A phase Ib/II study of cabozantinib (XL184) with or without erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

PurposeCabozantinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor that targets MET, AXL, and VEGFR2, and may synergize with EGFR inhibition in NSCLC. Cabozantinib was assessed alone or in combination with erlotinib in patients with progressive NSCLC and EGFR mutations who had previously received erlotinib.MethodsThis was a phase Ib/II study (NCT00596648). The primary objectives of phase I were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics and to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cabozantinib plus erlotinib in patients who failed prior erlotinib treatment. In phase II, patients with prior response or stable disease with erlotinib who progressed were randomized to single-agent cabozantinib 100 mg qd vs cabozantinib 100 mg qd and erlotinib 50 mg qd (phase I MTD), with a primary objective of estimating objective response rate (ORR).ResultsSixty-four patients were treated in phase I. Doses of 100 mg cabozantinib plus 50 mg erlotinib, or 40 mg cabozantinib plus 150 mg erlotinib were determined to be MTDs. Diarrhea was the most frequent dose-limiting toxicity and the most frequent AE (87.5% of patients). The ORR for phase I was 8.2% (90% CI 3.3-16.5). In phase II, one patient in the cabozantinib arm (N = 15) experienced a partial response, for an ORR of 6.7% (90% CI 0.3-27.9), with no responses for cabozantinib plus erlotinib (N = 13). There was no evidence that co-administration of cabozantinib markedly altered erlotinib pharmacokinetics or vice versa.ConclusionsDespite responses with cabozantinib/erlotinib in phase I, there were no responses in the combination arm of phase II in patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib. Cabozantinib did not appear to re-sensitize these patients to erlotinib

Brief Report: Safety and Antitumor Activity of Alectinib Plus Atezolizumab From a Phase 1b Study in Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: Alectinib is a preferred first-line treatment option for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. Combination regimens of alectinib with immune checkpoint inhibitors are being evaluated for synergistic effects. METHODS: Adults with treatment-naive, stage IIIB/IV, or recurrent ALK-positive NSCLC were enrolled into a two-stage phase 1b study. Patients received alectinib 600 mg (twice daily during cycle 1 and throughout each 21-d cycle thereafter) plus atezolizumab 1200 mg (d8 of cycle 1 and then d1 of each 21-d cycle). Primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability of alectinib plus atezolizumab. Secondary objectives included assessments of antitumor activity. RESULTS: In total, 21 patients received more than or equal to 1 dose of alectinib or atezolizumab. As no dose-limiting toxicities were observed in stage 1 (n = 7), the starting dose and schedule were continued into stage 2 (n = 14). Median duration of follow-up was 29 months (range: 1-39). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of the patients, most often rash (19%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported. Confirmed objective response rate was 86% (18 of 21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64-97). Median progression-free survival was not estimable (NE) (95% CI: 13 mo-NE), neither was median overall survival (95% CI: 33 mo-NE). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of alectinib and atezolizumab is feasible, but increased toxicity was found compared with the individual agents. With small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up, definitive conclusions regarding antitumor activity cannot be made

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

Abstract Background Long-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years' follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC. Patients and methods Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses. Results After 40.3 months' minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%). Conclusions After 3 years' minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated. Clinical trial registration CheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867

Immuno-thermal ablations – boosting the anticancer immune response

Abstract The use of immunomodulation to treat malignancies has seen a recent explosion in interest. The therapeutic appeal of these treatments is far reaching, and many new applications continue to evolve. In particular, immune modulating drugs have the potential to enhance the systemic anticancer immune effects induced by locoregional thermal ablation. The immune responses induced by ablation monotherapy are well documented, but independently they tend to be incapable of evoking a robust antitumor response. By adding immunomodulators to traditional ablative techniques, several researchers have sought to amplify the induced immune response and trigger systemic antitumor activity. This paper summarizes the work done in animal models to investigate the immune effects induced by the combination of ablative therapy and immunomodulation. Combination therapy with radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation are all reviewed, and special attention has been paid to the addition of checkpoint blockades

Oncolytic virus immunotherapy: future prospects for oncology

Abstract Background Immunotherapy is at the forefront of modern oncologic care. Various novel therapies have targeted all three layers of tumor biology: tumor, niche, and immune system with a range of promising results. One emerging class in both primary and salvage therapy is oncolytic viruses. This therapy offers a multimodal approach to specifically and effectively target and destroy malignant cells, though a barrier oncoviral therapies have faced is a limited therapeutic response to currently delivery techniques. Main body The ability to deliver therapy tailored to specific cellular targets at the precise locus in which it would have its greatest impact is a profound development in anti-cancer treatment. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have an improved tolerability profile relative to cytotoxic chemotherapy and whole beam radiation, severe immune-related adverse events have emerged as a potential limitation. These include pneumonitis, pancreatitis, and colitis, which are relatively infrequent but can limit therapeutic options for some patients. Intratumor injection of oncolytic viruses, in contrast, has a markedly lower rate of serious adverse effects and perhaps greater specificity to target tumor cells. Early stage clinical trials using oncolytic viruses show induction of effector anti-tumor immune responses and suggest that such therapies could also morph and redefine both the local target cells’ niche as well as impart distant effects on remote cells with a similar molecular profile. Conclusion It is imperative for the modern immuno-oncologist to understand the biological processes underlying the immune dysregulation in cancer as well as the effects, uses, and limitations of oncolytic viruses. It will be with this foundational understanding that the future of oncolytic viral therapies and their delivery can be refined to forge future horizons in the direct modulation of the tumor bed