Category: Hem/Onc Updates

MARGENZA® Superior to Trastuzumab in Heavily Pretreated HER2-Positive Breast cancer

RR

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. Approximately 284,200 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2021 and about 44,130 individuals will die of the disease, largely due to metastatic recurrence. The HER or erbB family of receptors consist of HER1, HER2, HER3 and HER4. Approximately 15-20% of invasive breast cancers overexpress HER2/neu oncogene, which is a negative predictor of outcomes without systemic therapy. Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer are often treated with anti-HER2 targeted therapy along with chemotherapy, irrespective of hormone receptor status, and this has resulted in significantly improved treatment outcomes. HER2 oncoprotein is also expressed by tumor cells in GastroEsophageal and other solid tumors.

HER2-targeted therapies include HERCEPTIN® (Trastuzumab), TYKERB® (Lapatinib), PERJETA® (Pertuzumab) and KADCYLA® (Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine). Dual HER2 blockade with HERCEPTIN® and PERJETA®, given along with chemotherapy (with or without endocrine therapy), as first line treatment, in HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients, was shown to significantly improve Progression Free Survival (PFS) as well as Overall Survival (OS). The superior benefit with dual HER2 blockade has been attributed to differing mechanisms of action and synergistic interaction between HER2 targeted therapies. Patients progressing on Dual HER2 blockade often receive KADCYLA® which results in an Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 44% and a median PFS of 9.6 months, when administered after HERCEPTIN® and a taxane. There is however no standard treatment option for this patient population following progression on KADCYLA®.MOA-of-MARGENZA

MARGENZA® (Margetuximab-cmkb) is an Fc-engineered, monoclonal antibody that binds to the HER2 oncoprotein with high specificity and affinity and inhibits tumor cell proliferation and survival, by mediating Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity (ADCC). It is postulated that the Fab portion of MARGENZA® has the same specificity and affinity to HER2 oncoprotein as Trastuzumab, with similar ability to disrupt signaling. However, the modified Fc region of MARGENZA®, which binds to Fc receptor expressing cells such as immune cells, has increased affinity for activating Fc receptor FCGR3A (CD16A) and decreased affinity for inhibitory Fc receptor FCGR2B (CD32B). These changes lead to greater ADCC and Natural Killer cell activation. Approximately 85% of individuals are CD16A-158F allele carriers.

The SOPHIA study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, Phase III clinical trial, in which MARGENZA® plus chemotherapy was compared to Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, who have previously been treated with anti-HER2-targeted therapies. This study enrolled 536 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive either MARGENZA® 15 mg/kg IV every three weeks (N=266) or Trastuzumab 6 mg/kg (8 mg/kg loading dose) IV every three weeks (N=270), in combination with Capecitabine, Eribulin, Gemcitabine or Vinorelbine, given at the standard doses. The median age was 56 years, all study patients had previously received Trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously received PERJETA® (Pertuzumab), and 91% of patients had previously received KADCYLA®. Patients were stratified by choice of chemotherapy, number of lines of therapy in the metastatic setting and number of metastatic sites. The dual Primary endpoints of the study were Progression Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and Overall Survival (OS). Additional efficacy outcome measures included Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Duration of Response (DOR) assessed by BICR.

This study demonstrated a statistically significant 24% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death with MARGENZA® plus chemotherapy compared with Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (HR= 0.76; P=0.03), with a median PFS of 5.8 months versus 4.9 months respectively. Treatment benefit was more pronounced in patients with CD16A genotypes containing a 158F allele (median PFS 6.9 versus 5.1 months, HR=0.68; P=0.005). The ORR for MARGENZA® plus chemotherapy was 22%, with a median Duration of Response of 6.1 months, compared to an ORR of 16% and median Duration of Response of 6.0 months for Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. After the second planned interim analysis, the median OS was 21.6 months with MARGENZA® versus 19.8 months with Trastuzumab (HR= 0.89; P=0.33) and the ORR was 25% versus 14% respectively (P<0.001). The final Overall Survival (OS) analysis is expected in the second half of 2021. Safety was comparable in treatment groups, although the incidence of infusion-related reactions, mostly in cycle 1, was higher with MARGENZA® (13.3% versus 3.4%).

It was concluded that MARGENZA® in combination with chemotherapy significantly improved PFS, compared to Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy, in pretreated patients with HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer. MARGENZA® along with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies.

Efficacy of Margetuximab vs Trastuzumab in Patients With Pretreated ERBB2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. Rugo HS, Im SA, Cardoso F, et al. for the SOPHIA Study Group. JAMA Oncol. Published online January 22, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7932

2021 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium: Apalutamide and Abiraterone plus Prednisone Improves PFS in Chemo-Naive mCRPC Patients

RR

SUMMARY: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men with the exclusion of skin cancer, and 1 in 8 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. It is estimated that in the United States, about 248,530 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 2021 and 34,130 men will die of the disease. The development and progression of prostate cancer is driven by androgens. Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) or testosterone suppression has therefore been the cornerstone of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, and is the first treatment intervention. Androgen Deprivation Therapies have included bilateral orchiectomy or Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) analogues, with or without first generation Androgen Receptor (AR) inhibitors such as CASODEX® (Bicalutamide), NILANDRON® (Nilutamide) and EULEXIN® (Flutamide) or with second generation anti-androgen agents, which include ZYTIGA® (Abiraterone), XTANDI® (Enzalutamide), ERLEADA® (Apalutamide) and NUBEQA® (Darolutamide). Approximately 10-20% of patients with advanced Prostate cancer will progress to Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPC) within five years during ADT, and over 80% of these patients will have metastatic disease at the time of CRPC diagnosis. Among those patients without metastases at CRPC diagnosis, 33% are likely to develop metastases within two years. Progression to Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPC) often manifests itself with a rising PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen), and watchful waiting is often recommended in men with non-metastatic CRPC. However, those with a rapidly rising PSA on ADT (doubling time of less than 8-10 months), are at significantly greater risk of developing metastases and death. The estimated mean survival of patients with CRPC is 9-36 months, and there is therefore an unmet need for new effective therapies.MOA-of-Androgen-Receptor-Targeted-Agents

Expression of Androgen Receptor (AR) in prostate cancer is heterogeneous and this AR heterogeneity is accentuated in advanced metastatic and relapsed prostate cancer with varying degrees of AR resistance and sensitivity. Both single agent ERLEADA® (Apalutamide) and ZYTIGA® (Abiraterone acetate) in combination with Prednisone, are approved for the treatment of metastatic CRPC. They have distinct mechanisms of action on the Androgen Receptors. Apalutamide is an Androgen Receptor (AR) inhibitor that binds directly to the ligand-binding domain of the AR. Apalutamide inhibits AR nuclear translocation, inhibits DNA binding, and impedes AR-mediated transcription. Abiraterone acetate is an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor that inhibits CYP17, an enzyme expressed in testicular, adrenal, and prostatic tumor tissues, and is required for androgen biosynthesis. The ACIS trial was conducted to study the benefit of androgen annihilation by combining these two drugs (dual inhibition), for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRPC.

ACIS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study Phase III trial in which the efficacy and safety of single agent Apalutamide and Abiraterone acetate along with Prednisone plus ADT, was compared to placebo and Abiraterone acetate with Prednisone plus ADT, in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. This study enrolled 982 chemo naïve patients with metastatic CRPC, who had disease progression on ADT, and were on no other life-prolonging treatment since diagnosis. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Apalutamide 240 mg daily along with Abiraterone acetate 1000 mg daily plus Prednisone 5 mg twice daily, all given orally (N=492) versus Placebo along with Abiraterone Acetate plus Prednisone (N=490). All patients were also on Androgen Deprivation Therapy. The median patient age was 71 years, 53% of patients had a Gleason score of 7 or more at initial diagnosis, about 85% had bone metastases, 48% had lymph node metastases and 15% had visceral metastases. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both treatment groups.
The Primary end point was radiographic Progression Free Survival (rPFS), defined from randomization date to radiographic progression date or death. Secondary end points included PSA response, Overall Survival (OS), initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and pain progression.

This trial met its Primary endpoint of rPFS benefit with androgen annihilation, and the Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination prolonged rPFS from 16.6 months to 22.6 months (HR=0.69, P<0.0001), suggesting a 31% reduction in the risk of radiographic disease progression and death. However, after 54.8 months of median follow-up, Overall Survival was numerically higher but not statistically significantly higher with Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination (36.2 months versus 33.7 months, P=0.498). In the pre-specified subgroup analysis, the Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination was more favorable in patients 75 years and older and in those with visceral metastases. More patients receiving Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination had a PSA decline greater than 50%. In an exploratory analysis of biomarkers of response, tumors classified as luminal by the PAM50 signature score, or those having high AR activity expression signatures, trended towards improved rPFS and OS with the Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination. There were no new safety signals noted with the Apalutamide plus Abiraterone combination, and based on FACT (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate) -P score, Quality of Life was comparable between treatment groups.

It was concluded that the ACIS trial met its Primary endpoint, and when compared to Abiraterone with ADT, a combination of Apalutamide plus Abiraterone along with ADT demonstrated a 31% reduction in risk of radiographic progression or death, in chemo-naive mCRPC patients.

Final results from ACIS, a randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled double-blind phase 3 study of apalutamide (APA) and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) versus AAP in patients (pts) with chemo-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Rathkopf DE, Efstathiou E, Attard G, et al. On behalf of the ACIS investigators. J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 6; abstr 9)

Advances with First-Line Dual Immunotherapies in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

RR

By Dr. David Waterhouse | Sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr. Waterhouse is a paid consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and was compensated for his role in drafting this article.

The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be nearly 229,000 new cases of lung cancer in the United States (US) alone in 2020 and nearly 136,000 lung cancer deaths.1 Historically, most patients present with metastatic disease and their long-term outlook is grim.2 However, significant progress has been made in recent years. In August 2020, Howlader et al reported that the population-level mortality from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the US fell sharply from 2013 to 2016.3

Based on the results from Checkmate 227 Part 1a, OPDIVO, in combination with YERVOY, is indicated for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%) as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.4-6 In addition, based on the results from Checkmate 9LA, OPDIVO, in combination with YERVOY and 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo), is indicated for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.4,6,7

OPDIVO and YERVOY are associated with the following Warnings and Precautions: severe and fatal immune-mediated reactions including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions; complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); embryo-fetal toxicity; and increased mortality in patients with multiple myeloma when OPDIVO is added to a thalidomide analogue and dexamethasone, which is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.4 Please see additional Important Safety Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY at the end of the article and US Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY at https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_opdivo.pdf and https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_yervoy.pdf.

OPDIVO® (nivolumab) is a monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) that has been approved for the treatment of lung cancer.4 YERVOY® (ipilimumab) is another monoclonal antibody that works to activate the immune system by targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4).6,8

Figure 1: OPDIVO and YERVOY mechanisms of action4,6,8-14

OPDIVO+YERVOY-MOAThis graphic is for demonstration purposes only.
The illustrated mechanisms may vary for each patient and may not directly correlate with clinical significance.

The phase 3 Checkmate 227 and Checkmate 9LA trials investigated OPDIVO plus YERVOY-based combinations for first-line treatment of certain NSCLC patients.4 Part 1a of Checkmate 227 investigated the effects of OPDIVO + YERVOY compared with standard chemo* among patients whose tumors expressed ≥1% programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)4 (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Checkmate 227 Part 1a study design15
Checkmate-227-Study-Design*In Checkmate 227, patients in the comparator arm received up to 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance following chemo; SQ: gemcitabine + carboplatin or cisplatin.4,16,17
ALK=anaplastic lymphoma kinase; DOR=duration of response; ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; NSQ=non-squamous; q2w=every 2 weeks; q6w=every 6 weeks; SQ=squamous.

OPDIVO + YERVOY showed a superior survival benefit compared with chemo*, with the primary analysis at a minimum follow-up of 29.3 months revealing a median overall survival (OS) of 17.1 months vs 14.9 months with chemo*, and a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67–0.94, P=0.0066 (Figure 3).4,16 The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.1–6.3) with OPDIVO + YERVOY and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.6–5.8) with chemo* alone (HR=0.82; 95% CI: 0.69–0.97).4

The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse reactions were pneumonia, diarrhea/colitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, pulmonary embolism, adrenal insufficiency, and hypophysitis. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1.7% of patients; these included events of pneumonitis (4 patients), myocarditis, acute kidney injury, shock, hyperglycemia, multi-system organ failure, and renal failure.4 The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions were fatigue (44%), rash (34%), decreased appetite (31%), musculoskeletal pain (27%), diarrhea/colitis (26%), dyspnea (26%), cough (23%), hepatitis (21%), nausea (21%), and pruritus (21%).4 Please continue reading for more Important Safety Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY throughout.

Figure 3: Checkmate 227 OS for PD L1 ≥1% (extended 3-year follow-up analysis)4,15

Median-OS-Primary-Analysis-OPDIVO+YERVOY

*In Checkmate 227, patients in the comparator arm received up to 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance following chemo; SQ: gemcitabine + carboplatin or cisplatin.4,16,17

At the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2020 Annual Meeting, 3-year follow-up results from this trial were reported. With a median follow-up of more than 3 years (43.1 months), this study represents the longest median follow-up of any dual immuno-oncology (I-O)-based combination in a phase 3 clinical trial in NSCLC.15 This extended follow-up analysis showed 3-year OS rates of 33% for OPDIVO + YERVOY and 22% for chemo* (Figure 3).15

At minimum follow-up of 28.3 months, the objective response rate was 36% (95% CI: 31–41), CR=5.8%, PR=30.1% with OPDIVO + YERVOY and 30% (95% CI: 26–35), CR=1.8%, PR=28.2% with chemo*.4,16,17 The median duration of response from the extended 3-year follow-up analysis was 23.2 months (95% CI: 15.2–32.2) in patients who responded to OPDIVO + YERVOY and 6.7 months (95% CI: 5.6–7.6) with chemo* (Figure 4).15

Figure 4: Checkmate 227 DOR among responders with PD L1 ≥1% (extended 3-year follow-up analysis)15

Median-DOR-OPDIVO+YERVOY

Median follow-up of 43.1 months.15
*In Checkmate 227, patients in the comparator arm received up to 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance following chemo; SQ: gemcitabine + carboplatin or cisplatin.4,16,17

The 3-year data from Checkmate 227 Part 1a show the long-term durable survival of a dual immunotherapy approach.15 The FDA approved OPDIVO + YERVOY on May 15, 2020, for first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors express PD-L1(≥1%) as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations. With this approval, these patients with NSCLC can now be offered the option of dual I-O therapy.4,5

Also reported at ASCO 2020 were the results of Checkmate 9LA.18 Patients were randomized to receive either the combination of OPDIVO + YERVOY and 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo† or platinum-doublet chemo† for 4 cycles.4 This trial evaluated patients regardless of PD-L1 expression and histology (Figure 5).4

Figure 5: Checkmate 9LA study design18

Checkmate-9LA-Study-Design

†In Checkmate 9LA, patients received 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w in the experimental arm, and up to 4 cycles in the comparator arm; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin (optional pemetrexed maintenance therapy in comparator arm only); SQ: paclitaxel + carboplatin.4
q3w=every three weeks.

The trial showed a superior benefit in OS for patients treated with OPDIVO + YERVOY with limited chemo† compared to those who received chemo† alone.18 At the pre-specified interim analysis at 8.1 months, the median OS was 14.1 months vs 10.7 months (HR=0.69, 96.71% CI: 0.55-0.87, P=0.0006).4 Median PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) at minimum follow-up of 6.5 months was 6.8 months among patients who received OPDIVO + YERVOY with chemo†, and 5.0 months among patients receiving chemo† (HR=0.70, 97.48% CI: 0.57-0.86).4 Confirmed ORR per BICR at minimum follow-up of 6.5 months was 38% (95% CI: 33-43) and 25% (95% CI: 21-30) respectively.4,18

A follow-up analysis performed at 12.7 months showed median OS of 15.6 months with OPDIVO + YERVOY with chemo† and 10.9 months with chemo† alone with HR of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.55-0.80) (Figure 6).4,18 OS was consistent across PD-L1 expression levels at minimum follow-up of 8.1 months, with median OS of 14.0 months (95% CI:13.2-NR) and 10.0 months (95% CI: 7.7-13.7) in patients treated with OPDIVO + YERVOY with limited chemo† and chemo† respectively in the PD-L1 <1% sub-population (HR=0.65), and median OS of 14.2 months (95% CI:13.1-NR) and 10.6 months (95% CI: 9.4-12.6) respectively (HR=0.67) in the PD-L1 ≥1% sub-population.19

Figure 6: Checkmate 9LA overall survival (extended follow-up)18

Checkmate-9LA-OS
Minimum follow-up of 12.7 months.
†In Checkmate 9LA, patients received 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w in the experimental arm, and up to 4 cycles in the comparator arm; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin (optional pemetrexed maintenance therapy in comparator arm only); SQ: paclitaxel + carboplatin.4

In this study, the most frequent (>2%) serious adverse reactions were pneumonia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, anemia, acute kidney injury, musculoskeletal pain, dyspnea, pneumonitis, and respiratory failure. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 7 (2%) patients, and included hepatic toxicity, acute renal failure, sepsis, pneumonitis, diarrhea with hypokalemia, and massive hemoptysis in the setting of thrombocytopenia.4 The most common (>20%) adverse reactions were fatigue (49%), musculoskeletal pain (39%), nausea (32%), diarrhea (31%), rash (30%), decreased appetite (28%), constipation (21%), and pruritus (21%).4 Please continue reading for more Important Safety Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY throughout. The FDA approved OPDIVO, in combination with YERVOY and 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo, for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations in May 2020.4,7

With the approval of both Checkmate 227 and Checkmate 9LA regimens as first-line therapies, I am pleased to be able to offer metastatic NSCLC patients with additional options. Checkmate 227 provides appropriate mNSCLC patients with a chemo-free, dual I-O option with long-term, durable survival. Additionally, the Checkmate 9LA regimen with dual I-O plus limited chemo† has shown superior OS, and consistent OS, regardless of PD-L1 expression in recurrent/metastatic NSCLC patients.4,18

*In Checkmate 227, patients in the comparator arm received up to 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance following chemo; SQ: gemcitabine + carboplatin or cisplatin.4,16,17
†In Checkmate 9LA, patients received 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo q3w in the experimental arm, and up to 4 cycles in the comparator arm; NSQ: pemetrexed + carboplatin or cisplatin (optional pemetrexed maintenance therapy in comparator arm only); SQ: paclitaxel + carboplatin.4

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO or YERVOY. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO and YERVOY. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) level, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO and before each dose of YERVOY. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO or YERVOY interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In NSCLC patients receiving OPDIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks with YERVOY 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 9% (50/576) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.5%), Grade 3 (3.5%), and Grade 2 (4.0%). Four patients (0.7%) died due to pneumonitis.

Immune-Mediated Colitis

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated colitis, which may be fatal. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies.

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated hepatitis.

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune-mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated nephritis.

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions

OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.

YERVOY can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, including bullous and exfoliative dermatitis, SJS, TEN, and DRESS. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-bullous/exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received OPDIVO monotherapy or OPDIVO in combination with YERVOY or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: cardiac/vascular: myocarditis, pericarditis, vasculitis; nervous system: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

In addition to the immune-mediated adverse reactions listed above, across clinical trials of YERVOY monotherapy or in combination with OPDIVO, the following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions, some with fatal outcome, occurred in <1% of patients unless otherwise specified: nervous system: autoimmune neuropathy (2%), myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis, motor dysfunction; cardiovascular: angiopathy, temporal arteritis; ocular: blepharitis, episcleritis, orbital myositis, scleritis; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis (1.3%); other (hematologic/immune): conjunctivitis, cytopenias (2.5%), eosinophilia (2.1%), erythema multiforme, hypersensitivity vasculitis, neurosensory hypoacusis, psoriasis.

Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving YERVOY, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Infusion-Related Reactions

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY in patients with severe (Grade 3) or life-threatening (Grade 4) infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2) infusion-related reactions.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with OPDIVO or YERVOY. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between OPDIVO or YERVOY and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity

Based on its mechanism of action and findings from animal studies, OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The effects of YERVOY are likely to be greater during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Increased Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma when OPDIVO is Added to a Thalidomide Analogue and Dexamethasone

In randomized clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of OPDIVO to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.

Lactation

There are no data on the presence of OPDIVO or YERVOY in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effects on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment and for 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions

In Checkmate 227, serious adverse reactions occurred in 58% of patients (n=576). The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse reactions were pneumonia, diarrhea/colitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, pulmonary embolism, adrenal insufficiency, and hypophysitis. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1.7% of patients; these included events of pneumonitis (4 patients), myocarditis, acute kidney injury, shock, hyperglycemia, multi-system organ failure, and renal failure. In Checkmate 9LA, serious adverse reactions occurred in 57% of patients (n=358). The most frequent (>2%) serious adverse reactions were pneumonia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, anemia, acute kidney injury, musculoskeletal pain, dyspnea, pneumonitis, and respiratory failure. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 7 (2%) patients, and included hepatic toxicity, acute renal failure, sepsis, pneumonitis, diarrhea with hypokalemia, and massive hemoptysis in the setting of thrombocytopenia.

Common Adverse Reactions

In Checkmate 227, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions were fatigue (44%), rash (34%), decreased appetite (31%), musculoskeletal pain (27%), diarrhea/colitis (26%), dyspnea (26%), cough (23%), hepatitis (21%), nausea (21%), and pruritus (21%). In Checkmate 9LA, the most common (>20%) adverse reactions were fatigue (49%), musculoskeletal pain (39%), nausea (32%), diarrhea (31%), rash (30%), decreased appetite (28%), constipation (21%), and pruritus (21%).

Please see U.S. Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY:
• https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_opdivo.pdf
• https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_yervoy.pdf

References:
1. Key statistics for lung cancer. American Cancer Society. Reviewed October 1, 2019. Revised January 8, 2020. Accessed October 7, 2020. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html.
2. Lung and bronchus cancer – cancer stat facts. National Cancer Institute. Accessed October 7, 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html.
3. Howlader N, Forjaz G, Mooradian MJ, et al. The effect of advances in lung-cancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:640-649.
4. OPDIVO [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
5. FDA approval for Checkmate 227. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab-first-line-mnsclc-pd-l1-tumor-expression-1.
6. YERVOY [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
7. FDA approval for Checkmate 9LA. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab-and-chemotherapy-first-line-treatment-metastatic-nsclc.
8. Weber JS, Hamid O, Chasalow SD, et al. Ipilimumab increases activated T cells and enhances humoral immunity in patients with advanced melanoma. J Immunother. 2012;35:89-97.
9. Farber DL, Yudanin NA, and Restifo NP. Human memory T cells: generation, compartmentalization and homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(1):24-35.
10. Ansell SM, Hurvitz SA, Koenig PA, et al. Phase I study of ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, in patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell non–Hodgkin lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(20):6446-6453.
11. Felix J, Lambert J, Roelens M, et al. Ipilimumab reshapes T cell memory subsets in melanoma patients with clinical response. Oncoimmunology. 2016;5(7):e1136045.
12. Pedicord VA, Montalvo W, Leiner IM, and Allison JP. Single dose of anti–CTLA-4 enhances CD8+ T-cell memory formation, function, and maintenance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(1):266-271.
13. de Coaña YP, Wolodarski M, Poschke I, et al. Ipilimumab treatment decreases monocytic MDSCs and increases CD8 effector memory T cells in long-term survivors with advanced melanoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(13):21539-21553.
14. Buchbinder EI and Desai A. CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways: similarities, differences, and implications of their inhibition. Am J Clin Oncol. 2016;39:98-106.
15. Ramalingam S, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzanski A, et al. Nivolumab + ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Three-year update from Checkmate 227 Part 1. Oral presentation at ASCO 2020. Abstract 9500.
16. Hellmann MD, Paz-Ares L, Bernabe Caro R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2020-2031.
17. Hellmann MD, Paz-Ares L, Bernabe Caro R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2020-2031. [supplementary appendix].
18. Reck M, Ciuleanu T-E, Cobo M, et al. Nivolumab + ipilimumab + 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy vs 4 cycles chemotherapy as first-line treatment for stage IV/recurrent NSCLC: Checkmate 9LA. Oral presentation at ASCO 2020. Abstract 9501.
19. Data on file. NIVO 566. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

ASH 2021 Guidelines for Management of VTE in Patients with Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 1-2 per 1000 individuals develop Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)/Pulmonary Embolism (PE) each year in the United States, resulting in 60,000-100,000 deaths. Venous ThromboEmbolism (VTE) is the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality, after myocardial infarction and stroke. Ambulatory cancer patients initiating chemotherapy are at varying risk for Venous Thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn can have a substantial effect on health care costs, with negative impact on quality of life.

Approximately 20% of cancer patients develop VTE and about 20% of all VTE cases occur in patients with cancer. There is a two-fold increase in the risk of recurrent thrombosis in patients with cancer, compared with those without cancer, and patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The high risk of recurrent VTE, as well as bleeding in this patient group, makes anticoagulant treatment challenging.

American Society of Hematology (ASH) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and the guidelines summarized below are based on updated and original systematic reviews of evidence, conducted under the direction of the McMaster University GRADE Center with international collaborators. The main objective is to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Primary prophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients with cancer.
♦ For patients without VTE, the panel suggests using thromboprophylaxis over no thromboprophylaxis and in whom pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is used, the panel suggests using Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) over UnFractionated Heparin (UFH).
♦ For patients without VTE, the panel suggests using pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis over mechanical thromboprophylaxis or a combination of pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis.
♦ For hospitalized medical patients with cancer, the ASH guideline panel suggests discontinuing thromboprophylaxis at the time of hospital discharge rather than continuing thromboprophylaxis beyond the discharge date.
Primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer undergoing surgery.
♦ For patients without VTE undergoing a surgical procedure at lower bleeding risk, the panel suggests using pharmacologic rather than mechanical thromboprophylaxis and for those undergoing a surgical procedure at high bleeding risk, the panel suggests using mechanical rather than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
♦ For patients without VTE undergoing a surgical procedure at high risk for thrombosis, except in those at high risk of bleeding, the panel suggests using a combination of mechanical and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rather than mechanical prophylaxis alone or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone.
♦ For all patients, the panel suggests using LMWH or Fondaparinux for thromboprophylaxis rather than UFH.
♦ The panel makes no recommendation on the use of Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) or Direct Oral AntiCoagulants (DOACs) for thromboprophylaxis, as there are no data.
♦ The panel suggests using postoperative thromboprophylaxis over preoperative thromboprophylaxis.
♦ For patients who have undergone a major abdominal/pelvic surgical procedure, the panel suggests continuing pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, postdischarge rather than discontinuing at the time of hospital discharge.
Primary prophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy.
♦ For patients at low and intermediate risk for thrombosis receiving systemic therapy, the panel recommends/suggests no thromboprophylaxis over parenteral thromboprophylaxis respectively. For patients at high risk, the panel suggests parenteral thromboprophylaxis (LMWH) over no thromboprophylaxis.
♦ The panel recommends no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with VKAs.
♦ For patients at low risk for thrombosis, the panel suggests no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with a DOAC (Apixaban or Rivaroxaban). For patients at intermediate risk, the panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with a DOAC (apixaban or rivaroxaban) or no thromboprophylaxis. For patients at high risk, the panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with a DOAC (Apixaban or Rivaroxaban) over no thromboprophylaxis.
♦ For patients with multiple myeloma receiving Lenalidomide, Thalidomide, or Pomalidomide-based regimens, the panel suggests using low-dose Aspirin or fixed low-dose VKAs or LMWH.
Primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer with Central Venous Catheter (CVC).
♦ The panel suggests not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis.
Initial treatment (first week) for patients with active cancer and VTE.
♦ The panel suggests DOAC (Apixaban or Rivaroxaban) or LMWH be used for initial treatment of VTE.
♦ The panel recommends/suggests LMWH over UFH and Fondaparinux respectively, for initial treatment of VTE.
Short-term treatment for patients with active cancer (initial 3-6 months).
♦ The panel suggests DOACs (Apixaban, Edoxaban, or Rivaroxaban) over LMWH and VKAs, and LMWH over VKAs.
♦ For patients with incidental (unsuspected) Pulmonary Embolism (PE), or SubSegmental PE (SSPE), the panel suggests short-term anticoagulation treatment rather than observation.
♦ For patients with visceral/splanchnic vein thrombosis, the panel suggests treatment with short-term anticoagulation or observation.
♦ For patients with CVC-related VTE receiving anticoagulant treatment, the panel suggests keeping the CVC over removing the CVC.
♦ For patients with recurrent VTE despite receiving therapeutic LMWH, the panel suggests increasing the LMWH dose to a supratherapeutic level or continuing with a therapeutic dose.
♦ For patients with recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation treatment, the panel suggests not using an Inferior Vena Cava filter over using a filter.
Long-term treatment (>6 months) for patients with active cancer and VTE.
♦ The panel suggests long-term anticoagulation for secondary prophylaxis (> 6 months) rather than short-term treatment alone (3-6 months), and the panel suggests continuing indefinite anticoagulation over stopping after completion of a definitive period of anticoagulation.
♦ For patients requiring long-term anticoagulation (> 6 months), the panel suggests using DOACs or LMWH.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer. Lyman GH, Carrier M, Ay C, et al. Blood Adv 2021;5: 927–974.

FDA Approves LIBTAYO® for Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on February 9, 2021, granted regular approval to LIBTAYO® (Cemiplimab-rwlc) for patients with locally advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma (laBCC) previously treated with a HedgeHog pathway Inhibitor (HHI) or for whom a HHI is not appropriate, and granted accelerated approval to LIBTAYO® for patients with metastatic BCC (mBCC) previously treated with a HHI or for whom a HHI is not appropriate.

BCC is the most common type of skin cancer in the U.S., with approximately two million new cases diagnosed every year. Exposure to UltraViolet rays is a significant risk factor. Majority of BCCs are diagnosed early and cured with surgery and radiation. However, a small proportion of tumors can become locally advanced or progress to metastatic disease and can be painful and disfiguring. The primary systemic treatment options for these patients with advanced BCC are oral HedgeHog pathway inhibitors such as ERIVEDGE® (Vismodegib) and ODOMZO® (Sonidegib). There are however no FDA-approved treatment options available, for patients who progress on, or are intolerant to HedgeHog Inhibitors (HHIs).

LIBTAYO® is a fully human IgG4, high affinity anti-PD-1, monoclonal antibody, that binds to the PD-1 receptor on tumor-infiltrating T cells and blocks its interaction with tumor derived ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, thereby undoing PD-1 pathway-mediated inhibition of the immune response and unleashing the tumor-specific effector T cells. LIBTAYO® was previously approved by the FDA in 2018 as the first systemic treatment for adults with metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC, who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation.

The present FDA approval of LIBTAYO® was based on results from an interim analysis of an ongoing open-label, multi-center, non-randomized Phase II trial (Study 1620), involving patients with unresectable locally advanced BCC or metastatic BCC (nodal or distant). This was the first and largest prospective clinical trial (N=132) among this patient population, with 112 patients included in the efficacy analysis. Patients in both cohorts (locally advanced and metastatic) had either progressed on HHI therapy, had not had an objective response after 9 months on HHI therapy, or were intolerant of prior HHI therapy. Eligibility required that locally advanced BCC patients were not candidates for curative surgery or curative RT, per multidisciplinary assessment. All patients received LIBTAYO® 350 mg IV over 30 minutes every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or completion of planned treatment. No PD-L1 or Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) testing was required before starting treatment with LIBTAYO®. The Primary efficacy endpoint was confirmed Objective Response Rate (ORR) and a key Secondary endpoint was Duration of Response (DOR), as assessed by Independent Central Review.

Among the 84 patients with locally advanced BCC, the confirmed ORR was 29% with a median DOR not reached, and 79% of responders maintained their response for at least 6 months. Among 28 patients with metastatic BCC, the confirmed ORR was 21%, with a median DOR not reached, and all responders maintained their responses for at least 6 months. The most common adverse reactions (incidence 20% or more) were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, rash, and pruritis.

It was concluded from this study that LIBTAYO® is the first agent to provide clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity including durable responses, in patients with advanced BCC, after progression or intolerance on HHI therapy.

Interim Analysis of Phase 2 Results for Cemiplimab in Patients with Metastatic Basal Cell Carcinoma (mBCC) who Progressed on or are Intolerant to Hedgehog Inhibitors (HHIs). Lewis KD, Peris K, Sekulic A, et al. Presented at the 2021 Winter Clinical Dermatology Conference, January 16–24, Virtual Conference (encore of SITC 2020 poster presentation).

Key Breast Cancer Risk Genes Identified from Two Large Studies

RR

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. Approximately 284,200 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2021 and about 44,130 individuals will die of the disease largely due to metastatic recurrence.

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility with multigene testing panels is now becoming widely available and affordable. Identification of pathogenic variants in predisposition genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 among carriers has provided benefit through early intervention. However, the evidence of an association with cancer is often weak for many other genes on multigene testing panels, and estimates of the cancer risks associated with such variants are often not available. Further, estimates of the prevalence of pathogenic variants in predisposition genes in the general population are lacking.

Two large breast cancer case-control studies analyzed the associations between a number of commonly accepted cancer susceptibility genes and breast cancer risk.

The multinational study by Dorling et al. used a panel of 34 commonly accepted cancer susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls (unaffected woman) from 25 countries participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The authors estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes and evaluated missense-variant associations and classification of pathogenicity. The researchers found strong evidence of an association with breast cancer risk for Protein-Truncating Variants (genetic variants) caused by frameshift mutations in 9 genes, with a significant risk for breast cancer and P value of less than 0.0001 for 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 – Odds Ratios ranging from 2.1 for ATM to 10.6 for BRCA1), and a P value of less than 0.05 for the other 4 genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 – Odds Ratio ranging from 1.8 for RAD51D to 3.06 for TP53). Further, it was noted that for the genetic variants in most of these genes, the Odds Ratio differed according to breast cancer subtype. Protein-Truncating Variants in ATM and CHEK2 were more strongly associated with ER-positive disease than with ER-negative disease, whereas genetic variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D were more strongly associated with ER-negative disease than with ER-positive disease. It was also found that rare missense variants in CHEK2 overall, as well as variants in specific domains in ATM, were associated with moderate breast cancer risk. The researchers also noted that none of the other 25 genes in the panel were informative for the prediction of breast cancer risk. This study places Protein-Truncating Variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and Protein-Truncating Variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51C, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category.

The US study by Hu et al. used a panel of 28 cancer predisposition genes to perform sequencing on samples from 32,247 women with breast cancer and 32,544 controls (unaffected women) from population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. The researchers assessed the associations between pathogenic variants in each gene and the risk of breast cancer.
The researchers noted that pathogenic variants in 12 established breast cancer predisposition genes were detected in 5% of breast cancer patients and in 1.63% of controls. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with a high risk of breast cancer, with Odds Ratios of 7.62 and 5.23 respectively and pathogenic variants in PALB2 were associated with a moderate risk (Odds Ratio 3.83). Pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D were associated with increased risks of ER-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, whereas pathogenic variants in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 were associated with an increased risk of ER-positive breast cancer. Pathogenic variants in the other 16 candidate breast cancer predisposition genes were not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Taken together, the results from these two large case-control studies suggested that variants in 8 genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2, had a significant association with breast cancer risk and majority of the other genes tested did not have a significant association with disease. Further, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer was different from the distribution among controls (unaffected women). Among breast cancer patients, the majority of mutations were in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2, and among controls, the majority of mutations were in CHEK2 and ATM.

It can be concluded that, these two studies define the genes that are of utmost clinical value for inclusion on sequencing panels, for the prediction of breast cancer risk, and provides estimates of the prevalence of the pathogenic variants in the unaffected population. The authors added that these estimates can inform cancer testing and screening and improve clinical management strategies for women in the general population with inherited pathogenic variants in these genes.

Breast Cancer Risk Genes – Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women. Breast Cancer Association Consortium; Dorling L, Carvalho S, Allen J, et al. N Engl J Med 2021;384:428-439.

A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer. Hu C, Hart SN, Gnanaolivu R, et al. N Engl J Med 2021;384:440-451.

FDA Approves UKONIQ® for Relapsed or Refractory Marginal Zone and Follicular Lymphomas

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on February 5, 2021 granted accelerated approval to UKONIQ® (Umbralisib), a kinase inhibitor including PI3K-delta and Casein Kinase CK1-epsilon, for adult patients with Relapsed or Refractory Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one prior anti-CD20-based regimen and adult patients with Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma (FL) who have received at least three prior lines of systemic therapy. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2021, about 81,560 people will be diagnosed with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) in the United States and about 20,720 individuals will die of this disease. Indolent Non Hodgkin Lymphomas are mature B cell lymphoproliferative disorders and include Follicular Lymphoma, Nodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma (NMZL), Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma (ENMZL) of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT), Splenic Marginal Zone Lymphoma (SMZL), LymphoPlasmacytic Lymphoma (LPL) and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL). Follicular Lymphoma is the most indolent form and second most common form of all NHLs and they are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative malignancies. Approximately 20% of all NHLs are Follicular Lymphomas (FL).

Advanced stage indolent NHL is not curable and as such, prolonging Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS), while maintaining Quality of Life, have been the goals of treatment intervention. Asymptomatic patients with indolent NHL are generally considered candidates for “watch and wait” approach. Patients with advanced stage symptomatic Follicular Lymphoma are often treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy followed by maintenance RITUXAN® (Rituximab). This can result in a median PFS of 6-8 yrs and a median OS of 12-15 yrs. However, approximately 30% of the patients will relapse in 3 years and treatment options are limited for patients with relapses, after multiple treatments.

UKONIQ® is an oral, once-daily, dual inhibitor of Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase-delta (PI3Kδ) and Casein Kinase 1-epsilon (CK1-epsilon) that exhibits improved selectivity for the delta isoform of PI3K. In contrast with other PI3K inhibitors, there was a low incidence of immune-mediated toxicities with UKONIQ® possibly attributable to enhanced selectivity for the PI3Kδ isoform as well as inhibition of CK1-epsilon.

The present FDA approval was based on the UNITY-NHL trial (NCT02793583), which is global, multicenter, open-label, multicohort, Phase IIb registration study, designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of UKONIQ® in previously treated NHL patients. This study had a total 208 patients with indolent NHL and included 69 patients with MZL (splenic, nodal, extranodal), 117 patients with FL (grade 1, 2, 3a), and 22 patients with Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL). MZL patients were Relapsed/Refractory to 1 or more prior lines of treatment, which included an anti-CD20, while FL and SLL patients were Relapsed/Refractory to 2 or more prior lines of therapy, which included an anti-CD20 and an alkylating agent. UKONIQ® was administered at 800 mg orally once daily in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression or unacceptable tolerability. The median age was 66 years and the median duration of treatment exposure was 8.4 months. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PCP) and anti-viral prophylaxis were mandated for all patients. The Primary endpoint of the study was Overall Response Rate (ORR) as assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) and Secondary endpoints included Duration of Response (DoR), Progression Free Survival (PFS), Time To Response (TTR), and Safety.

With a median follow up of 27.8 months, the ORR for patients with MZL was 49%, with a 16% Complete Response (CR) rate and a Disease Control Rate (CR+PR+SD) of 82.6%. The ORR was consistent amongst MZL subtypes and no patients who achieved CR had experienced disease progression to date. Additionally, the median DoR and median PFS was not reached for this patient population.

Among patients with FL, with a median follow up of 27.5 months, the ORR was 45%, with 5% achieving a CR, and a DCR of 79.5%. The median TTR was 4.6 months and the median DoR was 11.1 months. The median PFS was 10.6 months.

Among SLL patients, with a median follow up of 29.3 months, the ORR was 50%, with 4.5% achieving a CR, and a DCR of 86.4%. The median TTR was 2.7 months and the median DoR was 18.3 months. The median PFS was 20.9 months.

The most common toxicities included increased creatinine, diarrhea/colitis, fatigue, transaminase elevation, musculoskeletal pain, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, reduced appetite, and cutaneous reactions.

It was concluded from this study that UKONIQ® has a favorable benefit-risk profile and achieved meaningful clinical activity in a heavily pretreated population of patients with indolent NHL. The authors added that the safety profile was manageable, with a relatively low incidence of immune-mediated toxicities and treatment discontinuations.

Umbralisib, the Once Daily Dual Inhibitor of PI3Kδ and Casein Kinase-1ε Demonstrates Clinical Activity in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Results from the Phase 2 Global Unity-NHL Trial. Zinzani PL, Samaniego F, Jurczak W, et al. Presented at the 62nd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 5-8, 2020. Abstract # 2934.

TIBSOVO® Improves Survival in IDH1 Mutated Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma

RR

SUMMARY: Bile Duct cancer (Cholangiocarcinoma), comprise about 30% of all primary liver tumors and includes both intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cancers. Klatskin tumor is a type of Cholangiocarcinoma that begins in the hilum, at the junction of the left and right bile ducts. It is the most common type of Cholangiocarcinoma, accounting for more than half of all cases. About 8,000 people in the US are diagnosed with Cholangiocarcinoma each year and approximately 20% of the cases are suitable for surgical resection. The 5-year survival is less than 10%, with limited progress made over the past two decades. There is therefore an unmet need for new effective therapies.

Isocitrate DeHydrogenase (IDH) is a metabolic enzyme that helps generate energy from glucose and other metabolites, by catalyzing the conversion of Isocitrate to Alpha-Ketoglutarate. Alpha-ketoglutarate is required to properly regulate DNA and histone methylation, which in turn is important for gene expression and cellular differentiation. IDH mutations lead to aberrant DNA methylation and altered gene expression thereby preventing cellular differentiation, with resulting immature undifferentiated cells. IDH mutations can thus promote leukemogenesis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and tumorigenesis in solid tumors and can result in inferior outcomes. There are three isoforms of IDH. IDH1 is mainly found in the cytoplasm, as well as in peroxisomes, whereas IDH2 and IDH3 are found in the mitochondria, and are a part of the Krebs cycle. Approximately 20% of patients with AML, 70% of patients with Low-grade Glioma and secondary Glioblastoma, 50% of patients with Chondrosarcoma, 20% of patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, 30% of patients with Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and 8% of patients with Myelodysplastic syndromes/Myeloproliferative neoplasms, are associated with IDH mutations.

TIBSOVO® (Ivosidenib) is an oral, targeted, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1. The FDA in July, 2018, approved TIBSOVO® for adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutation. A previously published Phase I study demonstrated the safety and activity of TIBSOVO® in patients with IDH1 mutated advanced Cholangiocarcinoma.MOA-of-Ivosidenib

ClarIDHy is an international, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, in which 187 previously treated patients with advanced Cholangiocarcinoma with an IDH1 mutation were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive TIBSOVO® 500 mg orally once daily (N=126) or matched placebo (N=61). All patients had advanced unresectable Cholangiocarcinoma. The median age was 62 years, 91% had intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, 93% of patients had metastatic disease and 47% had received two prior therapies. The Primary endpoint was Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Secondary endpoints included Safety, Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Overall Survival (OS). Crossover from placebo to TIBSOVO® was permitted upon radiographic disease progression.

This study met its Primary endpoint and the median PFS was 2.7 months for patients treated with TIBSOVO® compared to 1.4 months with placebo (HR=0.37; P<0.0001). More importantly, the median PFS at 6 and 12 months were 32% and 22% in the TIBSOVO® group, whereas no patients randomized to the placebo group were progression-free for 6 or more months, at the time of data cutoff.

The authors now reported the results of final analysis which showed an improvement in the secondary endpoint of OS, favoring patients randomized to TIBSOVO® compared to those randomized to placebo. However, statistical significance was not reached. The median OS for patients in the TIBSOVO® arm was 10.3 months compared to 7.5 months for patients in the placebo arm (HR=0.79; 1-sided P=0.093). A high proportion of patients in the placebo arm (70.5%) crossed over to TIBSOVO®. After adjusting for crossover from placebo to TIBSOVO®, the median OS for patients in the placebo arm was 5.1 months (HR=0.49; 1-sided P<0.0001).

The 6-month survival rate for patients in the TIBSOVO® arm was 69% compared to 57% of patients in the placebo arm, not adjusted for crossover. The 12-month survival rate for patients in the TIBSOVO® arm was 43% compared to 36% for patients in the placebo arm, not adjusted for crossover. Treatment with TIBSOVO® preserved patients’ physical functioning from baseline, as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, whereas patients in the placebo arm experienced decline from baseline starting cycle 2. The most common Adverse Events of any grade for TIBSOVO® were nausea (38%), diarrhea (33.1%) and fatigue (28.9%). Adverse Events leading to discontinuation were more common with placebo compared with total TIBSOVO® (8.5% versus 6.6%).

It was concluded that treatment with TIBSOVO® in patients with advanced Cholangiocarcinoma with an IDH1 mutation, resulted in significant improvement in Progression Free Survival as well as favorable Overall Survival trend, when compared to Placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. This is the first pivotal study demonstrating the clinical benefit of targeting IDH1 mutation in this patient group. This new oral, non-cytotoxic, targeted treatment option, with a tolerable safety profile, will be a welcome addition to treat this aggressive disease, for which there is an unmet need for new therapies.

Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase III, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation. Zhu A, Macarulla T, Javle MM, et al. J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 3; abstr 266)

Real-World Data: Surgery Improves Survival in Treatment Responsive Metastatic Breast Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. Approximately 284,200 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2021 and about 44,130 individuals will die of the disease largely due to metastatic recurrence. Approximately 15-20% of invasive breast cancers overexpress HER2/neu oncogene and about 50% of HER2-positive breast cancers are Hormone Receptor positive. Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer are often treated with anti-HER2 targeted therapy along with chemotherapy, irrespective of hormone receptor status, and this has resulted in significantly improved treatment outcomes. Not all HER2-positive, Hormone Receptor positive metastatic breast cancer patients, are candidates for chemotherapy. These patients however may benefit from anti-HER2 targeted therapy given along with endocrine therapy.

Approximately 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with Stage IV disease. Systemic therapy has been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast surgery is often not a consideration for patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, breast surgery can be offered for palliation of symptoms, taking into consideration the risks and benefits of such intervention, in a patient with an ulcerated, bleeding, or a fungating tumor mass, that cannot be controlled with systemic therapy.

Surgical resection of metastatic disease is not a new concept. Previously published results from randomized controlled trials among patients with metastatic breast cancer concluded that there was no survival advantage with surgical intervention. However these results have been questioned because of the small number of participants, and did not take into account either the Hormone Receptor, HER-2 status or the sequence of chemotherapy in relation to the surgical intervention. It therefore remains unclear whether surgery, in addition to systemic treatments and radiation therapy, improves survival for certain patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The authors in this real-world study identified 12,838 patients with HER-2 overexpressing and Hormone Receptor positive, Stage IV breast cancer, from the NCI database. They then studied patients who had either systemic therapy alone, systemic therapy and surgery, or had systemic therapy, surgery and radiation, and evaluated whether certain biologic subtypes and timing of chemotherapy were associated with survival advantages. Specifically, they evaluated whether the Hormone Receptor status had an influence on surgical benefit, in these treatment-responsive breast cancer patients, understanding that triple negative breast cancers are not very responsive to treatment. The researchers excluded patients who died within six months of their diagnoses, in order to ensure that only treatment-responsive cancers were being studied. The goal of this study was to understand if surgery made a difference in metastatic breast cancers that were responsive to treatment.

The researchers noted that patients with a surgical intervention tended to have a longer survival, compared to patients with other treatment plans. Patients whose cancers were HER2-positive saw prolonged survival, especially when their treatment plan included surgery. Further, in addition to the benefit of surgery among treatment-responsive metastatic breast cancer patients, the authors noted that systemic therapy before surgery (preoperative systemic therapy which included chemotherapy and targeted therapies) had the greatest survival advantage in patients with positive HER-2 and Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor status.

It was concluded from this study that patients with Stage IV breast cancer responsive to systemic therapy may be able to benefit from the addition of surgery, regardless of their biologic subtype. The authors added that clinicians should evaluate real-world evidence, including this study, when choosing the optimal treatment for their patients with metastatic breast cancer, as it may be difficult to conduct randomized clinical trials in this patient population.

ASO Author Reflections: Surgery Offers Survival Advantage in Treatment-Responsive Metastatic Breast Cancer. Stahl K, Dodge D, and Shen C. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2020; DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09286-9

FDA Approves OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® in Newly Diagnosed Advanced Kidney Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on January 22,2021, approved the combination of OPDIVO® (Nivolumab) and CABOMETYX® (Cabozantinib) as first line treatment for patients with advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). The American Cancer Society estimates that 76,080 new cases of kidney cancers will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021 and about 13,780 people will die from the disease. Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) is by far the most common type of kidney cancer and is about twice as common in men as in women. Modifiable risk factors include smoking, obesity, workplace exposure to certain substances and high blood pressure. The five year survival of patients with advanced RCC is less than 10% and there is significant unmet need for improved therapies for this disease. SUTENT® (Sunitinib) is a MultiKinase Inhibitor (MKI) which simultaneously targets the tumor cell wall, vascular endothelial cell wall as well as the pericyte/fibroblast/vascular/smooth vessel cell wall, and is capable of specifically binding to tyrosine kinases, inhibiting the earlier signaling events and thereby inhibits phosphorylation of VEGF receptor, PDGF receptor, FLT-3 and c-KIT. SUTENT® has been the standard first line intervention for treatment naïve patients with advanced RCC. In a large, multi-center, randomized, Phase III study, the median Progression Free Survival (PFS) with SUTENT® was 9.5 months, the Objective Response Rate (ORR) was 25%, and the median Overall Survival (OS) was 29.3 months, when compared with Interferon Alfa, in patients with treatment-naïve Renal Cell Carcinoma. This was however associated with a high rate of hematological toxicities.

The FDA in 2018, approved combination immunotherapy, OPDIVO® (Nivolumab) plus YERVOY® (Ipilimumab), for the treatment of intermediate or poor-risk, previously untreated advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC), based on significantly higher Overall Survival (OS) and Objective Response Rates (ORR), compared with SUTENT® (CheckMate 214). Subsequently, two studies, a combination of BAVENCIO® (Avelumab) and INLYTA® (Axitinib) – JAVELIN Renal 101, and KEYTRUDA® (Pembrolizumab) and INLYTA® (KEYNOTE-426), demonstrated superior OS, compared to SUTENT®, and for the first time set the stage for the use of a combination of checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapy in this patient population.MOA-of-CABOZANTINIB

OPDIVO®, an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor and CABOMETYX® (Cabozantinib), a small-molecule Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, are both approved as single agents, for the second-line treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma. The rationale for combining these two agents is that OPDIVO® unleashes the immune system and restores antitumor immune response, whereas CABOMETYX® has both antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and may counteract tumor-induced immunosuppression.

CheckMate 9ER study is a multinational, randomized, Phase III trial, in which a combination of OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® was compared with single agent SUTENT®, in treatment naïve patients with advanced clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. This study included 651 treatment naïve patients with advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma with a clear cell component, who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive OPDIVO® 240 mg IV every 2 weeks along with CABOMETYX® 40 mg orally daily (N=323) or SUTENT® 50 mg orally daily in 4-week-on, 2-week-off cycles (N=328). Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients with any IMDC (International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium) risk score were included. Patients with sarcomatoid tumor features were allowed. Patients were stratified by IMDC risk score and tumor PD-L1 expression. The median patient age was 62 years, 58% of patients were in the IMDC intermediate risk category and 75% of patients had tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. The Primary endpoint was Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Secondary endpoints included Overall Survival (OS), Objective Response Rate (ORR) and safety.

At a median follow up of 18.1 months, the median PFS was 16.6 months with OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® combination versus 8.3 months with single agent SUTENT® (HR=0.51; P<0.0001), suggesting a doubling of PFS, with a 49% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. The median Overall Survival, a secondary endpoint, was not reached in either treatment group, but at this first analysis, patients randomized to the OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® combination had significantly longer OS, than those receiving SUTENT® (median Not Reached; HR=0.60; P=0.001), suggesting a 40% reduction in the risk of death. These benefits were seen consistently across pre-specified subgroups defined according to IMDC risk categories and PD-L1 expression. The Objective Response Rate (ORR) was also significantly higher and doubled among patients receiving the OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® combination, compared to those receiving SUTENT® (55.7% versus 27.1%, P<0.0001). Complete response rates were also higher among those receiving the OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® combination (8.0% versus 4.6%), with a shorter median time to response, and longer duration of response. Grade 3 or more Adverse Events were higher among those receiving OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® combination, compared to those receiving SUTENT® (60.6% versus 50.9%).

It was concluded that a combination of OPDIVO® plus CABOMETYX® demonstrated superior Progression Free Survival, Overall Survival and Overall Response Rate, compared to SUTENT®, in treatment naïve patients with advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma, and provides a new treatment option for this patient group.

Nivolumab + cabozantinib vs sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: first results from the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(4). Abstract 6960.