3 research outputs found
Evidence of pseudoprogression in patients treated with PD1/ PDL1 antibodies across tumor types
Background: PD(L)1 antibodies (anti-PD(L)-1) have been a major breakthrough
in several types of cancer. Novel patterns of response and progression have been
described with anti-PD(L)-1. We aimed at characterizing pseudoprogression (PSPD)
among patients with various solid tumor types treated by anti-PD(L)-1.
Methods: All consecutive patients (pts) enrolled in phase 1 trials with advanced
solid tumors and lymphomas treated in phase I clinical trials evaluating monotherapy
by anti-PD(L)-1 at Gustave Roussy were analyzed. We aimed to assess prevalence
and outcome of PSPD across tumor types. We also intended to describe potential
clinical and pathological factors associated with PSPD.
Results: A total of 169 patients treated with anti-PD(L)-1 were included in the study.
Most frequent tumor types included melanoma (n = 57) and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 19). At first tumor evaluation 77 patients (46%) presented with immune unconfirmed progressive disease. Six patients (8%) experienced PSPD: 2 patients with
partial response; 4 patients with stable disease. Increase in target lesions in the first
CT-scan was more frequently associated to PSPD (67% vs 33%; P = .04). Patients
with a PSPD had a superior survival when compared to patients progressing (median
OS: 10.7 months vs 8.7 months; P = .07).
Conclusions: A small subset of PSPD patients may experience response after an
initial progression. Assessment of the current strategy for immune-related response
evaluations may require further attention
Phase 1 study of the MDM2 inhibitor AMG 232 in patients with advanced P53 wild-type solid tumors or multiple myeloma
_Background_ This open-label, first-in-human, phase 1 study evaluated AMG 232, an oral selective MDM2 inhibitor in patients with TP53 wild-type (P53WT), advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma (MM).
_Methods_ In the dose escalation (n = 39), patients with P53WT refractory solid tumors enrolled to receive once-dailyAMG 232 (15, 30, 60, 120, 240, 480, and 960 mg) for seven days every 3 weeks (Q3W). In the dose expansion (n = 68), patients with MDM2-amplified (well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas [WDLPS and DDLPS], glioblastoma multiforme [GBM], or other solid tumors [OST]), MDM2-overexpressing ER+ breast cancer (BC), or MM received AMG 232 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy were assessed.
_Results_ AMG 232 had acceptable safety up to up to 240 mg
Evidence of pseudoprogression in patients treated with PD1/ PDL1 antibodies across tumor types
Background: PD(L)1 antibodies (anti-PD(L)-1) have been a major breakthrough
in several types of cancer. Novel patterns of response and progression have been
described with anti-PD(L)-1. We aimed at characterizing pseudoprogression (PSPD)
among patients with various solid tumor types treated by anti-PD(L)-1.
Methods: All consecutive patients (pts) enrolled in phase 1 trials with advanced
solid tumors and lymphomas treated in phase I clinical trials evaluating monotherapy
by anti-PD(L)-1 at Gustave Roussy were analyzed. We aimed to assess prevalence
and outcome of PSPD across tumor types. We also intended to describe potential
clinical and pathological factors associated with PSPD.
Results: A total of 169 patients treated with anti-PD(L)-1 were included in the study.
Most frequent tumor types included melanoma (n = 57) and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 19). At first tumor evaluation 77 patients (46%) presented with immune unconfirmed progressive disease. Six patients (8%) experienced PSPD: 2 patients with
partial response; 4 patients with stable disease. Increase in target lesions in the first
CT-scan was more frequently associated to PSPD (67% vs 33%; P = .04). Patients
with a PSPD had a superior survival when compared to patients progressing (median
OS: 10.7 months vs 8.7 months; P = .07).
Conclusions: A small subset of PSPD patients may experience response after an
initial progression. Assessment of the current strategy for immune-related response
evaluations may require further attention