Eribulin mesylate as a microtubule inhibitor for treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains an incurable disease, with the goals of care aimed at maximizing the patient’s duration and quality of life. Treatment options for MBC have become more efficacious and numerous. In addition to endocrine and chemotherapy agents, a number of targeted agents, including trastuzumab and bevacizumab, have further enhanced the landscape of therapeutic options. Eribulin mesylate (E7389) is a nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor, and a structurally simplified synthetic analog of the natural marine product, halichondrin B, with a novel mechanism of action that has shown antitumor activity in pretreated MBC. Eribulin has shown a manageable tolerability profile in Phase I–II clinical trials and an improvement in overall survival compared with treatment of physician’s choice, without relevant toxicities in a recently published Phase III trial. This review will focus on eribulin as a new active agent for MBC and its role in the management of breast disease

Health-Related Quality of Life with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Locally Advanced or Recurrent or Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: KEYNOTE-629

Advanced squamous cell carcinoma; Immunotherapy; PembrolizumabCarcinoma de cèl·lules escamoses avançat; Immunoteràpia; PembrolizumabCarcinoma de células escamosas avanzado; Inmunoterapia; PembrolizumabIntroduction At first interim analysis of KEYNOTE-629, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with pembrolizumab was stable or improved over 48 weeks in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). HRQoL results from the second interim analysis in R/M or locally advanced (LA) cSCC are presented. Methods Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤ 2 years. Change in EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-5L scores were exploratory end points. Primary analysis was performed at week 12 to ensure adequate completion/compliance. Descriptive analyses were also conducted through weeks 48 and 75 for the LA and R/M cohorts, respectively. Results At data cutoff (29 July 2020), mean scores in the LA cohort (n = 47) were stable from baseline to week 12 for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) (−0.27 points [95% confidence interval (CI) −10.93 to 10.39]), physical functioning (−1.29 points [95% CI  −8.77 to 6.19]), and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (2.06 [95% CI −7.70 to 11.82]). HRQoL remained stable through week 48 in the LA cohort; 76.6% and 74.5% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. HRQoL continued to show stability or improvement through week 75 in the R/M cohort (n = 99); 71.7% and 64.6% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. Conclusions Pembrolizumab has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety. The current analysis shows pembrolizumab treatment preserved HRQoL. Collectively, these results support pembrolizumab as standard of care for LA or R/M cSCC. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03284424—September 15, 2017.Funding for this research and the journal’s Rapid Service Fee was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

Phase 1, first-in-human study of TYRP1-TCB (RO7293583), a novel TYRP1-targeting CD3 T-cell engager, in metastatic melanoma: active drug monitoring to assess the impact of immune response on drug exposure

Antibody; Immunogenicity; Metastatic melanomaAnticuerpos; Inmunogenicidad; Melanoma metastásicoAnticossos; Immunogenicitat; Melanoma metastàticIntroduction: Although checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma, those progressing on CPIs have limited therapeutic options. To address this unmet need and overcome CPI resistance mechanisms, novel immunotherapies, such as T-cell engaging agents, are being developed. The use of these agents has sometimes been limited by the immune response mounted against them in the form of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), which is challenging to predict preclinically and can lead to neutralization of the drug and loss of efficacy. Methods: TYRP1-TCB (RO7293583; RG6232) is a T-cell engaging bispecific (TCB) antibody that targets tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP1), which is expressed in many melanomas, thereby directing T cells to kill TYRP1-expressing tumor cells. Preclinical studies show TYRP1-TCB to have potent anti-tumor activity. This first-in-human (FIH) phase 1 dose-escalation study characterized the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose/optimal biological dose, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of TYRP1-TCB in patients with metastatic melanoma (NCT04551352). Results: Twenty participants with cutaneous, uveal, or mucosal TYRP1-positive melanoma received TYRP1-TCB in escalating doses (0.045 to 0.4 mg). All participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); two participants experienced grade 3 TRAEs. The most common toxicities were grade 1–2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and rash. Fractionated dosing mitigated CRS and was associated with lower levels of interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Measurement of active drug (dual TYPR1- and CD3-binding) PK rapidly identified loss of active drug exposure in all participants treated with 0.4 mg in a flat dosing schedule for ≥3 cycles. Loss of exposure was associated with development of ADAs towards both the TYRP1 and CD3 domains. A total drug PK assay, measuring free and ADA-bound forms, demonstrated that TYRP1-TCB-ADA immune complexes were present in participant samples, but showed no drug activity in vitro. Discussion: This study provides important insights into how the use of active drug PK assays, coupled with mechanistic follow-up, can inform and enable ongoing benefit/risk assessment for individuals participating in FIH dose-escalation trials. Translational studies that lead to a better understanding of the underlying biology of cognate T- and B-cell interactions, ultimately resulting in ADA development to novel biotherapeutics, are needed.The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Contribution of tumour and immune cells to PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-119

Pembrolizumab; Triple‐negative breast cancerPembrolizumab; Cáncer de mama triple negativoPembrolizumab; Càncer de mama triple negatiuThe efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy increased with increasing programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, as quantified by combined positive score (CPS; PD-L1 expression on both tumour cells and immune cells) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 study. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the expression of PD-L1 on tumour cells contributes to the predictive value of PD-L1 CPS in mTNBC. PD-L1 expression in tumour samples was assessed using PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx and quantified using both CPS and tumour proportion score (TPS; PD-L1 expression on tumour cells alone). Calculated immune cell density (CID) was defined as CPS minus TPS. The ability of each scoring method (CPS, TPS, and CID) to predict clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab was evaluated. With pembrolizumab, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.58–0.80) for CPS, 0.55 (95% CI = 0.46–0.64) for TPS, and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56–0.77) for CID. After correction for cutoff prevalence, CPS performed as well as, if not better than, CID with respect to predicting objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Data from this exploratory analysis suggest that, although PD-L1 expression on immune cells alone is predictive of response to programmed death 1 blockade in mTNBC, adding tumour PD-L1 expression assessment (i.e. CPS, which combines immune cell and tumour cell PD-L1 expression) may improve prediction. PD-L1 CPS thus remains an effective and broadly applicable uniform scoring system for enriching response to programmed death 1 blockade with pembrolizumab in mTNBC as well as other tumour types

A Phase II Trial of the CD40 Agonistic Antibody Sotigalimab (APX005M) in Combination with Nivolumab in Subjects with Metastatic Melanoma with Confirmed Disease Progression on Anti-PD-1 Therapy

CD40 agonistic antibody; Metastatic melanoma; Anti-PD-1 therapyAnticuerpo agonista CD40; Melanoma metastásico; Terapia anti-PD-1Anticòs agonista CD40; Melanoma metastàtic; Teràpia anti-PD-1Purpose: Disease progression during or after anti-PD-1-based treatment is common in advanced melanoma. Sotigalimab is a CD40 agonist antibody with a unique epitope specificity and Fc receptor binding profile optimized for activation of CD40-expressing antigen-presenting cells. Preclinical data indicated that CD40 agonists combined with anti-PD1 could overcome resistance to anti-PD-1. Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase II trial to evaluate the combination of sotigalimab 0.3 mg/kg and nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma following confirmed disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate (ORR). Results: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled and evaluable for safety. Thirty-three were evaluable for activity. Five confirmed partial responses (PR) were observed for an ORR of 15%. Two PRs are ongoing at 45.9+ and 26+ months, whereas the other three responders relapsed at 41.1, 18.7, and 18.4 months. The median duration of response was at least 26 months. Two additional patients had stable disease for >6 months. Thirty-four patients (89%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE), and 13% experienced a grade 3 AE related to sotigalimab. The most common AEs were pyrexia, chills, nausea, fatigue, pruritus, elevated liver function, rash, vomiting, headache, arthralgia, asthenia, myalgia, and diarrhea. There were no treatment-related SAEs, deaths, or discontinuation of sotigalimab due to AEs. Conclusions: Sotigalimab plus nivolumab had a favorable safety profile consistent with the toxicity profiles of each agent. The combination resulted in durable and prolonged responses in a subset of patients with anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma, warranting further evaluation in this setting.The study was funded by Apexigen. Drug support was provided by Apexigen and Bristol Myers Squibb. We acknowledge research funding in part from the Yale Calabresi Immuno-oncology Training Program (K12CA215110; to S.A. Weiss) and the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer (P50 CA121974; to H.M. Kluger)

Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results

Nivolumab; Advanced melanomaNivolumab; Melanoma avanzadoNivolumab; Melanoma avançatPURPOSE Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO

SEOM clinical guideline for the management of cutaneous melanoma (2020)

Tractament adjuvant; Melanoma; EscenificacióAdjuvant treatment; Melanoma; StagingTratamiento adyuvante; Melanoma; EscenificaciónMelanoma affects about 6000 patients a year in Spain. A group of medical oncologists from Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM) has designed these guidelines to homogenize the management of these patients. The diagnosis must be histological and determination of BRAF status has to be performed in patients with stage ≥ III. Stage I–III resectable melanomas will be treated surgically. In patients with stage III melanoma, adjuvant treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy is also recommended. Patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma will receive treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the optimal sequence of these treatments remains unclear. Brain metastases require a separate consideration, since, in addition to systemic treatment, they may require local treatment. Patients must be followed up closely to receive or change treatment as soon as their previous clinical condition changes, since multiple therapeutic options are available

Evaluation of the Effects of Repeat-Dose Dabrafenib on the Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/1B3 Substrate) and Midazolam (CYP3A4 Substrate)

Dabrafenib; Drug interaction; PharmacokineticsDabrafenib; Interacción de fármacos; FarmacocinéticaDabrafenib; Interacció de fàrmacs; FarmacocinèticaDabrafenib is an oral BRAF kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of various BRAF V600 mutation–positive solid tumors. In vitro observations suggesting cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A induction and organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) inhibition prompted us to evaluate the effect of dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam 3 mg (CYP3A substrate) and rosuvastatin 10 mg (OATP1B1/1B3 substrate) in a clinical phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence study in patients with BRAF V600 mutation–positive tumors. Repeat dabrafenib dosing resulted in a 2.56-fold increase in rosuvastatin maximum observed concentration (Cmax), an earlier time to Cmax, but only a 7% increase in area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 (predose) extrapolated to infinite time. Midazolam Cmax and AUC extrapolated to infinite time decreased by 47% and 65%, respectively, with little effect on time to Cmax. No new safety findings were reported. Exposure of drugs that are CYP3A4 substrates is likely to decrease when coadministered with dabrafenib. Concentrations of medicinal products that are sensitive OATP1B1/1B3 substrates may increase during the absorption phase.This study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline; dabrafenib and trametinib are assets of Novartis AG as of March 2, 2015

Combined immunotherapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A multicenter international study

Brain metastases; Combined immunotherapy; Stereotactic radiosurgeryMetàstasis cerebrals; Immunoteràpia combinada; Radiocirurgia estereotàcticaMetástasis cerebrales; Inmunoterapia combinada; Radiocirugía estereotáxicaBackground Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (COMBO) is the standard treatment in asymptomatic patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We report a retrospective study aiming to assess the outcome of patients with MBM treated with COMBO outside clinical trials. Methods Consecutive patients treated with COMBO have been included. Demographics, steroid treatment, Central Nervous System (CNS)-related symptoms, BRAF status, radiotherapy or surgery, response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been analyzed. Results 376 patients were included: 262 received COMBO as first-line and 114 as a subsequent line of therapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (≥1 vs 0) [HR 1.97 (1.46–2.66)], extracerebral metastases [HR 1.92 (1.09–3.40)], steroid use at the start of COMBO [HR 1.59 (1.08–2.38)], CNS-related symptoms [HR 1.59 (1.08–2.34)], SRS (Stereotactic radiosurgery) [HR 0.63 (0.45–0.88)] and surgery [HR 0.63 (0.43–0.91)] were associated with OS. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median OS (mOS) in the overall population was 21.3 months (18.1–24.5), whilst OS was not yet reached in treatment-naive patients, steroid-free at baseline. In patients receiving COMBO after BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i) PFS at 1-year was 15.7%. The dose of steroids (dexamethasone < vs ≥ 4 mg/day) was not prognostic. SRS alongside COMBO vs COMBO alone in asymptomatic patients prolonged survival. (p = 0.013). Toxicities were consistent with previous studies. An independent validation cohort (n = 51) confirmed the findings. Conclusions Our results demonstrate remarkable long-term survival in treatment-naïve, asymptomatic, steroid-free patients, as well as in those receiving SRS plus COMBO. PFS and OS were poor in patients receiving COMBO after progressing to BRAF/MEKi

Immune checkpoint blockers in solid organ transplant recipients and cancer: the INNOVATED cohort

Cancer; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Solid-organ transplantCáncer; Inhibidores de puntos de control inmunitario; Trasplante de órganos sólidosCàncer; Inhibidors de punts de control immunitari; Trasplantament d'òrgans sòlidsBackground Patients with solid organ transplant (SOT) and solid tumors are usually excluded from clinical trials testing immune checkpoint blockers (ICB). As transplant rates are increasing, we aimed to evaluate ICB outcomes in this population, with a special focus on lung cancer. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study collecting real data of ICB use in patients with SOT and solid tumors. Clinical data and treatment outcomes were assessed by using retrospective medical chart reviews in every participating center. Study endpoints were: overall response rate (ORR), 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events. Results From August 2016 to October 2022, 31 patients with SOT (98% kidney) and solid tumors were identified (36.0% lung cancer, 19.4% melanoma, 13.0% genitourinary cancer, 6.5% gastrointestinal cancer). Programmed death-ligand 1 expression was positive in 29% of tumors. Median age was 61 years, 69% were males, and 71% received ICB as first-line treatment. In the whole cohort the ORR was 45.2%, with a 6-month PFS of 56.8%. In the lung cancer cohort, the ORR was 45.5%, with a 6-month PFS of 32.7%, and median overall survival of 4.6 months. The grade 3 immune-related adverse events rate leading to ICB discontinuation was 12.9%. Allograft rejection rate was 25.8%, and risk of rejection was similar regardless of the type of ICB strategy (monotherapy or combination, 28% versus 33%, P = 1.0) or response to ICB treatment. Conclusions ICB could be considered a feasible option for SOT recipients with some advanced solid malignancies and no alternative therapeutic options. Due to the risk of allograft rejection, multidisciplinary teams should be involved before ICB therapy