40 research outputs found
Recombinant interleukin-21 plus sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a phase 1/2 study
Abstract
Background
Despite the positive impact of targeted therapies on metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), durable responses are infrequent and an unmet need exists for novel therapies with distinct mechanisms of action. We investigated the combination of recombinant Interleukin 21 (IL-21), a cytokine with unique immunostimulatory properties, plus sorafenib, a VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
Methods
In this phase 1/2 study, 52 mRCC patients received outpatient treatment with oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily plus intravenous IL-21 (10â50 mcg/kg) on days 1â5 and 15â19 of each 7-week treatment course. The safety, antitumor activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of the combination were evaluated.
Results
In phase 1 (nâ=â19), the maximum tolerated dose for IL-21 with the standard dose of sorafenib was determined to be 30 mcg/kg/day; grade 3 skin rash was the only dose-limiting toxicity. In phase 2, 33 previously-treated patients tolerated the combination therapy well with appropriate dose reductions; toxicities were mostly grade 1 or 2. The objective response rate was 21% and disease control rate was 82%. Two patients have durable responses that are ongoing, despite cessation of both IL-21 and sorafenib, at 41+ and 30+ months, respectively. The median progression-free survival in phase 2 was 5.6 months. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IL-21 appeared to be preserved in the presence of sorafenib.
Conclusion
IL-21 plus sorafenib has antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated mRCC patients. IL-21 may represent a suitable immunotherapy in further exploration of combination strategies in mRCC.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0038928
Patterns of Clinical Response with Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in Patients with Melanoma Treated in the OPTiM Phase III Clinical Trial
PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic immunotherapy designed to induce tumor regression of injected lesions through direct lytic effects, and of uninjected lesions through induction of systemic antitumor immunity. In this study, we describe the patterns and time course of response to T-VEC from the phase III OPTiM trial of 436 patients with unresected stages IIIB-IV melanoma.
METHODS: Lesion-level response analyses were performed based on the type of lesion (injected or uninjected cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions; or visceral lesions [uninjected]), and the best percentage change from baseline of the sum of products of the longest diameters was calculated. Patients randomized to T-VEC (n = 295) who experienced a durable response (continuous partial or complete response for â„6 months) were evaluated for progression prior to response (PPR), defined as the appearance of a new lesion or >25 % increase in total baseline tumor area.
RESULTS: T-VEC resulted in a decrease in size by â„50Â % in 64Â % of injected lesions (NÂ =Â 2116), 34Â % of uninjected non-visceral lesions (NÂ =Â 981), and 15Â % of visceral lesions (NÂ =Â 177). Complete resolution of lesions occurred in 47Â % of injected lesions, 22Â % of uninjected non-visceral lesions, and 9Â % of visceral lesions. Of 48 patients with durable responses, 23 (48Â %) experienced PPR, including 14 who developed new lesions only. No difference in overall survival was observed, and median duration of response was not reached in patients with PPR versus those without PPR.
CONCLUSIONS: Responses in uninjected lesions provide validation of T-VEC-induced systemic immunotherapeutic effects against melanoma. PPR did not negatively impact the clinical effectiveness of T-VEC
Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials
Abstract Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12Â months of treatment and lasting â„6Â months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. Methods We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). Results Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9Â months (HRâ=â0.07; Pâ=â0.0003), 12Â months (HRâ=â0.05, PÂ <Â 0.0001), and 18Â months (HRâ=â0.11; Pâ=â0.0002) that persisted after adjusting for disease stage and line of therapy. Achieving a DR was associated with a longer median TFI (HRâ=â0.33; Pâ=â0.0007) and a higher TOI improvement rate (58.1% versus 30.0%; Pâ=â0.025). Conclusions Achieving a DR was associated with clinical benefits such as improved OS and QoL and prolonged TFI, thus supporting the usefulness of DR as a meaningful immunotherapy clinical trial endpoint. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00769704 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769704 ) October 7, 200
Recommended from our members
Long-term safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy and relationship with clinical outcome: A landmark analysis in patients with advanced melanoma
Objective
Long-term safety of pembrolizumab in melanoma was analyzed in KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-002, and KEYNOTE-006.
Patients and methods
Analysis involved patients who received â„1 pembrolizumab dose. Lead-time bias was addressed via landmark analyses in patients who were progression-free before day 147.
Results
Adverse events (AEs) were analyzed for 1567 patients (median follow-up, 42.4 months). Most AEs were mild/moderate; grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 17.7% of patients. Two pembrolizumab-related deaths occurred. Any-grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 23.0%, most commonly hypothyroidism (9.1%), pneumonitis (3.3%), and hyperthyroidism (3.0%); grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 6.9% of patients. Most imAEs occurred within 16 weeks of treatment. In landmark analysis, patients who did (n = 79) versus did not (n = 384) develop imAEs had similar objective response rates (ORRs) (64.6% versus 63.0%); median time to response (TTR), 5.6 months for both; median duration of response (DOR), 20.0 versus 25.3 months; median progression-free survival (PFS), 17.0 versus 17.7 months; median overall survival (OS), not reached (NR) versus 43 months (p = 0.1104). Patients who did (n = 17) versus did not (n = 62) receive systemic corticosteroids had similar ORRs (70.6% vs. 62.9%) and median TTR (6.4 vs. 5.6 months) but numerically shorter median PFS (9.9 vs. 17.0 months); median DOR, 14.2 months versus NR; median OS, NR for both.
Conclusions
These results enhance the knowledge base for pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma, with no new toxicity signals after lengthy follow-up of a large population. In landmark analyses, pembrolizumab efficacy was similar regardless of imAEs or systemic corticosteroid use.
Clinical trial registry
NCT01295827, NCT01704287, NCT01866319
Patterns of Clinical Response with Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in Patients with Melanoma Treated in the OPTiM Phase III Clinical Trial
PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic immunotherapy designed to induce tumor regression of injected lesions through direct lytic effects, and of uninjected lesions through induction of systemic antitumor immunity. In this study, we describe the patterns and time course of response to T-VEC from the phase III OPTiM trial of 436 patients with unresected stages IIIBâIV melanoma. METHODS: Lesion-level response analyses were performed based on the type of lesion (injected or uninjected cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions; or visceral lesions [uninjected]), and the best percentage change from baseline of the sum of products of the longest diameters was calculated. Patients randomized to T-VEC (n = 295) who experienced a durable response (continuous partial or complete response for â„6 months) were evaluated for progression prior to response (PPR), defined as the appearance of a new lesion or >25 % increase in total baseline tumor area. RESULTS: T-VEC resulted in a decrease in size by â„50 % in 64 % of injected lesions (N = 2116), 34 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions (N = 981), and 15 % of visceral lesions (N = 177). Complete resolution of lesions occurred in 47 % of injected lesions, 22 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions, and 9 % of visceral lesions. Of 48 patients with durable responses, 23 (48 %) experienced PPR, including 14 who developed new lesions only. No difference in overall survival was observed, and median duration of response was not reached in patients with PPR versus those without PPR. CONCLUSIONS: Responses in uninjected lesions provide validation of T-VEC-induced systemic immunotherapeutic effects against melanoma. PPR did not negatively impact the clinical effectiveness of T-VEC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5286-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users
Perspectives in immunotherapy: meeting report from the Immunotherapy Bridge (29-30 November, 2017, Naples, Italy)
Immunotherapy represents the third important wave in the history of the systemic treatment of cancer after chemotherapy and targeted therapy and is now established as a potent and effective treatment option across several cancer types. The clinical success of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4, first, and anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 agents in melanoma and other cancers a few years later, has encouraged increasing focus on the development of other immunotherapies (e.g. monoclonal antibodies with other immune targets, adoptive cell transfer, and vaccines), with over 3000 immuno-oncology trials ongoing, involving hundreds of research institutes across the globe. The potential use of these different immunotherapeutic options in various combinations with one another and with other treatment modalities is an area of particular promise. The third Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (29-30 November, 2017, Naples, Italy) focused on recent advances in immunotherapy across various cancer types and is summarised in this report
Future perspectives in melanoma research: meeting report from the "Melanoma Bridge";: Napoli, December 3rd-6th 2014.
The fourth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, December 3-6th, 2014. The four topics discussed at this meeting were: Molecular and Immunological Advances, Combination Therapies, News in Immunotherapy, and Tumor Microenvironment and Biomarkers. Until recently systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma patients was ineffective, but recent advances in tumor biology and immunology have led to the development of new targeted and immunotherapeutic agents that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). New therapies, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors as well as other signaling pathway inhibitors, are being tested in patients with metastatic melanoma either as monotherapy or in combination, and all have yielded promising results. These include inhibitors of receptor tyrosine kinases (BRAF, MEK, and VEGFR), the phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway [PI3K, AKT, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)], activators of apoptotic pathway, and the cell cycle inhibitors (CDK4/6). Various locoregional interventions including radiotherapy and surgery are still valid approaches in treatment of advanced melanoma that can be integrated with novel therapies. Intrinsic, adaptive and acquired resistance occur with targeted therapy such as BRAF inhibitors, where most responses are short-lived. Given that the reactivation of the MAPK pathway through several distinct mechanisms is responsible for the majority of acquired resistance, it is logical to combine BRAF inhibitors with inhibitors of targets downstream in the MAPK pathway. For example, combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (e.g., dabrafenib/trametinib) have been demonstrated to improve survival compared to monotherapy. Application of novel technologies such sequencing have proven useful as a tool for identification of MAPK pathway-alternative resistance mechanism and designing other combinatorial therapies such as those between BRAF and AKT inhibitors. Improved survival rates have also been observed with immune-targeted therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma. Immune-modulating antibodies came to the forefront with anti-CTLA-4, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway blocking antibodies that result in durable responses in a subset of melanoma patients. Agents targeting other immune inhibitory (e.g., Tim-3) or immune stimulating (e.g., CD137) receptors and other approaches such as adoptive cell transfer demonstrate clinical benefit in patients with melanoma as well. These agents are being studied in combination with targeted therapies in attempt to produce longer-term responses than those more typically seen with targeted therapy. Other combinations with cytotoxic chemotherapy and inhibitors of angiogenesis are changing the evolving landscape of therapeutic options and are being evaluated to prevent or delay resistance and to further improve survival rates for this patient population. This meeting's specific focus was on advances in combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Both combination targeted therapy approaches and different immunotherapies were discussed. Similarly to the previous meetings, the importance of biomarkers for clinical application as markers for diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of treatment response was an integral part of the meeting. The overall emphasis on biomarkers supports novel concepts toward integrating biomarkers into contemporary clinical management of patients with melanoma across the entire spectrum of disease stage. Translation of the knowledge gained from the biology of tumor microenvironment across different tumors represents a bridge to impact on prognosis and response to therapy in melanoma