A Phase 2, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of Anti-Lag-3 Ieramilimab in Combination With Anti-Pd-1 Spartalizumab in Patients With Advanced Solid Malignancies

Ieramilimab, a humanized anti-LAG-3 monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated in combination with the anti-PD-1 antibody spartalizumab in a phase 1 study. This phase 2 study aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of combination treatment in patients with selected advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) solid malignancies. Eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), mesothelioma, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were grouped depending on prior anti-PD-1/L1 therapy (anti-PD-1/L1 naive or anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated). Patients received ieramilimab (400 mg) followed by spartalizumab (300 mg) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), along with safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarker assessments. Of 235 patients, 142 were naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and 93 were pretreated with anti-PD-1/L1 antibodies. Durable responses (\u3e24 months) were seen across all indications for patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and in melanoma and RCC patients pretreated with anti-PD1/L1. The most frequent study drug-related AEs were pruritus (15.5%), fatigue (10.6%), and rash (10.6%) in patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and fatigue (18.3%), rash (14.0%), and nausea (10.8%) in anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated patients. Biomarker assessment indicated higher expression of T-cell-inflamed gene signature at baseline among responding patients. Response to treatment was durable (\u3e24 months) in some patients across all enrolled indications, and safety findings were in accordance with previous and current studies exploring LAG-3/PD-1 blockade

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

SWOG S0709: Randomized Phase II Trial of Erlotinib versus Erlotinib Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer and Impaired Performance Status as Selected by a Serum Proteomics Assay

IntroductionPatients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and borderline performance status (performance status 2 [PS2]) are often excluded from clinical trials and platinum-based therapy. In light of the potential role for serum proteomics in predicting the benefit of erlotinib beyond that of epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutational status, we conducted a trial in which the Veristrat proteomics assay was used for data enrichment when selecting a cohort of patients with NSCLC and PS2 to receive erlotinib with and without chemotherapy.MethodsPatients with metastatic NSCLC, PS2, acceptable end-organ function, and Veristrat-good status were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of erlotinib orally daily (arm 1) or 150 mg of erlotinib orally daily on days 2 through16 plus four cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve&nbsp;= 5 on day 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) followed by 150 mg of erlotinib orally (arm 2). The arm 2 agents were pharmacodynamically separated to mitigate potential antagonism. The arm with superior observed median progression-free survival (PFS) would be selected for further evaluation, but only if PFS lasted for at least 3 months.ResultsThe trial terminated before the planned accrual of 98 patients for regulatory reasons. A total of 156 patients were screened. Of the 83 (59%) who were classified as Veristrat good, 59 met the trial eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to one of two arms (33 patients in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2). The patients in arm 2 patients had a higher response rate (23% versus 6%, p&nbsp;= 0.06), disease control rate (77% versus 41%, p&nbsp;= 0.0046), median PFS (4.6 versus 1.6 months, p&nbsp;= 0.06), and median overall survival (11 versus 6 months, p&nbsp;= 0.27). Treatment-related grade 4 adverse events were seen in two patients in arm 1 (thrombosis and hypomagnesemia) and in five patients in arm 2 (neutropenia in five, febrile neutropenia in one, and leukopenia in one).ConclusionsIn a proteomics-enriched cohort of patients with NSCLC and PS2, pharmacodynamically separated erlotinib plus chemotherapy had better efficacy than did erlotinib alone and surpassed the protocol-specified benchmark of PFS of at least 3 months required for further study

Pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among individuals who did not receive lung cancer screening: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Although early detection of lung cancer through screening is associated with better prognosis, most lung cancers are diagnosed among unscreened individuals. We therefore sought to characterize pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among unscreened individuals. Methods Participants were individuals with lung cancer who did not undergo asymptomatic lung cancer screening (n = 13) and healthcare providers who may be involved in the pathway to lung cancer diagnosis (n = 13). We conducted semi-structured interviews to identify themes in lung cancer patients’ narratives of their cancer diagnoses and providers’ personal and/or professional experiences of various pathways to lung cancer diagnoses, to identify delays in diagnosis. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews in two stages. First, we conducted deductive coding using three time-period intervals from the Models of Pathways to Treatment framework: appraisal, help-seeking, and diagnostic (i.e., excluding pre-treatment). Second, we conducted inductive coding to identify themes within each time-period interval, and classified these themes as either barriers or facilitators to diagnosis. Coding and thematic summarization were completed independently by two separate analysts who discussed for consensus. Results Eight of the patient participants had formerly smoked, and five had never smoked. We identified eight barrier/facilitator themes within the three time-period intervals. Within the appraisal interval, the barrier theme was (1) minimization or misattribution of symptoms, and the facilitator theme was (2) acknowledgment of symptoms. Within the help-seeking interval, the barrier theme was (3) hesitancy to seek care, and the facilitator theme was (4) routine care. Within the diagnosis interval, barrier themes were (5) health system challenges, and (6) social determinants of health; and facilitator themes were (7) severe symptoms and known risk factors, and (8) self-advocacy. Many themes were interrelated, including minimization or misattribution of symptoms and hesitancy to seek care, which may collectively contribute to care and imaging delays. Conclusions Interventions to reduce hesitancy to seek care may facilitate timely lung cancer diagnoses. More prompt referral to imaging—especially computed tomography (CT)—among symptomatic patients, along with patient self-advocacy for imaging, may reduce delays in diagnosis

Structural variation and its potential impact on genome instability: Novel discoveries in the EGFR landscape by long-read sequencing.

Structural variation (SV) is typically defined as variation within the human genome that exceeds 50 base pairs (bp). SV may be copy number neutral or it may involve duplications, deletions, and complex rearrangements. Recent studies have shown SV to be associated with many human diseases. However, studies of SV have been challenging due to technological constraints. With the advent of third generation (long-read) sequencing technology, exploration of longer stretches of DNA not easily examined previously has been made possible. In the present study, we utilized third generation (long-read) sequencing techniques to examine SV in the EGFR landscape of four haplotypes derived from two human samples. We analyzed the EGFR gene and its landscape (+/- 500,000 base pairs) using this approach and were able to identify a region of non-coding DNA with over 90% similarity to the most common activating EGFR mutation in non-small cell lung cancer. Based on previously published Alu-element genome instability algorithms, we propose a molecular mechanism to explain how this non-coding region of DNA may be interacting with and impacting the stability of the EGFR gene and potentially generating this cancer-driver gene. By these techniques, we were also able to identify previously hidden structural variation in the four haplotypes and in the human reference genome (hg38). We applied previously published algorithms to compare the relative stabilities of these five different EGFR gene landscape haplotypes to estimate their relative potentials to generate the EGFR exon 19, 15 bp canonical deletion. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to use the differences in genomic architecture between targeted cancer-linked phased haplotypes to estimate their relative potentials to form a common cancer-linked driver mutation

Phase II study of docetaxel and trametinib in patients with KRAS mutation positive recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (SWOG S1507, NCT-02642042)

PURPOSE: Efficacy of MEK inhibitors in KRAS+ NSCLC may differ based on specific KRAS mutations and co-mutations. Our hypothesis was that docetaxel and trametinib would improve activity in KRAS+ NSCLC and specifically in KRAS G12C NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: S1507 is a single arm phase II assessing the response rate (RR) with docetaxel plus trametinib in recurrent KRAS+ NSCLC and secondarily in the G12C subset. The accrual goal was 45 eligible patients with at least 25 with G12C mutation. The design was 2-stage design to rule out a 17% RR, within the overall population at the 1-sided 3% level and within the G12C subset at the 5% level. RESULTS: Between July 18, 2016 and March 15, 2018, 60 patients were enrolled with 53 eligible and 18 eligible in the G12C cohort. The RR was 34% (95%CI- 22-48) overall and 28% (95%CI- 10-53) in G12C. Median PFS and OS were 4.1 and 3.3 months and 10.9 and 8.8 months, overall and in the subset, respectively. Common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, rash, anemia, mucositis, neutropenia. Among 26 patients with known status for TP53 (10+ve) and STK11 (5+ve), OS (HR:2.85, 95%CI 1.16-7.01) and RR (0% vs. 56%, p = 0.004) were worse in patients with TP53 mutated versus wild type cancers. CONCLUSIONS: RRs were significantly improved in the overall population. Contrary to pre-clinical studies, the combination showed no improvement in efficacy in G12C patients. Co-mutations may influence therapeutic efficacy of KRAS directed therapies and are worthy of further evaluation

SWOG S0709: Randomized Phase II Trial of Erlotinib versus Erlotinib Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer and Impaired Performance Status as Selected by a Serum Proteomics Assay

IntroductionPatients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and borderline performance status (performance status 2 [PS2]) are often excluded from clinical trials and platinum-based therapy. In light of the potential role for serum proteomics in predicting the benefit of erlotinib beyond that of epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutational status, we conducted a trial in which the Veristrat proteomics assay was used for data enrichment when selecting a cohort of patients with NSCLC and PS2 to receive erlotinib with and without chemotherapy.MethodsPatients with metastatic NSCLC, PS2, acceptable end-organ function, and Veristrat-good status were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of erlotinib orally daily (arm 1) or 150 mg of erlotinib orally daily on days 2 through16 plus four cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve&nbsp;= 5 on day 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) followed by 150 mg of erlotinib orally (arm 2). The arm 2 agents were pharmacodynamically separated to mitigate potential antagonism. The arm with superior observed median progression-free survival (PFS) would be selected for further evaluation, but only if PFS lasted for at least 3 months.ResultsThe trial terminated before the planned accrual of 98 patients for regulatory reasons. A total of 156 patients were screened. Of the 83 (59%) who were classified as Veristrat good, 59 met the trial eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to one of two arms (33 patients in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2). The patients in arm 2 patients had a higher response rate (23% versus 6%, p&nbsp;= 0.06), disease control rate (77% versus 41%, p&nbsp;= 0.0046), median PFS (4.6 versus 1.6 months, p&nbsp;= 0.06), and median overall survival (11 versus 6 months, p&nbsp;= 0.27). Treatment-related grade 4 adverse events were seen in two patients in arm 1 (thrombosis and hypomagnesemia) and in five patients in arm 2 (neutropenia in five, febrile neutropenia in one, and leukopenia in one).ConclusionsIn a proteomics-enriched cohort of patients with NSCLC and PS2, pharmacodynamically separated erlotinib plus chemotherapy had better efficacy than did erlotinib alone and surpassed the protocol-specified benchmark of PFS of at least 3 months required for further study