validates TMB as an “important and independent biomarker to be routinely tested in treatment-naive, advanced NSCLC,” he concluded.
Dr. Hellmann disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen, Mirati, and Shattuck Labs.
SOURCE: Hellmann MD et al. AACR Annual Meeting, Abstract CT077.
REPORTING FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: PFS was prolonged with the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in first-line advanced NSCLC patients with high tumor mutational burden, independent of PD-L1 expression or tumor histology.
Major finding: Median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.5-13.2) for the immunotherapy combination versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) for chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41-0.81; P less than .001).
Study details: CheckMate-227 is a multipart open-label phase 3 trial evaluating nivolumab-based combinations versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with first-line advanced non–small cell lung cancer across nonsquamous and squamous tumor histology.
Disclosures: Dr. Hellmann disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen, Mirati, and Shattuck Labs.
Source: Hellmann MD et al. AACR Annual Meeting, Abstract CT077.
OlympiAD: No statistically significant boost in OS with olaparib in HER2-negative mBC
CHICAGO – Median overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), although not statistically significant, was 2.2 months longer with olaparib versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC), according to the final analysis of the OlympiAD study.
The results suggested the possibility of greater benefit among chemotherapy naive patients for metastatic breast cancer, with no cumulative toxicity reported with extended exposure, Mark E. Robson, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
OlympiAD was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study of olaparib tablet monotherapy (300 mg, twice daily) compared with predeclared TPC monotherapy (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). Patients were stratified by prior chemotherapy, prior platinum, and receptor status (ER+ and/or PR+ vs. TNBC). Of 302 randomized patients, 205 received olaparib and 91 received TPC (6 TPC patients declined treatment). Eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC and a germline BRCA mutation. In addition, patients should have received less than or equal to two chemotherapy lines in the metastatic setting, with prior anthracycline and taxane treatment either as (neo)adjuvant therapy or in the metastatic setting.
The data presented at AACR was a follow-up on the primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis, which demonstrated significant benefit in olaparib over standard chemotherapy TPC (7.0 vs 4.2 months, HR 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.80, P less than .001). Overall response rate (ORR) in the olaparib arm was double of that observed on the TPC arm in measurable disease patients (59.9% vs. 28.8%).
At the final OS analysis with 192 deaths, HR for OS in the olaparib vs TPC group was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.66-1.23; P = .513), reported Dr. Robson of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“The preplanned subgroup analyses according to the stratification factors were not powered to detect survival advantages, and were considered only hypothesis generating,” he said.
In patients who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, there was a median difference in OS of 7.9 months with olaparib (HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.29-0.90; nominal P = .02; median 22.6 vs. 14.7 months).
Median follow-up for OS was 18.9 months for olaparib vs. 15.5 months in the TPC group.
No differences were observed between patients that were ER and/or PgR positive vs. TNBC, or whether patients received prior platinum, Dr. Robson said.
Grade 3 adverse events were similar to those in the primary analysis with no cumulative toxicity with extended exposure, he said.
SOURCE: Robson ME et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT038.
CHICAGO – Median overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), although not statistically significant, was 2.2 months longer with olaparib versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC), according to the final analysis of the OlympiAD study.
The results suggested the possibility of greater benefit among chemotherapy naive patients for metastatic breast cancer, with no cumulative toxicity reported with extended exposure, Mark E. Robson, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
OlympiAD was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study of olaparib tablet monotherapy (300 mg, twice daily) compared with predeclared TPC monotherapy (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). Patients were stratified by prior chemotherapy, prior platinum, and receptor status (ER+ and/or PR+ vs. TNBC). Of 302 randomized patients, 205 received olaparib and 91 received TPC (6 TPC patients declined treatment). Eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC and a germline BRCA mutation. In addition, patients should have received less than or equal to two chemotherapy lines in the metastatic setting, with prior anthracycline and taxane treatment either as (neo)adjuvant therapy or in the metastatic setting.
The data presented at AACR was a follow-up on the primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis, which demonstrated significant benefit in olaparib over standard chemotherapy TPC (7.0 vs 4.2 months, HR 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.80, P less than .001). Overall response rate (ORR) in the olaparib arm was double of that observed on the TPC arm in measurable disease patients (59.9% vs. 28.8%).
At the final OS analysis with 192 deaths, HR for OS in the olaparib vs TPC group was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.66-1.23; P = .513), reported Dr. Robson of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“The preplanned subgroup analyses according to the stratification factors were not powered to detect survival advantages, and were considered only hypothesis generating,” he said.
In patients who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, there was a median difference in OS of 7.9 months with olaparib (HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.29-0.90; nominal P = .02; median 22.6 vs. 14.7 months).
Median follow-up for OS was 18.9 months for olaparib vs. 15.5 months in the TPC group.
No differences were observed between patients that were ER and/or PgR positive vs. TNBC, or whether patients received prior platinum, Dr. Robson said.
Grade 3 adverse events were similar to those in the primary analysis with no cumulative toxicity with extended exposure, he said.
SOURCE: Robson ME et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT038.
CHICAGO – Median overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), although not statistically significant, was 2.2 months longer with olaparib versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (TPC), according to the final analysis of the OlympiAD study.
The results suggested the possibility of greater benefit among chemotherapy naive patients for metastatic breast cancer, with no cumulative toxicity reported with extended exposure, Mark E. Robson, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
OlympiAD was a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study of olaparib tablet monotherapy (300 mg, twice daily) compared with predeclared TPC monotherapy (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). Patients were stratified by prior chemotherapy, prior platinum, and receptor status (ER+ and/or PR+ vs. TNBC). Of 302 randomized patients, 205 received olaparib and 91 received TPC (6 TPC patients declined treatment). Eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC and a germline BRCA mutation. In addition, patients should have received less than or equal to two chemotherapy lines in the metastatic setting, with prior anthracycline and taxane treatment either as (neo)adjuvant therapy or in the metastatic setting.
The data presented at AACR was a follow-up on the primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis, which demonstrated significant benefit in olaparib over standard chemotherapy TPC (7.0 vs 4.2 months, HR 0.58, 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.80, P less than .001). Overall response rate (ORR) in the olaparib arm was double of that observed on the TPC arm in measurable disease patients (59.9% vs. 28.8%).
At the final OS analysis with 192 deaths, HR for OS in the olaparib vs TPC group was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.66-1.23; P = .513), reported Dr. Robson of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“The preplanned subgroup analyses according to the stratification factors were not powered to detect survival advantages, and were considered only hypothesis generating,” he said.
In patients who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, there was a median difference in OS of 7.9 months with olaparib (HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.29-0.90; nominal P = .02; median 22.6 vs. 14.7 months).
Median follow-up for OS was 18.9 months for olaparib vs. 15.5 months in the TPC group.
No differences were observed between patients that were ER and/or PgR positive vs. TNBC, or whether patients received prior platinum, Dr. Robson said.
Grade 3 adverse events were similar to those in the primary analysis with no cumulative toxicity with extended exposure, he said.
SOURCE: Robson ME et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT038.
FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: Median overall survival was not significantly different with olaparib versus chemotherapy in patients with BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.
Major finding: Median overall survival in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation was 19.3 months versus 17.1 months for olaparib versus chemotherapy (HR 0.90 95% CI 0.66, 1.23; P = .513).
Study details: Randomized, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (OlympiAD) of olaparib tablet monotherapy (300 mg, twice daily) compared with predeclared physician’s choice chemotherapy (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin).
Disclosures: Dr. Robson disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, McKesson, Myriad Genetics, and Medivation.
Source: Robson ME et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT038.
KEYNOTE-054: Adjuvant pembrolizumab beat placebo in high-risk resected melanoma
CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.
After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).
Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.
The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).
Like the EORTC 18071 trial, KEYNOTE-054 (EORTC 1325) enrolled adults with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma. Patients with stage IIIa disease were high-risk, with sentinel node tumors exceeding 1-mm diameter per Rotterdam criteria. Stage IIIB or IIIC patients had no in-transit metastases. In all, 1,015 patients received up to 18 doses of pembrolizumab (200 mg infused every 3 weeks) or placebo for approximately 1 year. Relapsers could either repeat pembrolizumab or cross over to the pembrolizumab arm.
Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78% of pembrolizumab patients and 66% of placebo recipients. As in prior studies, the most frequent adverse effects of pembrolizumab included fatigue or asthenia (37%), skin reactions (28%), diarrhea (19%), arthralgia (12%), nausea (11%), and dyspnea (6%). Rates of immune-related adverse events of any grade were 37% versus 9%. The most common immune-related adverse event was endocrinopathy (23%), specifically hypothyroidism (14%) and hyperthyroidism (10%). Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab recipients and most often consisted of colitis (2%), endocrine disorders (1.8%), or hepatobiliary disorders (1.4%). Myositis caused the only pembrolizumab-related death.
Patients and clinicians await KEYNOTE-054 readouts on distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. In past trials of adjuvant interferon alfa or ipilimumab for high-risk melanoma, RFS and overall survival closely correlated, Dr. Eggermont noted. KEYNOTE-54 can be expected to produce similar findings unless post-relapse therapy – including crossover to the pembrolizumab arm – narrows the survival advantage of adjuvant treatment, he added.
Merck makes pembrolizumab and funded the trial. Dr. Eggermont disclosed ties to Actelion, Agenus, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, ISA Pharmaceuticals, HalioDX, Merck-Serono, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.
CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.
After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).
Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.
The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).
Like the EORTC 18071 trial, KEYNOTE-054 (EORTC 1325) enrolled adults with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma. Patients with stage IIIa disease were high-risk, with sentinel node tumors exceeding 1-mm diameter per Rotterdam criteria. Stage IIIB or IIIC patients had no in-transit metastases. In all, 1,015 patients received up to 18 doses of pembrolizumab (200 mg infused every 3 weeks) or placebo for approximately 1 year. Relapsers could either repeat pembrolizumab or cross over to the pembrolizumab arm.
Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78% of pembrolizumab patients and 66% of placebo recipients. As in prior studies, the most frequent adverse effects of pembrolizumab included fatigue or asthenia (37%), skin reactions (28%), diarrhea (19%), arthralgia (12%), nausea (11%), and dyspnea (6%). Rates of immune-related adverse events of any grade were 37% versus 9%. The most common immune-related adverse event was endocrinopathy (23%), specifically hypothyroidism (14%) and hyperthyroidism (10%). Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab recipients and most often consisted of colitis (2%), endocrine disorders (1.8%), or hepatobiliary disorders (1.4%). Myositis caused the only pembrolizumab-related death.
Patients and clinicians await KEYNOTE-054 readouts on distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. In past trials of adjuvant interferon alfa or ipilimumab for high-risk melanoma, RFS and overall survival closely correlated, Dr. Eggermont noted. KEYNOTE-54 can be expected to produce similar findings unless post-relapse therapy – including crossover to the pembrolizumab arm – narrows the survival advantage of adjuvant treatment, he added.
Merck makes pembrolizumab and funded the trial. Dr. Eggermont disclosed ties to Actelion, Agenus, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, ISA Pharmaceuticals, HalioDX, Merck-Serono, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.
CHICAGO – Adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected high-risk melanoma slowed the rate of recurrence or death by 43% compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of 1,519 patients.
After 15 months of follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001), Alexander M.M. Eggermont, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
By 18 months, the RFS difference between the arms had widened even more (71% versus 53%), Dr. Eggermont and his associates said at the meeting. The report was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab was effective irrespective of PD-L1 tumor expression status. In a subgroup of more than 800 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, 12-month RFS rates were 77% for pembrolizumab and 63% for placebo (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P less than .001). Among 116 patients who were PD-L1-negative, these rates were 72% and 52%, respectively (HR, 0.47; P = .01).
Treatment produced no new safety signals, said Dr. Eggermont of Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab patients. Myositis caused one pembrolizumab-related death.
The findings bolster data suggesting that adjuvant therapy can stop or delay recurrence in resected high-risk melanoma. Previously, adjuvant ipilimumab was approved after significantly extending RFS and overall survival in the placebo-controlled European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. More recently, adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib reduced the risk of recurrence compared with placebo in completely resected stage III melanoma with BRAF mutations (COMBI-AD), and adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved RFS and was less toxic than was ipilimumab in patients with advanced resected BRAF-mutated and BRAF-wild-type melanomas (CheckMate 238).
Like the EORTC 18071 trial, KEYNOTE-054 (EORTC 1325) enrolled adults with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma. Patients with stage IIIa disease were high-risk, with sentinel node tumors exceeding 1-mm diameter per Rotterdam criteria. Stage IIIB or IIIC patients had no in-transit metastases. In all, 1,015 patients received up to 18 doses of pembrolizumab (200 mg infused every 3 weeks) or placebo for approximately 1 year. Relapsers could either repeat pembrolizumab or cross over to the pembrolizumab arm.
Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78% of pembrolizumab patients and 66% of placebo recipients. As in prior studies, the most frequent adverse effects of pembrolizumab included fatigue or asthenia (37%), skin reactions (28%), diarrhea (19%), arthralgia (12%), nausea (11%), and dyspnea (6%). Rates of immune-related adverse events of any grade were 37% versus 9%. The most common immune-related adverse event was endocrinopathy (23%), specifically hypothyroidism (14%) and hyperthyroidism (10%). Grade 3 or higher toxicities affected 15% of pembrolizumab recipients and most often consisted of colitis (2%), endocrine disorders (1.8%), or hepatobiliary disorders (1.4%). Myositis caused the only pembrolizumab-related death.
Patients and clinicians await KEYNOTE-054 readouts on distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. In past trials of adjuvant interferon alfa or ipilimumab for high-risk melanoma, RFS and overall survival closely correlated, Dr. Eggermont noted. KEYNOTE-54 can be expected to produce similar findings unless post-relapse therapy – including crossover to the pembrolizumab arm – narrows the survival advantage of adjuvant treatment, he added.
Merck makes pembrolizumab and funded the trial. Dr. Eggermont disclosed ties to Actelion, Agenus, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, ISA Pharmaceuticals, HalioDX, Merck-Serono, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting Abstract CT001.
REPORTING FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: Adjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) significantly extended recurrence-free survival in adults with high-risk, completely resected stage III melanoma.
Major finding: After 15 months of median follow-up, 12-month rates of recurrence-free survival were 75% for pembrolizumab and 61% for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P less than .001). There was one treatment-related death in the pembrolizumab group.
Study details: KEYNOTE-054, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial of 1,019 patients.
Disclosures: Merck makes pembrolizumab and funded the trial.
Source: Eggermont AMM et al. AACR Annual Meeting. Abstract CT001.
Nivolumab shows promise in early-stage resectable NSCLC
(NSCLC), according to the results of a 21-patient pilot trial.
Eighty percent of patients were alive and recurrence-free a year after surgery, said Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, and his colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The only grade 3 or higher adverse event was treatment-related pneumonia, which did not prevent surgery. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research and simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
For the study (NCT02259621), 21 patients with treatment-naive, stage I, II, or III NSCLC received two preoperative doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) 2 weeks apart, with surgery timed for 4 weeks after the first dose. In all, 62% of patients had adenocarcinoma, 81% had stage II or IIIa disease, and 86% were current or former smokers. Patients were followed for a median of 12 months after surgery (range, 0.8-19.7 months), and the researchers assessed safety, tumor response, programmed death ligand 1 mutational burden, and T-cell response.
Among 20 patients with evaluable resected primary tumors, nine (45%) showed a major pathologic response, defined as having 10% or fewer residual viable tumor cells. Twelve-month, recurrence-free survival was 83% (95% confidence interval, 66%-100%). The three progressors included one patient with 75% residual tumor at resection who subsequently developed a brain lesion, a patient with 5% residual tumor at resection who developed mediastinal lymph node recurrence, and a patient with 80% residual tumor at resection. The first two patients had durable responses to stereotactic radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, while the third patient developed fatal distal metastatic disease.
Sequencing of 11 completely resected tumors linked major pathologic response with higher tumor mutational burden (P = .01). Mutational burden did not correlate with tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression. Deep sequencing of T-cell receptor–beta chain CDR3 regions also correlated major pathologic response with increased clonality of tumor-infiltrating T-cell clones that also expanded into peripheral blood. “Many of these clones were not detected in peripheral blood before treatment,” the investigators wrote.
In all, five (23%) patients developed treatment-related adverse events, and many developed more than one side effect. Grade 1-2 anorexia, taste distortion, vomiting, and diarrhea were most common, with isolated cases of grade 1-2 fever, infusion reaction, abdominal pain, abnormal liver function, dry skin, and delirium. The case of grade 3 pneumonia developed after the first dose of nivolumab. The patient stopped treatment and underwent uncomplicated surgical resection.
Funders included Cancer Research Institute–Stand Up 2 Cancer; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg–Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy; Bristol-Myers Squibb; International Immuno-Oncology Network, LUNGevity Foundation; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; Lung Cancer Foundation of America; and numerous other foundations and universities. Bristol-Myers Squibb makes nivolumab and supplied the study drug. Dr. Forde disclosed study grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. He reported ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Forde PM. AACR Annual Meeting 2018. Forde PM et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716078.
(NSCLC), according to the results of a 21-patient pilot trial.
Eighty percent of patients were alive and recurrence-free a year after surgery, said Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, and his colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The only grade 3 or higher adverse event was treatment-related pneumonia, which did not prevent surgery. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research and simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
For the study (NCT02259621), 21 patients with treatment-naive, stage I, II, or III NSCLC received two preoperative doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) 2 weeks apart, with surgery timed for 4 weeks after the first dose. In all, 62% of patients had adenocarcinoma, 81% had stage II or IIIa disease, and 86% were current or former smokers. Patients were followed for a median of 12 months after surgery (range, 0.8-19.7 months), and the researchers assessed safety, tumor response, programmed death ligand 1 mutational burden, and T-cell response.
Among 20 patients with evaluable resected primary tumors, nine (45%) showed a major pathologic response, defined as having 10% or fewer residual viable tumor cells. Twelve-month, recurrence-free survival was 83% (95% confidence interval, 66%-100%). The three progressors included one patient with 75% residual tumor at resection who subsequently developed a brain lesion, a patient with 5% residual tumor at resection who developed mediastinal lymph node recurrence, and a patient with 80% residual tumor at resection. The first two patients had durable responses to stereotactic radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, while the third patient developed fatal distal metastatic disease.
Sequencing of 11 completely resected tumors linked major pathologic response with higher tumor mutational burden (P = .01). Mutational burden did not correlate with tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression. Deep sequencing of T-cell receptor–beta chain CDR3 regions also correlated major pathologic response with increased clonality of tumor-infiltrating T-cell clones that also expanded into peripheral blood. “Many of these clones were not detected in peripheral blood before treatment,” the investigators wrote.
In all, five (23%) patients developed treatment-related adverse events, and many developed more than one side effect. Grade 1-2 anorexia, taste distortion, vomiting, and diarrhea were most common, with isolated cases of grade 1-2 fever, infusion reaction, abdominal pain, abnormal liver function, dry skin, and delirium. The case of grade 3 pneumonia developed after the first dose of nivolumab. The patient stopped treatment and underwent uncomplicated surgical resection.
Funders included Cancer Research Institute–Stand Up 2 Cancer; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg–Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy; Bristol-Myers Squibb; International Immuno-Oncology Network, LUNGevity Foundation; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; Lung Cancer Foundation of America; and numerous other foundations and universities. Bristol-Myers Squibb makes nivolumab and supplied the study drug. Dr. Forde disclosed study grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. He reported ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Forde PM. AACR Annual Meeting 2018. Forde PM et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716078.
(NSCLC), according to the results of a 21-patient pilot trial.
Eighty percent of patients were alive and recurrence-free a year after surgery, said Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, and his colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The only grade 3 or higher adverse event was treatment-related pneumonia, which did not prevent surgery. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research and simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
For the study (NCT02259621), 21 patients with treatment-naive, stage I, II, or III NSCLC received two preoperative doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) 2 weeks apart, with surgery timed for 4 weeks after the first dose. In all, 62% of patients had adenocarcinoma, 81% had stage II or IIIa disease, and 86% were current or former smokers. Patients were followed for a median of 12 months after surgery (range, 0.8-19.7 months), and the researchers assessed safety, tumor response, programmed death ligand 1 mutational burden, and T-cell response.
Among 20 patients with evaluable resected primary tumors, nine (45%) showed a major pathologic response, defined as having 10% or fewer residual viable tumor cells. Twelve-month, recurrence-free survival was 83% (95% confidence interval, 66%-100%). The three progressors included one patient with 75% residual tumor at resection who subsequently developed a brain lesion, a patient with 5% residual tumor at resection who developed mediastinal lymph node recurrence, and a patient with 80% residual tumor at resection. The first two patients had durable responses to stereotactic radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, while the third patient developed fatal distal metastatic disease.
Sequencing of 11 completely resected tumors linked major pathologic response with higher tumor mutational burden (P = .01). Mutational burden did not correlate with tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression. Deep sequencing of T-cell receptor–beta chain CDR3 regions also correlated major pathologic response with increased clonality of tumor-infiltrating T-cell clones that also expanded into peripheral blood. “Many of these clones were not detected in peripheral blood before treatment,” the investigators wrote.
In all, five (23%) patients developed treatment-related adverse events, and many developed more than one side effect. Grade 1-2 anorexia, taste distortion, vomiting, and diarrhea were most common, with isolated cases of grade 1-2 fever, infusion reaction, abdominal pain, abnormal liver function, dry skin, and delirium. The case of grade 3 pneumonia developed after the first dose of nivolumab. The patient stopped treatment and underwent uncomplicated surgical resection.
Funders included Cancer Research Institute–Stand Up 2 Cancer; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg–Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy; Bristol-Myers Squibb; International Immuno-Oncology Network, LUNGevity Foundation; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; Lung Cancer Foundation of America; and numerous other foundations and universities. Bristol-Myers Squibb makes nivolumab and supplied the study drug. Dr. Forde disclosed study grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. He reported ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Forde PM. AACR Annual Meeting 2018. Forde PM et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716078.
REPORTING FROM AACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant nivolumab was tolerable and induced robust responses in resectable non–small cell lung cancers.
Major finding: In all, 45% of evaluable tumors showed a major pathological response. Eighty percent of resected patients were alive and recurrence-free a median of 12 months after surgery. One patient (5%) developed a grade 3 treatment-related adverse event.
Study details: Pilot study of 21 adults with early-stage resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NCT02259621).
Disclosures: Funders included Cancer Research Institute–Stand Up 2 Cancer; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg–Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy; Bristol-Myers Squibb; International Immuno-Oncology Network, LUNGevity Foundation; International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer; Lung Cancer Foundation of America; and numerous other foundations and universities. Bristol-Myers Squibb makes nivolumab and supplied the study drug. Dr. Forde disclosed study grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. He reported ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
Source: Forde PM. AACR Annual Meeting 2018. Forde PM et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716078.
Chemotherapy, metabolic pathway may affect CAR T-cell potential
Two critical factors – prior exposure to chemotherapy and a glycolytic metabolism – appear to degrade the potential of T cells to become chimeric antigen receptor–T cells.
Chemotherapy, especially with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin, seems particularly toxic to T cells, damaging the mitochondria and decreasing the cells’ spare respiratory capacity – a measure of mitochondrial health, David Barrett, MD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
These new findings may help explain why children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) tend to respond so vigorously to CAR T treatment, and why T cells from patients with solid tumors simply don’t grow, or die soon after patient infusion, he said in an interview. They also suggest a benefit of harvesting T cells before any chemotherapy, a procedure Dr. Barrett and his colleagues have advocated.
“Based on these data we have altered our practice for T-cell therapy in high-risk leukemia patients. If we have a patient who may have a poor prognosis, we try to collect the cells early and store them before proceeding, because we know chemotherapy will progressively degrade them.”
There still is no successful CAR T-cell protocol for solid tumors, but Dr. Barrett said these findings eventually may help such patients, particularly if more advanced experiments in manipulating the cells’ metabolism prove successful.
He and his colleagues investigated why T cells from some patients result in a poor clinical product that either fails manufacture or does not proliferate in the patient. They examined T cells from 157 pediatric patients with a variety of cancers, including ALL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms tumor, Hodgkin disease, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and Ewing sarcoma. The team obtained cells at diagnosis and after each cycle of chemotherapy.
They examined how well the cells grew in the transformation and expansion process. A “pass” was considered a fivefold expansion in response to CD3/CD28 exposure for 7 days. Normal donor cells typically expand 20- to 30-fold in this time.
Only T cells taken from ALL and Wilms tumor patients before chemotherapy achieved a pass, Dr. Barrett said. Most of the ALL expansions (80%) and half of the Wilms tumor expansions passed. “We noted very poor CAR T-cell potential in all the other tumor types – less than a 30% pass. We noted a decline in potential with cumulative chemotherapy in all cases, though this was particularly significant in children less than 3 years old.”
The team also used RNA profiling to look at the cells’ metabolic pathways. Dr. Barrett noted that T cells are highly metabolically adaptable, capable of using several different fuel types and switching from one to another. Glucose and fatty acids are frequent fuels. Most of the cells from patients with solid tumors exhibited a glycolytic metabolism, while cells from patients with ALL and Wilms tumor appeared to rely more on fatty acids.
“One is not inherently worse than the other,” he said. “But glycolysis appears to be a bad thing when we’re trying to turn them into CAR T cells. Those T cells were too exhausted to do anything.”
However, Dr. Barrett encouraged the cells to switch fuels by treating them in vitro with palmitic acid, the most common fatty acid in plants and animals.
“We were growing the cells in a media containing sugar, fatty acids, and amino acids,” he explained. “We just started overloading them with palmitic acid, which has a natural transporter on the T-cell surface, so it already had a good pathway to get into the cell. It helped restore some of the performance of these T cells in some assays, although it wasn’t a complete reversal. But it was encouraging that something as simple as providing an alternate fuel was enough to get some positive effect. Whether or not we would also have to block glucose use to get it to really work is something we continue to study.”
T cells that had been exposed to chemotherapy also did poorly. Cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin seemed particularly toxic. Cells with exposure to these two agents had severely depleted CAR T cell potential with very poor spare respiratory capacity. This is a marker of mitochondrial injury, Dr. Barrett said. “That wasn’t a huge surprise. We already knew that cyclophosphamide is very toxic to T cells.”
But the finding did suggest the simple intervention of harvesting T cells before chemotherapy, which is what Dr. Barrett and his colleagues now do in their high-risk ALL patients. Whether or not this would improve response in patients with solid tumors is still unknown.
He had no financial disclosures. This study was supported by the AACR, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Science Development Award, the Jeffrey Pride Foundation Research Award, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
SOURCE: Barrett DM et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 1631.
Two critical factors – prior exposure to chemotherapy and a glycolytic metabolism – appear to degrade the potential of T cells to become chimeric antigen receptor–T cells.
Chemotherapy, especially with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin, seems particularly toxic to T cells, damaging the mitochondria and decreasing the cells’ spare respiratory capacity – a measure of mitochondrial health, David Barrett, MD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
These new findings may help explain why children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) tend to respond so vigorously to CAR T treatment, and why T cells from patients with solid tumors simply don’t grow, or die soon after patient infusion, he said in an interview. They also suggest a benefit of harvesting T cells before any chemotherapy, a procedure Dr. Barrett and his colleagues have advocated.
“Based on these data we have altered our practice for T-cell therapy in high-risk leukemia patients. If we have a patient who may have a poor prognosis, we try to collect the cells early and store them before proceeding, because we know chemotherapy will progressively degrade them.”
There still is no successful CAR T-cell protocol for solid tumors, but Dr. Barrett said these findings eventually may help such patients, particularly if more advanced experiments in manipulating the cells’ metabolism prove successful.
He and his colleagues investigated why T cells from some patients result in a poor clinical product that either fails manufacture or does not proliferate in the patient. They examined T cells from 157 pediatric patients with a variety of cancers, including ALL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms tumor, Hodgkin disease, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and Ewing sarcoma. The team obtained cells at diagnosis and after each cycle of chemotherapy.
They examined how well the cells grew in the transformation and expansion process. A “pass” was considered a fivefold expansion in response to CD3/CD28 exposure for 7 days. Normal donor cells typically expand 20- to 30-fold in this time.
Only T cells taken from ALL and Wilms tumor patients before chemotherapy achieved a pass, Dr. Barrett said. Most of the ALL expansions (80%) and half of the Wilms tumor expansions passed. “We noted very poor CAR T-cell potential in all the other tumor types – less than a 30% pass. We noted a decline in potential with cumulative chemotherapy in all cases, though this was particularly significant in children less than 3 years old.”
The team also used RNA profiling to look at the cells’ metabolic pathways. Dr. Barrett noted that T cells are highly metabolically adaptable, capable of using several different fuel types and switching from one to another. Glucose and fatty acids are frequent fuels. Most of the cells from patients with solid tumors exhibited a glycolytic metabolism, while cells from patients with ALL and Wilms tumor appeared to rely more on fatty acids.
“One is not inherently worse than the other,” he said. “But glycolysis appears to be a bad thing when we’re trying to turn them into CAR T cells. Those T cells were too exhausted to do anything.”
However, Dr. Barrett encouraged the cells to switch fuels by treating them in vitro with palmitic acid, the most common fatty acid in plants and animals.
“We were growing the cells in a media containing sugar, fatty acids, and amino acids,” he explained. “We just started overloading them with palmitic acid, which has a natural transporter on the T-cell surface, so it already had a good pathway to get into the cell. It helped restore some of the performance of these T cells in some assays, although it wasn’t a complete reversal. But it was encouraging that something as simple as providing an alternate fuel was enough to get some positive effect. Whether or not we would also have to block glucose use to get it to really work is something we continue to study.”
T cells that had been exposed to chemotherapy also did poorly. Cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin seemed particularly toxic. Cells with exposure to these two agents had severely depleted CAR T cell potential with very poor spare respiratory capacity. This is a marker of mitochondrial injury, Dr. Barrett said. “That wasn’t a huge surprise. We already knew that cyclophosphamide is very toxic to T cells.”
But the finding did suggest the simple intervention of harvesting T cells before chemotherapy, which is what Dr. Barrett and his colleagues now do in their high-risk ALL patients. Whether or not this would improve response in patients with solid tumors is still unknown.
He had no financial disclosures. This study was supported by the AACR, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Science Development Award, the Jeffrey Pride Foundation Research Award, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
SOURCE: Barrett DM et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 1631.
Two critical factors – prior exposure to chemotherapy and a glycolytic metabolism – appear to degrade the potential of T cells to become chimeric antigen receptor–T cells.
Chemotherapy, especially with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin, seems particularly toxic to T cells, damaging the mitochondria and decreasing the cells’ spare respiratory capacity – a measure of mitochondrial health, David Barrett, MD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
These new findings may help explain why children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) tend to respond so vigorously to CAR T treatment, and why T cells from patients with solid tumors simply don’t grow, or die soon after patient infusion, he said in an interview. They also suggest a benefit of harvesting T cells before any chemotherapy, a procedure Dr. Barrett and his colleagues have advocated.
“Based on these data we have altered our practice for T-cell therapy in high-risk leukemia patients. If we have a patient who may have a poor prognosis, we try to collect the cells early and store them before proceeding, because we know chemotherapy will progressively degrade them.”
There still is no successful CAR T-cell protocol for solid tumors, but Dr. Barrett said these findings eventually may help such patients, particularly if more advanced experiments in manipulating the cells’ metabolism prove successful.
He and his colleagues investigated why T cells from some patients result in a poor clinical product that either fails manufacture or does not proliferate in the patient. They examined T cells from 157 pediatric patients with a variety of cancers, including ALL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms tumor, Hodgkin disease, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and Ewing sarcoma. The team obtained cells at diagnosis and after each cycle of chemotherapy.
They examined how well the cells grew in the transformation and expansion process. A “pass” was considered a fivefold expansion in response to CD3/CD28 exposure for 7 days. Normal donor cells typically expand 20- to 30-fold in this time.
Only T cells taken from ALL and Wilms tumor patients before chemotherapy achieved a pass, Dr. Barrett said. Most of the ALL expansions (80%) and half of the Wilms tumor expansions passed. “We noted very poor CAR T-cell potential in all the other tumor types – less than a 30% pass. We noted a decline in potential with cumulative chemotherapy in all cases, though this was particularly significant in children less than 3 years old.”
The team also used RNA profiling to look at the cells’ metabolic pathways. Dr. Barrett noted that T cells are highly metabolically adaptable, capable of using several different fuel types and switching from one to another. Glucose and fatty acids are frequent fuels. Most of the cells from patients with solid tumors exhibited a glycolytic metabolism, while cells from patients with ALL and Wilms tumor appeared to rely more on fatty acids.
“One is not inherently worse than the other,” he said. “But glycolysis appears to be a bad thing when we’re trying to turn them into CAR T cells. Those T cells were too exhausted to do anything.”
However, Dr. Barrett encouraged the cells to switch fuels by treating them in vitro with palmitic acid, the most common fatty acid in plants and animals.
“We were growing the cells in a media containing sugar, fatty acids, and amino acids,” he explained. “We just started overloading them with palmitic acid, which has a natural transporter on the T-cell surface, so it already had a good pathway to get into the cell. It helped restore some of the performance of these T cells in some assays, although it wasn’t a complete reversal. But it was encouraging that something as simple as providing an alternate fuel was enough to get some positive effect. Whether or not we would also have to block glucose use to get it to really work is something we continue to study.”
T cells that had been exposed to chemotherapy also did poorly. Cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin seemed particularly toxic. Cells with exposure to these two agents had severely depleted CAR T cell potential with very poor spare respiratory capacity. This is a marker of mitochondrial injury, Dr. Barrett said. “That wasn’t a huge surprise. We already knew that cyclophosphamide is very toxic to T cells.”
But the finding did suggest the simple intervention of harvesting T cells before chemotherapy, which is what Dr. Barrett and his colleagues now do in their high-risk ALL patients. Whether or not this would improve response in patients with solid tumors is still unknown.
He had no financial disclosures. This study was supported by the AACR, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Science Development Award, the Jeffrey Pride Foundation Research Award, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award.
SOURCE: Barrett DM et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 1631.
FROM AACR 2018
Key clinical point: Prior exposure to chemotherapy may degrade the potential of T cells to become CAR T cells, suggesting a benefit of harvesting T cells before any chemotherapy.
Major finding: Only T cells taken from ALL and Wilm’s tumor patients before chemotherapy achieved a fivefold expansion in response to CD3/CD28 exposure for 7 days.
Study details: An examination of T cells from 157 pediatric patients with a variety of cancers at diagnosis and after each cycle of chemotherapy.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the American Association of Cancer Research, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Science Development Award, the Jeffrey Pride Foundation Research Award, and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation Scholar Award. Dr. Barrett and his coauthors had no financial disclosures.
Source: Barrett DM et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 1631.
Fulvestrant plus neratinib reversed treatment-acquired HER2 mutations in metastatic ER+ breast cancer
Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.
Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.
“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.
All of the 168 patients who contributed metastatic tumor biopsy samples to the study had developed resistance to estrogen receptor treatments, including aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and fulvestrant. Of these biopsies, 12 had HER2 mutations, 8 of which had been previously characterized as activating.
Dr. Nayar and colleagues examined the untreated primary tumors in five of these patients; there was no mutation in four, suggesting that the mutations were a response to treatment. “In these 80%, the mutations were acquired as tumors were exposed to treatment and not present in the original tumor,” Dr. Nayar said.
These acquired HER2 mutations were mutually exclusive with ER mutations, which suggested a different mechanism of resistance to ER-directed therapies, she noted in her abstract. The mutations conferred resistance to tamoxifen, fulvestrant, and palbociclib.
However, the combination of fulvestrant and neratinib, an irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor, overcame resistance in these cells.
In addition to pioneering a potentially important therapy for treatment-resistant metastatic breast cancer, the study highlights the importance of gene sequencing metastatic tumors, said Nikhil Wagle, MD, Dr. Nayar’s colleague and deputy director of the Center for Cancer Precision Medicine at Dana-Farber.
“Our study highlights how important it is to profile resistant metastatic tumors since these tumors may harbor targetable mechanisms of resistance that were not present in the original tumor biopsy,” Dr. Wagle noted in a press statement. “Repeated sequencing of tumors can pinpoint new genetic changes that cause resistance to therapies. This in turn can enable physicians to personalize therapy depending on the specific genetic changes in a patient’s tumor over time.”
The study was supported by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, and a number of other private funders. Dr. Wagle is a stockholder in Foundation Medicine. Dr. Nayar had no financial disclosure.
SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952
Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.
Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.
“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.
All of the 168 patients who contributed metastatic tumor biopsy samples to the study had developed resistance to estrogen receptor treatments, including aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and fulvestrant. Of these biopsies, 12 had HER2 mutations, 8 of which had been previously characterized as activating.
Dr. Nayar and colleagues examined the untreated primary tumors in five of these patients; there was no mutation in four, suggesting that the mutations were a response to treatment. “In these 80%, the mutations were acquired as tumors were exposed to treatment and not present in the original tumor,” Dr. Nayar said.
These acquired HER2 mutations were mutually exclusive with ER mutations, which suggested a different mechanism of resistance to ER-directed therapies, she noted in her abstract. The mutations conferred resistance to tamoxifen, fulvestrant, and palbociclib.
However, the combination of fulvestrant and neratinib, an irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor, overcame resistance in these cells.
In addition to pioneering a potentially important therapy for treatment-resistant metastatic breast cancer, the study highlights the importance of gene sequencing metastatic tumors, said Nikhil Wagle, MD, Dr. Nayar’s colleague and deputy director of the Center for Cancer Precision Medicine at Dana-Farber.
“Our study highlights how important it is to profile resistant metastatic tumors since these tumors may harbor targetable mechanisms of resistance that were not present in the original tumor biopsy,” Dr. Wagle noted in a press statement. “Repeated sequencing of tumors can pinpoint new genetic changes that cause resistance to therapies. This in turn can enable physicians to personalize therapy depending on the specific genetic changes in a patient’s tumor over time.”
The study was supported by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, and a number of other private funders. Dr. Wagle is a stockholder in Foundation Medicine. Dr. Nayar had no financial disclosure.
SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952
Dual therapy with fulvestrant and the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib reversed treatment-acquired hormone resistance in metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer cells.
Elaine Mardis, PhD, a spokesperson for the American Association of Cancer Research, hailed the research by Utthara Nayar, PhD, and colleagues as “groundbreaking and unexpected” during a briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The lab experiments were part of a whole-exome sequencing study of metastatic ER-positive tumor biopsies from 168 patients, 12 of whom had acquired the HER2 mutations, said Dr. Nayar of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
The findings have prompted a phase 2 trial of the combination, which is now recruiting patients, Dr. Nayar said. The 5-year study seeks 152 women with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic ER-positive breast cancer with a confirmed HER2-positive mutation. Patients will be randomized to the combination of neratinib and fulvestrant or to neratinib alone. The primary outcome is progression-free survival.
“We also hope to be able to develop upfront combinations to preempt the resistance and lead to more durable responses,” Dr. Nayar said.
All of the 168 patients who contributed metastatic tumor biopsy samples to the study had developed resistance to estrogen receptor treatments, including aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and fulvestrant. Of these biopsies, 12 had HER2 mutations, 8 of which had been previously characterized as activating.
Dr. Nayar and colleagues examined the untreated primary tumors in five of these patients; there was no mutation in four, suggesting that the mutations were a response to treatment. “In these 80%, the mutations were acquired as tumors were exposed to treatment and not present in the original tumor,” Dr. Nayar said.
These acquired HER2 mutations were mutually exclusive with ER mutations, which suggested a different mechanism of resistance to ER-directed therapies, she noted in her abstract. The mutations conferred resistance to tamoxifen, fulvestrant, and palbociclib.
However, the combination of fulvestrant and neratinib, an irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor, overcame resistance in these cells.
In addition to pioneering a potentially important therapy for treatment-resistant metastatic breast cancer, the study highlights the importance of gene sequencing metastatic tumors, said Nikhil Wagle, MD, Dr. Nayar’s colleague and deputy director of the Center for Cancer Precision Medicine at Dana-Farber.
“Our study highlights how important it is to profile resistant metastatic tumors since these tumors may harbor targetable mechanisms of resistance that were not present in the original tumor biopsy,” Dr. Wagle noted in a press statement. “Repeated sequencing of tumors can pinpoint new genetic changes that cause resistance to therapies. This in turn can enable physicians to personalize therapy depending on the specific genetic changes in a patient’s tumor over time.”
The study was supported by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, and a number of other private funders. Dr. Wagle is a stockholder in Foundation Medicine. Dr. Nayar had no financial disclosure.
SOURCE: Nayer U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952
FROM THE AACR 2018 ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: The combination of fulvestrant and neratinib reversed acquired HER2 mutations in ER+ metastatic breast cancer cells.
Major finding: Of 168 biopsies, 12 had acquired HER2 mutations after hormone treatment; these mutations were reversed with the dual therapy.
Study details: The exome sequencing study comprised 168 biopsies, and the in vitro study comprised 12.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and other private funders. Dr. Wagle is a stockholder in Foundation Medicine. Dr. Nayar had no financial disclosure.
Source: Nayar U et al. AACR 2018, Abstract 4952
Chlamydia infections associated with more than a doubling of ovarian cancer risk
Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by chlamydia appears to significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer, according to research to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The finding, replicated in two large databases, suggests that promptly treating the infection might reduce the lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer, Britton Trabert, PhD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the meeting.
The study portends both promise and challenge, according to Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, who comoderated the session.
“Ovarian cancer is typically diagnosed at a late stage and therefore has a poor prognosis,” said Dr. Mardis of The Nationwide Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “Chlamydia will be an important point of study here, both because of the frequency of this infection, and because it is quite difficult to detect, due to its asymptomatic nature. But the most important take-home point is that we might be able to go a long way in terms of preventing ovarian cancer by routinely screening for infective agents.”
Pelvic inflammatory disease is known to be associated with ovarian cancer, and chlamydia is a leading cause of the disease, noted Dr. Trabert. “But chlamydia infections can be asymptomatic and persist for months or even years, so ascertainment of past chlamydia infections is challenging.”
To investigate the potential link between these infections and ovarian cancer, Dr. Trabert and her colleagues examined associations between antibodies to several infectious agents, including chlamydia, in two large ovarian cancer databases: a population-based case/control study in Poland and a case-control study nested into the U.S. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.
The researchers screened for antibodies to chlamydia, Mycoplasma genitalium, Epstein-Barre virus, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus-1 and -2, polyomavirus, hepatitis B and C, and cytomegalovirus. The chlamydia antibody selected was plasmid-encoded Pgp3 protein, considered the gold standard measurement for prior or existing chlamydia infections.
The patient cohorts comprised 278 cases vs. 556 controls from the Polish study, and 160 cases vs. 159 controls from the PLCO study. Serum samples were collected at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis in the Polish cohort, and before diagnosis in the PLCO cohort.
Dr. Trabert presented odds ratios for a Pgp3 antibody titer cut point indicative of past chlamydia infection, and a “more stringent” higher cut point indicative of current or chronic infection. She and her colleagues found statistically significant associations for each cut point in both studies.
In the Polish cohort, the lower Pgp3 cut point was associated with a 63% increased risk of ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 1.63). The higher cut point was associated with a doubling of risk (OR, 2.0).
In the PLCO cohort, the lower cut point was associated with a 43% increased risk (OR, 1.43). The higher cut point more than doubled the risk of ovarian cancer (OR, 2.25).
Neither cohort showed any significant association of ovarian cancer with any of the other antibodies, Dr. Trabert said.
The NCI Intramural Research Program supported the study. Dr. Trabert and her colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Trabert et al. Abstract 4942.
Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by chlamydia appears to significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer, according to research to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The finding, replicated in two large databases, suggests that promptly treating the infection might reduce the lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer, Britton Trabert, PhD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the meeting.
The study portends both promise and challenge, according to Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, who comoderated the session.
“Ovarian cancer is typically diagnosed at a late stage and therefore has a poor prognosis,” said Dr. Mardis of The Nationwide Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “Chlamydia will be an important point of study here, both because of the frequency of this infection, and because it is quite difficult to detect, due to its asymptomatic nature. But the most important take-home point is that we might be able to go a long way in terms of preventing ovarian cancer by routinely screening for infective agents.”
Pelvic inflammatory disease is known to be associated with ovarian cancer, and chlamydia is a leading cause of the disease, noted Dr. Trabert. “But chlamydia infections can be asymptomatic and persist for months or even years, so ascertainment of past chlamydia infections is challenging.”
To investigate the potential link between these infections and ovarian cancer, Dr. Trabert and her colleagues examined associations between antibodies to several infectious agents, including chlamydia, in two large ovarian cancer databases: a population-based case/control study in Poland and a case-control study nested into the U.S. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.
The researchers screened for antibodies to chlamydia, Mycoplasma genitalium, Epstein-Barre virus, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus-1 and -2, polyomavirus, hepatitis B and C, and cytomegalovirus. The chlamydia antibody selected was plasmid-encoded Pgp3 protein, considered the gold standard measurement for prior or existing chlamydia infections.
The patient cohorts comprised 278 cases vs. 556 controls from the Polish study, and 160 cases vs. 159 controls from the PLCO study. Serum samples were collected at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis in the Polish cohort, and before diagnosis in the PLCO cohort.
Dr. Trabert presented odds ratios for a Pgp3 antibody titer cut point indicative of past chlamydia infection, and a “more stringent” higher cut point indicative of current or chronic infection. She and her colleagues found statistically significant associations for each cut point in both studies.
In the Polish cohort, the lower Pgp3 cut point was associated with a 63% increased risk of ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 1.63). The higher cut point was associated with a doubling of risk (OR, 2.0).
In the PLCO cohort, the lower cut point was associated with a 43% increased risk (OR, 1.43). The higher cut point more than doubled the risk of ovarian cancer (OR, 2.25).
Neither cohort showed any significant association of ovarian cancer with any of the other antibodies, Dr. Trabert said.
The NCI Intramural Research Program supported the study. Dr. Trabert and her colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Trabert et al. Abstract 4942.
Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by chlamydia appears to significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer, according to research to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The finding, replicated in two large databases, suggests that promptly treating the infection might reduce the lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer, Britton Trabert, PhD, said during a press briefing held in advance of the meeting.
The study portends both promise and challenge, according to Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, who comoderated the session.
“Ovarian cancer is typically diagnosed at a late stage and therefore has a poor prognosis,” said Dr. Mardis of The Nationwide Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “Chlamydia will be an important point of study here, both because of the frequency of this infection, and because it is quite difficult to detect, due to its asymptomatic nature. But the most important take-home point is that we might be able to go a long way in terms of preventing ovarian cancer by routinely screening for infective agents.”
Pelvic inflammatory disease is known to be associated with ovarian cancer, and chlamydia is a leading cause of the disease, noted Dr. Trabert. “But chlamydia infections can be asymptomatic and persist for months or even years, so ascertainment of past chlamydia infections is challenging.”
To investigate the potential link between these infections and ovarian cancer, Dr. Trabert and her colleagues examined associations between antibodies to several infectious agents, including chlamydia, in two large ovarian cancer databases: a population-based case/control study in Poland and a case-control study nested into the U.S. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.
The researchers screened for antibodies to chlamydia, Mycoplasma genitalium, Epstein-Barre virus, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus-1 and -2, polyomavirus, hepatitis B and C, and cytomegalovirus. The chlamydia antibody selected was plasmid-encoded Pgp3 protein, considered the gold standard measurement for prior or existing chlamydia infections.
The patient cohorts comprised 278 cases vs. 556 controls from the Polish study, and 160 cases vs. 159 controls from the PLCO study. Serum samples were collected at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis in the Polish cohort, and before diagnosis in the PLCO cohort.
Dr. Trabert presented odds ratios for a Pgp3 antibody titer cut point indicative of past chlamydia infection, and a “more stringent” higher cut point indicative of current or chronic infection. She and her colleagues found statistically significant associations for each cut point in both studies.
In the Polish cohort, the lower Pgp3 cut point was associated with a 63% increased risk of ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 1.63). The higher cut point was associated with a doubling of risk (OR, 2.0).
In the PLCO cohort, the lower cut point was associated with a 43% increased risk (OR, 1.43). The higher cut point more than doubled the risk of ovarian cancer (OR, 2.25).
Neither cohort showed any significant association of ovarian cancer with any of the other antibodies, Dr. Trabert said.
The NCI Intramural Research Program supported the study. Dr. Trabert and her colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Trabert et al. Abstract 4942.
FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point: Chlamydia infections appear to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
Major finding: The presence of an antibody to chlamydia increased the chance of ovarian cancer by up to 2.25-fold (OR 2.25).
Study details: The cohorts comprised 278 cases vs. 556 controls from a Polish study, and 160 cases vs. 159 controls from a U.S. study.
Disclosures: The NCI Intramural Research Program supported the study. The researchers declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Trabet et al. Abstract 4942.