Replication competent retrovirus testing (RCR) in the National Gene Vector Biorepository: No evidence of RCR in 1,595 post-treatment peripheral blood samples obtained from 60 clinical trials

The clinical impact of any therapy requires the product be safe and effective. Gammaretroviral vectors pose several unique risks, including inadvertent exposure to replication competent retrovirus (RCR) that can arise during vector manufacture. The US FDA has required patient monitoring for RCR, and the National Gene Vector Biorepository is an NIH resource that has assisted eligible investigators in meeting this requirement. To date, we have found no evidence of RCR in 338 pre-treatment and 1,595 post-treatment blood samples from 737 patients associated with 60 clinical trials. Most samples (75%) were obtained within 1 year of treatment, and samples as far out as 9 years after treatment were analyzed. The majority of trials (93%) were cancer immunotherapy, and 90% of the trials used vector products produced with the PG13 packaging cell line. The data presented here provide further evidence that current manufacturing methods generate RCR-free products and support the overall safety profile of retroviral gene therapy

Tisotumab Vedotin in Combination with Carboplatin, Pembrolizumab, or Bevacizumab in Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer:Results from the innovaTV 205/GOG-3024/ENGOT-cx8 Study

PURPOSE Tissue factor is highly expressed in cervical carcinoma and can be targeted by tisotumab vedotin (TV), an antibody-drug conjugate. This phase Ib/II study evaluated TV in combination with bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, or carboplatin for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). METHODS This open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03786081) included dose-escalation arms that assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and identified the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of TV in combination with bevacizumab (arm A), pembrolizumab (arm B), or carboplatin (arm C). The dose-expansion arms evaluated TV antitumor activity and safety at RP2D in combination with carboplatin as first-line (1L) treatment (arm D) or with pembrolizumab as 1L (arm E) or second-/third-line (2L/3L) treatment (arm F). The primary end point of dose expansion was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS A total of 142 patients were enrolled. In dose escalation (n = 41), no DLTs were observed; the RP2D was TV 2 mg/kg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 once every 3 weeks. In dose expansion (n = 101), the ORR was 54.5% (n/N, 18/33; 95% CI, 36.4 to 71.9) with 1L TV + carboplatin (arm D), 40.6% (n/N, 13/32; 95% CI, 23.7 to 59.4) with 1L TV + pembrolizumab (arm E), and 35.3% (12/34; 19.7 to 53.5) with 2L/3L TV + pembrolizumab (arm F). The median duration of response was 8.6 months, not reached, and 14.1 months, in arms D, E, and F, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (≥15%) were anemia, diarrhea, nausea, and thrombocytopenia in arm D and anemia in arm F (none ≥15%, arm E).CONCLUSION TV in combination with bevacizumab, carboplatin, or pembrolizumab demonstrated manageable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in treatment-naive and previously treated r/mCC.</p

Efficacy of niraparib by time of surgery and postoperative residual disease status: A post hoc analysis of patients in the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between surgical timing and postoperative residual disease status on the efficacy of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence.MethodsPost hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) study of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by surgical status (primary debulking surgery [PDS] vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery [NACT/IDS]) and postoperative residual disease status (no visible residual disease [NVRD] vs visible residual disease [VRD]) in the intent-to-treat population.ResultsIn PRIMA (N = 733), 236 (32.2%) patients underwent PDS, and 481 (65.6%) received NACT/IDS before enrollment. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were similar in PDS (13.7 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.67 [0.47–0.96]) and NACT/IDS (14.2 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.57 [0.44–0.73]) subgroups. In patients who received NACT/IDS and had NVRD (n = 304), the hazard ratio (95% CI) for progression was 0.65 (0.46–0.91). In patients with VRD following PDS (n = 183) or NACT/IDS (n = 149), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for progression were 0.58 (0.39–0.86) and 0.41 (0.27–0.62), respectively. PFS was not evaluable for patients with PDS and NVRD because of sample size (n = 37).ConclusionsIn this post hoc analysis, niraparib efficacy was similar across PDS and NACT/IDS subgroups. Patients who had NACT/IDS and VRD had the highest reduction in the risk of progression with niraparib maintenance.</p

It's time to warm up to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with ovarian cancer

The peritoneal spread of ovarian cancer makes it a potential target for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Intraperitoneal delivery exposes the tumor to concentrations of cytotoxic drugs much greater than with intravenous delivery, and in vitro studies have also shown that combining hyperthermia and platinum leads to an additive cytotoxic effect. Pharmacokinetic analyses have confirmed very high concentrations of cytotoxic drugs in the peritoneal cavity, with minimal systemic exposure and toxicity. The majority of historical data evaluating HIPEC in ovarian cancer are based on retrospective research, which included heterogeneous groups of patients and drugs used for HIPEC. Recent publications on the findings of prospective studies, including the first randomized trial in which the only difference in intervention was the addition of HIPEC with cisplatin to interval debulking surgery in stage III patients, have shown a benefit in favor of HIPEC. Yet, a recent prospective study from Korea did not find a benefit. Opponents of HIPEC have cited higher rates of complications with this approach, yet most of the serious adverse events observed are likely related to the surgery itself, and are comparable to the rates reported in studies evaluating cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC. Findings from a recent randomized controlled trial showed no delays in initiation or completion of postoperative chemotherapy in patients treated with HIPEC. A growing body of evidence is indicating that it might be time to seriously consider HIPEC as a complementary treatment at the time of cytoreductive surgery for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer in the setting of an experienced center. Yet, more research is needed to identify the population of patients who gain the most benefit from this therapy