Anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies: the past and the future in clinical application

Recently, two studies using ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody (mab) demonstrated improvements in overall survival in the treatment of advanced melanoma. These studies utilized two different schedules of treatment in different patient categories (first and second line of treatment). However, the results were quite similar despite of different dosage used and the combination with dacarbazine in the first line treatment. We reviewed the result of randomized phase II-III clinical studies testing anti-CTLA-4 antibodies (ipilimumab and tremelimumab) for the treatment of melanoma to focus on practical or scientific questions related to the broad utilization of these products in the clinics. These analyses raised some considerations about the future of these compounds, their potential application, dosage, the importance of the schedule (induction/manteinance compared to induction alone) and their role as adjuvants. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody therapy represents the start of a new era in the treatment of advanced melanoma but we are on the steep slope of the learning curve toward the optimization of their utilization either a single agents or in combination

Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Targeting CD38 and PD-1 with isatuximab plus cemiplimab in patients with advanced solid malignancies: results from a phase I/II open-label, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that concurrent treatment of anti-CD38 and antiprogrammed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies substantially reduce primary tumor growth by reversing T-cell exhaustion and thus enhancing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 efficacy. METHODS: This phase I/II study enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary objectives of phase I were to investigate the safety and tolerability of isatuximab (anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody)+cemiplimab (anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, Isa+Cemi) in patients with mCRPC (naïve to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy) or NSCLC (progressed on anti-PD-1/PD-L1-containing therapy). Phase II used Simon's two-stage design with response rate as the primary endpoint. An interim analysis was planned after the first 24 (mCRPC) and 20 (NSCLC) patients receiving Isa+Cemi were enrolled in phase II. Safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity were assessed, including CD38, PD-L1, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor microenvironment (TME), and peripheral immune cell phenotyping. RESULTS: Isa+Cemi demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no new safety signals. All patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade≥3 events occurred in 13 (54.2%) patients with mCRPC and 12 (60.0%) patients with NSCLC. Based on PCWG3 criteria, assessment of best overall response with Isa+Cemi in mCRPC revealed no complete responses (CRs), one (4.2%) unconfirmed partial response (PR), and five (20.8%) patients with stable disease (SD). Per RECIST V.1.1, patients with NSCLC receiving Isa+Cemi achieved no CR or PR, and 13 (65%) achieved SD. In post-therapy biopsies obtained from patients with mCRPC or NSCLC, Isa+Cemi treatment resulted in a reduction in median CD38+ tumor-infiltrating immune cells from 40% to 3%, with no consistent modulation of PD-L1 on tumor cells or T regulatory cells in the TME. The combination triggered a significant increase in peripheral activated and cytolytic T cells but, interestingly, decreased natural killer cells. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that CD38 and PD-1 modulation by Isa+Cemi has a manageable safety profile, reduces CD38+ immune cells in the TME, and activates peripheral T cells; however, such CD38 inhibition was not associated with significant antitumor activity. A lack of efficacy was observed in these small cohorts of patients with mCRPC or NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03367819