Neil Osterweil

CHICAGO – Adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy significantly improved overall survival of premenopausal women with advanced hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, results of the randomized phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial showed.

A landmark analysis performed at 42 months of follow-up showed that the overall survival (OS) rate for women randomized to receive endocrine therapy with either a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen plus the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) was 70%, compared with 46% for women randomized to endocrine therapy plus placebo.

The trial is the first study to evaluate a CDK4/6 inhibitor exclusively in premenopausal women, and the first to show a statistically significant improvement in overall survival with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

In a video interview at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, from the University of California Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the significance of the MONALEESA-7 findings and the potential for improving on the study results with other agents or combinations.

The MONALEESA-7 trial is supported by Novartis. Dr. Hurvitz reported travel and accommodation expenses from Novartis.

CHICAGO – Adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy significantly improved overall survival of premenopausal women with advanced hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, results of the randomized phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial showed.

A landmark analysis performed at 42 months of follow-up showed that the overall survival (OS) rate for women randomized to receive endocrine therapy with either a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen plus the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) was 70%, compared with 46% for women randomized to endocrine therapy plus placebo.

The trial is the first study to evaluate a CDK4/6 inhibitor exclusively in premenopausal women, and the first to show a statistically significant improvement in overall survival with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

In a video interview at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, from the University of California Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the significance of the MONALEESA-7 findings and the potential for improving on the study results with other agents or combinations.

The MONALEESA-7 trial is supported by Novartis. Dr. Hurvitz reported travel and accommodation expenses from Novartis.

CHICAGO – Adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy significantly improved overall survival of premenopausal women with advanced hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, results of the randomized phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial showed.

A landmark analysis performed at 42 months of follow-up showed that the overall survival (OS) rate for women randomized to receive endocrine therapy with either a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen plus the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) was 70%, compared with 46% for women randomized to endocrine therapy plus placebo.

The trial is the first study to evaluate a CDK4/6 inhibitor exclusively in premenopausal women, and the first to show a statistically significant improvement in overall survival with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

In a video interview at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, from the University of California Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the significance of the MONALEESA-7 findings and the potential for improving on the study results with other agents or combinations.

The MONALEESA-7 trial is supported by Novartis. Dr. Hurvitz reported travel and accommodation expenses from Novartis.

CHICAGO – Adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy as salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy was associated with significantly better metastasis-free survival at nearly 10 years compared with salvage radiation alone, long-term results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 112 months (9.3 years), the metastasis-free survival (MFS) rate for 369 patients assigned to receive salvage radiation and short-term goserelin was 75%, compared with 69% for 374 patients randomized to radiation alone (P = .034), reported Nicolas Magné, MD, from Jean Monnet Saint Etienne University in Saint-Priest en Jarez, France.

“We can conclude and do believe that short ADT, only two injections at 3-month intervals, could increase MFS at 10 years compared to radiation alone in patients with rising PSA after initial prostatectomy,“ he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 10 years.

Dr. Magné and co-investigators in the GETUG-AFU 16 trial had previously reported that after a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients assigned to radiation plus goserelin were significantly more likely to be free of biochemical or clinical progression at 5 years than patients assigned to radiotherapy alone (80% vs, 62%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, P less than .0001).

The open-label trial enrolled men 18 or older from 43 French centers who had been treated for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate but had not received prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or pelvic radiation. The patients had either stage pT2 or pT3 cancers, or stage pT4a with invasive disease limited to the bladder neck. The patients all had biochemical failure, defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.2 to 2.0 mcg/L following radical prostatectomy, with no clinically evident disease.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive standard salvage radiotherapy either alone or with hormonal therapy. Randomization was stratified by investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis.

Radiotherapy consisted of either 3-D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, delivered in 66 Gy doses divided into 33 fractions of 2 Gy each 5 days a week for 7 weeks.

Patients assigned to hormonal therapy in addition to radiation received one subcutaneous injection of goserelin 10.8 mg on the first day of radiation, and a second injection 3 months later.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was significantly better with the combination than with radiation alone for both low-risk patients (HR 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.80), and high-risk patients (HR 0.56, CI 0.44-0.83).

As noted before, metastasis-free survival was also significantly better in the combination arm ( HR, 0.73, P = .034) at 10 years.

Invited discussant Daniel Spratt, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, commented that the study results “do show, just like they did in 2016, that bicochemical control is improved, which is linked to their primary endpoint of PFS, but I always caution that this alone will always be improved with testosterone suppression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

He noted that if you give ADT to patients with low-risk prostate cancer “that we don’t usually even treat today,” adding hormonal therapy will produce a nearly identical improvement in biochemical control, suggesting more of a signal than a clinical benefit.

The improvement in MFS, however, is indeed a clinical benefit, “but it is a small difference, and one thing to note is that when you give these patients about 6 months of hormonal therapy, depending on the age of the patient, it can be about 6 months until they recover testosterone, and at their median follow-up, you can see that the delay in MFS, which is usually the trigger to start hormone therapy, is about 12 months. So it’s important when you counsel these patients that [for] about potentially 6 months to a year of symptoms you may delay the need for hormone therapy by about 12 months,” he said.

The study was supported by UNICANCER and AstraZeneca. Dr. Magné reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spratt reported amconsulting or advisory role with Blue Earth Diagnostics and Janssen Oncology.

SOURCE: Magn é D et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 5001.

CHICAGO – Adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy as salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy was associated with significantly better metastasis-free survival at nearly 10 years compared with salvage radiation alone, long-term results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 112 months (9.3 years), the metastasis-free survival (MFS) rate for 369 patients assigned to receive salvage radiation and short-term goserelin was 75%, compared with 69% for 374 patients randomized to radiation alone (P = .034), reported Nicolas Magné, MD, from Jean Monnet Saint Etienne University in Saint-Priest en Jarez, France.

“We can conclude and do believe that short ADT, only two injections at 3-month intervals, could increase MFS at 10 years compared to radiation alone in patients with rising PSA after initial prostatectomy,“ he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 10 years.

Dr. Magné and co-investigators in the GETUG-AFU 16 trial had previously reported that after a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients assigned to radiation plus goserelin were significantly more likely to be free of biochemical or clinical progression at 5 years than patients assigned to radiotherapy alone (80% vs, 62%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, P less than .0001).

The open-label trial enrolled men 18 or older from 43 French centers who had been treated for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate but had not received prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or pelvic radiation. The patients had either stage pT2 or pT3 cancers, or stage pT4a with invasive disease limited to the bladder neck. The patients all had biochemical failure, defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.2 to 2.0 mcg/L following radical prostatectomy, with no clinically evident disease.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive standard salvage radiotherapy either alone or with hormonal therapy. Randomization was stratified by investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis.

Radiotherapy consisted of either 3-D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, delivered in 66 Gy doses divided into 33 fractions of 2 Gy each 5 days a week for 7 weeks.

Patients assigned to hormonal therapy in addition to radiation received one subcutaneous injection of goserelin 10.8 mg on the first day of radiation, and a second injection 3 months later.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was significantly better with the combination than with radiation alone for both low-risk patients (HR 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.80), and high-risk patients (HR 0.56, CI 0.44-0.83).

As noted before, metastasis-free survival was also significantly better in the combination arm ( HR, 0.73, P = .034) at 10 years.

Invited discussant Daniel Spratt, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, commented that the study results “do show, just like they did in 2016, that bicochemical control is improved, which is linked to their primary endpoint of PFS, but I always caution that this alone will always be improved with testosterone suppression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

He noted that if you give ADT to patients with low-risk prostate cancer “that we don’t usually even treat today,” adding hormonal therapy will produce a nearly identical improvement in biochemical control, suggesting more of a signal than a clinical benefit.

The improvement in MFS, however, is indeed a clinical benefit, “but it is a small difference, and one thing to note is that when you give these patients about 6 months of hormonal therapy, depending on the age of the patient, it can be about 6 months until they recover testosterone, and at their median follow-up, you can see that the delay in MFS, which is usually the trigger to start hormone therapy, is about 12 months. So it’s important when you counsel these patients that [for] about potentially 6 months to a year of symptoms you may delay the need for hormone therapy by about 12 months,” he said.

The study was supported by UNICANCER and AstraZeneca. Dr. Magné reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spratt reported amconsulting or advisory role with Blue Earth Diagnostics and Janssen Oncology.

SOURCE: Magn é D et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 5001.

CHICAGO – Adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy as salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy was associated with significantly better metastasis-free survival at nearly 10 years compared with salvage radiation alone, long-term results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 112 months (9.3 years), the metastasis-free survival (MFS) rate for 369 patients assigned to receive salvage radiation and short-term goserelin was 75%, compared with 69% for 374 patients randomized to radiation alone (P = .034), reported Nicolas Magné, MD, from Jean Monnet Saint Etienne University in Saint-Priest en Jarez, France.

“We can conclude and do believe that short ADT, only two injections at 3-month intervals, could increase MFS at 10 years compared to radiation alone in patients with rising PSA after initial prostatectomy,“ he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 10 years.

Dr. Magné and co-investigators in the GETUG-AFU 16 trial had previously reported that after a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients assigned to radiation plus goserelin were significantly more likely to be free of biochemical or clinical progression at 5 years than patients assigned to radiotherapy alone (80% vs, 62%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, P less than .0001).

The open-label trial enrolled men 18 or older from 43 French centers who had been treated for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate but had not received prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or pelvic radiation. The patients had either stage pT2 or pT3 cancers, or stage pT4a with invasive disease limited to the bladder neck. The patients all had biochemical failure, defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.2 to 2.0 mcg/L following radical prostatectomy, with no clinically evident disease.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive standard salvage radiotherapy either alone or with hormonal therapy. Randomization was stratified by investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis.

Radiotherapy consisted of either 3-D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, delivered in 66 Gy doses divided into 33 fractions of 2 Gy each 5 days a week for 7 weeks.

Patients assigned to hormonal therapy in addition to radiation received one subcutaneous injection of goserelin 10.8 mg on the first day of radiation, and a second injection 3 months later.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was significantly better with the combination than with radiation alone for both low-risk patients (HR 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.80), and high-risk patients (HR 0.56, CI 0.44-0.83).

As noted before, metastasis-free survival was also significantly better in the combination arm ( HR, 0.73, P = .034) at 10 years.

Invited discussant Daniel Spratt, MD, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, commented that the study results “do show, just like they did in 2016, that bicochemical control is improved, which is linked to their primary endpoint of PFS, but I always caution that this alone will always be improved with testosterone suppression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

He noted that if you give ADT to patients with low-risk prostate cancer “that we don’t usually even treat today,” adding hormonal therapy will produce a nearly identical improvement in biochemical control, suggesting more of a signal than a clinical benefit.

The improvement in MFS, however, is indeed a clinical benefit, “but it is a small difference, and one thing to note is that when you give these patients about 6 months of hormonal therapy, depending on the age of the patient, it can be about 6 months until they recover testosterone, and at their median follow-up, you can see that the delay in MFS, which is usually the trigger to start hormone therapy, is about 12 months. So it’s important when you counsel these patients that [for] about potentially 6 months to a year of symptoms you may delay the need for hormone therapy by about 12 months,” he said.

The study was supported by UNICANCER and AstraZeneca. Dr. Magné reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spratt reported amconsulting or advisory role with Blue Earth Diagnostics and Janssen Oncology.

SOURCE: Magn é D et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 5001.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted to support approval of the small molecule kinase inhibitor pexidartinib for the treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and is not amenable to improvement with surgery.

The drug was favored by a 12-3 margin (no abstentions), with the majority of panel members agreeing that it offers clinical benefits that outweigh significant risk for elevated liver enzymes and small but real potential for serious or even fatal liver injury.

The FDA usually follows the recommendation of advisory committees in deciding final approval. Daiichi Sankyo plans to market the drug under the trade name Turalio.

Final approval and marketing of the drug will hinge on a mandatory Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that will require certification of prescribers, patient participation in education about the need for frequent liver function testing and the signs and symptoms of liver injury, and distribution of the drug only to certified pharmacies.

Both the ODAC panel members and pexidartinib’s manufacturer, Daiichi Sankyo, agreed that the drug is effective, but opinions about the degree of clinical benefit and the risk-benefit ratio differed.

TGCT is a rare, nonmalignant, and nonlethal tumor of the synovium, bursae, or tendon sheath that can be locally aggressive, and for some patients completely disabling. Surgery is the primary mode of treatment, but less than 10% of patients have disease that is not amenable to resection; for these patients treatment options are limited, because there are no approved systemic therapies for the disease.

ENLIVEN

Evidence submitted to support the application comes from the phase 3 ENLIVEN trial, in which patients with TGCT not amenable to surgery were randomly assigned to receive pexidartinib or placebo. The trial was designed to enroll 126 patients to provide 90% power to detect a difference in objective response rate at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, assuming an overall response rate of 10% with placebo, and 35% with pexidartinib.

The actual trial enrollment, however, fell a little short, with a total of 120 patients randomized.

The ORR at week 25 as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers, the primary endpoint, was 39% for the 61 patients in the pexidartinib group, compared with 0% for the 59 patients in the placebo group (P less than .0001).

There were also statistically significant improvements in the pexidartinib arm at week 25 in the secondary endpoints of mean change in range of motion (ROM), ORR by tumor-volume score at week 25, mean change from baseline in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information physical function scale, and mean change in the Worst Stiffness numeric rating scale item. There were no significant differences between the groups for worst pain, however.

The FDA briefing document notes that “interpretation of the results of the secondary endpoints should be viewed with caution as there was a high proportion of missing data at week 25 for ROM, physical function, and worst stiffness (27%, 43% 43%, respectively); the proportion of patients with missing data was similar across study arms.”

Risk and benefits

The major issues before the ODAC included the validity of clinical outcome assessment given the large chunks of missing data and the major adverse event of liver injury, with a majority of patients on pexidartinib experiencing transaminase elevations. The potential for liver injury may be exacerbated by chronic use of the drug or by drugs used to treat comorbidities such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, several panel members noted.

During the clinical development program for the drug, 2 of 768 patients who received the drug developed irreversible liver injury leading to liver transplant in 1 patient and death in the other.

Many of the panelists who voted to support approval did so with some reluctance about the adverse events. For example, Karin Anton Calis, PharmD, of the National Institutes of Health voted yes because of the efficacy of the drug in a disabling condition.

“Hopefully it will be used in a restricted system so that there can be adequate monitoring, but I’m still concerned about those patients that may have this unpredictable liver toxicity, “ he said.

Victor M. Villalobos MD, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also voted yes.

“This is an ultra-rare disease with no good therapies available to patients and it can be highly morbid, and I feel that getting real-world data on how we can use this drug in a safe and effective manner will be really important to the academic community going forward,” he said.

Other panel members who also voted to support approval expressed concerns about the hepatotoxicity, but noted that the drug has the potential to change lives, as attested by TCGT patients who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.

However, panelist Doris Strader, MD, from the University of Vermont, Burlington, said that she voted no because, while she was sensitive to the potential benefits of the drug for some patients, “I was concerned about the missing data and was not convinced that there was clinically meaningful benefit. Likewise, while I understand that the hepatic injury is not liver failure, I am concerned that this may be persistent for a long time, and I worry that there is not enough to suggest that there is going to be rigorous monitoring of patients over their lifetimes.”

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

It’s a toss-up: For patients with early, HER2-positive breast cancer, subcutaneous trastuzumab is comparable in efficacy and safety with intravenous trastuzumab, final results of the phase 3, randomized HannaH trial indicate.

The 6-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were identical for patients randomized either to subcutaneously or intravenously delivered trastuzumab (Herceptin and biosimilars); adverse events rates also were similar, reported Christian Jackisch, MD, PhD, from Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Germany, and his associates.

“Event-free survival and OS results after 6 years of follow-up continue to support the noninferiority of subcutaneous trastuzumab to intravenous trastuzumab observed in the primary analysis. Results for EFS were consistent with those observed in the Neoadjuvant Herceptin [NOAH] trial of intravenous trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The HannaH (Enhanced Treatment With Neoadjuvant Herceptin) trial was designed to show whether subcutaneous trastuzumab was noninferior to intravenous trastuzumab for patients with HER2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer.

Patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel, followed by four cycles of combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, plus either subcutaneous trastuzumab 600 mg delivered over 5 minutes or IV trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg and maintenance dose of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients received an additional 10 cycles of trastuzumab post surgery.

The coprimary endpoints were pathologic complete response, defined as absence of invasive neoplastic cells in the breast (remaining ductal carcinoma in situ was accepted) and serum trough concentration predose on dose cycle 8.

The primary analysis, published in 2012, showed that the subcutaneous formulation has pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety profiles comparable with those of standard intravenous administration. Subsequent analyses showed similar 3-year EFS rates and safety profiles, Dr. Jackisch and colleagues noted.

The current, final analysis was conducted after a median follow-up of 5.9 years in an intention-to-treat population within the subcutaneous group (294 women), and 6.0 years in the intravenous group (297 women).

The 6-year EFS rate was 65% in each group, and the OS rate was 84% in each group. In both trial arms, 6-year EFS and OS rates were higher for patients with complete pathologic responses than for patients with residual disease.

Adverse events of any grade were reported in 97.6% in the subcutaneous group and 94.6% in the intravenous group. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 53.2% versus 53.7%, cardiac adverse events in 14.8% versus 14.1%, and serious adverse events in 21.9% versus 15.1%, respectively.

The HannaH trial was sponsored by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Jackisch and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Jackisch C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339.

It’s a toss-up: For patients with early, HER2-positive breast cancer, subcutaneous trastuzumab is comparable in efficacy and safety with intravenous trastuzumab, final results of the phase 3, randomized HannaH trial indicate.

The 6-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were identical for patients randomized either to subcutaneously or intravenously delivered trastuzumab (Herceptin and biosimilars); adverse events rates also were similar, reported Christian Jackisch, MD, PhD, from Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Germany, and his associates.

“Event-free survival and OS results after 6 years of follow-up continue to support the noninferiority of subcutaneous trastuzumab to intravenous trastuzumab observed in the primary analysis. Results for EFS were consistent with those observed in the Neoadjuvant Herceptin [NOAH] trial of intravenous trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The HannaH (Enhanced Treatment With Neoadjuvant Herceptin) trial was designed to show whether subcutaneous trastuzumab was noninferior to intravenous trastuzumab for patients with HER2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer.

Patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel, followed by four cycles of combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, plus either subcutaneous trastuzumab 600 mg delivered over 5 minutes or IV trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg and maintenance dose of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients received an additional 10 cycles of trastuzumab post surgery.

The coprimary endpoints were pathologic complete response, defined as absence of invasive neoplastic cells in the breast (remaining ductal carcinoma in situ was accepted) and serum trough concentration predose on dose cycle 8.

The primary analysis, published in 2012, showed that the subcutaneous formulation has pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety profiles comparable with those of standard intravenous administration. Subsequent analyses showed similar 3-year EFS rates and safety profiles, Dr. Jackisch and colleagues noted.

The current, final analysis was conducted after a median follow-up of 5.9 years in an intention-to-treat population within the subcutaneous group (294 women), and 6.0 years in the intravenous group (297 women).

The 6-year EFS rate was 65% in each group, and the OS rate was 84% in each group. In both trial arms, 6-year EFS and OS rates were higher for patients with complete pathologic responses than for patients with residual disease.

Adverse events of any grade were reported in 97.6% in the subcutaneous group and 94.6% in the intravenous group. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 53.2% versus 53.7%, cardiac adverse events in 14.8% versus 14.1%, and serious adverse events in 21.9% versus 15.1%, respectively.

The HannaH trial was sponsored by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Jackisch and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Jackisch C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339.

It’s a toss-up: For patients with early, HER2-positive breast cancer, subcutaneous trastuzumab is comparable in efficacy and safety with intravenous trastuzumab, final results of the phase 3, randomized HannaH trial indicate.

The 6-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were identical for patients randomized either to subcutaneously or intravenously delivered trastuzumab (Herceptin and biosimilars); adverse events rates also were similar, reported Christian Jackisch, MD, PhD, from Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Germany, and his associates.

“Event-free survival and OS results after 6 years of follow-up continue to support the noninferiority of subcutaneous trastuzumab to intravenous trastuzumab observed in the primary analysis. Results for EFS were consistent with those observed in the Neoadjuvant Herceptin [NOAH] trial of intravenous trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The HannaH (Enhanced Treatment With Neoadjuvant Herceptin) trial was designed to show whether subcutaneous trastuzumab was noninferior to intravenous trastuzumab for patients with HER2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer.

Patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel, followed by four cycles of combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, plus either subcutaneous trastuzumab 600 mg delivered over 5 minutes or IV trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg and maintenance dose of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients received an additional 10 cycles of trastuzumab post surgery.

The coprimary endpoints were pathologic complete response, defined as absence of invasive neoplastic cells in the breast (remaining ductal carcinoma in situ was accepted) and serum trough concentration predose on dose cycle 8.

The primary analysis, published in 2012, showed that the subcutaneous formulation has pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety profiles comparable with those of standard intravenous administration. Subsequent analyses showed similar 3-year EFS rates and safety profiles, Dr. Jackisch and colleagues noted.

The current, final analysis was conducted after a median follow-up of 5.9 years in an intention-to-treat population within the subcutaneous group (294 women), and 6.0 years in the intravenous group (297 women).

The 6-year EFS rate was 65% in each group, and the OS rate was 84% in each group. In both trial arms, 6-year EFS and OS rates were higher for patients with complete pathologic responses than for patients with residual disease.

Adverse events of any grade were reported in 97.6% in the subcutaneous group and 94.6% in the intravenous group. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 53.2% versus 53.7%, cardiac adverse events in 14.8% versus 14.1%, and serious adverse events in 21.9% versus 15.1%, respectively.

The HannaH trial was sponsored by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Jackisch and several coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Jackisch C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.

In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.

“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.

Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.

The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.

Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.

RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m² dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m² administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of ⁹⁰Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm³. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.

The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.

For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.

For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).

At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.

Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.

Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.

Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.

The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.

SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.

For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.

In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.

“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.

Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.

The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.

Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.

RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m² dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m² administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of ⁹⁰Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm³. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.

The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.

For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.

For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).

At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.

Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.

Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.

Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.

The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.

SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.

For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.

In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.

“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.

Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.

The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.

Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.

RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m² dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m² administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of ⁹⁰Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm³. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.

The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.

For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.

For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).

At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.

Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.

Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.

Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.

The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.

SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.

ATLANTA – A combination of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–targeted agent osimertinib (Tagrisso) with savolitinib, an investigational MET inhibitor, showed activity against MET-driven non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients for whom prior lines of EGFR-targeted therapy had failed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Results of the phase 1b TATTON trial suggest that it may be possible to overcome MET-driven drug resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) by targeting MET amplification, said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“We’ve seen that up to 10% of patients at the time of acquired resistance progressing on first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs and up to 25% of patients progressing on third-generation TKIs will have resistance driven by MET amplification,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Preliminary analysis of next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA showed that MET amplification was the most common resistance mechanism, occurring in 15% of patients treated for NSCLC with first-line osimertinib in the FLAURA trial. In the AURA3 trial, MET amplification was the mechanism of resistance to second-line osimertinib in 19% of patients, she said.

Savolitinib is a selective oral MET-targeted TKI that has shown preliminary antitumor activity in patients with resistance to EGFR TKIs caused by MET amplification.

Dr. Sequist presented updated interim data on two cohorts of patients enrolled in the phase 1b trial evaluating osimertinib and savolitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC bearing EGFR mutations following failure of one or more prior EGFR-targeted TKIs. A separate cohort of patients was treated with osimertinib and selumetinib, an investigational inhibitor of MEK1/2.

In the dose-expansion phase of the trial, enrolled patients with EGFR mutation–positive and MET-positive NSCLC, and divided them into two groups: patients who received prior therapy with a first- and/or second-generation EGFR-targeted TKI who were negative for the T790M resistance mutation and patients who had received prior treatment with a third-generation EGFR TKI, regardless of mutational status.

Of 46 patients treated with first- and/or second-generation agents, 24 had partial responses for an overall response rate of 52%. Of the remaining 22 patients, 16 (35%) had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 3 had disease progression, and 3 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 43 days.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or greater in this cohort were nausea (4%), fatigue (7%), vomiting (4%), peripheral edema (2%), decreased white blood cell count (2%), pain (7%), AST increase (8%), rash (4%), and decreased neutrophil count (8%).

Among 48 patients treated with the combination after disease progression on a third-generation EGFR TKI, 12 had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 25%. In addition, 21 of the 36 patients without objective responses had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 6 had disease progression, and 9 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 46 days.

In this cohort, the most common adverse events, independent of causality, included nausea (2%), vomiting (4%), diarrhea (2%), fatigue (4%), decreased appetite (6%), and myalgia (1%). “Our data suggest that the combination of osimertinib and savolitinib could overcome MET-driven resistance, but certainly further research is needed to determine the final effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Sequist said.

The combination is being explored in two studies: the ongoing single-arm, phase 2 SAVANNAH trial in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant, MET-positive NSCLC who had disease progression on a prior course of osimertinib; and ORCHARD, currently in the planning stages as a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced NSCLC who had disease progression on first-line osimertinib.

The ORCHARD trial will have multiple biomarker-matched and nonmatched treatment arms to examine both targeted and nontargeted combinations.

“I would say this is impressive early data,” said Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital in New Haven, Conn., the invited discussant in the session where Dr. Sequist presented the data.

“We need randomized trials to confirm the results, need to better define MET-selection criteria, and this could in the future be a very useful refractory EGFR therapy,” he said.

The TATTON trial is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Sequist reported serving as an advisory board member and receiving research support and honoraria from the company. Dr. Herbst reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Merck, and has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, NextCure, and Pfizer.

SOURCES: Yu H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT032; Sequist LV et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT033.

ATLANTA – A combination of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–targeted agent osimertinib (Tagrisso) with savolitinib, an investigational MET inhibitor, showed activity against MET-driven non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients for whom prior lines of EGFR-targeted therapy had failed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Results of the phase 1b TATTON trial suggest that it may be possible to overcome MET-driven drug resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) by targeting MET amplification, said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“We’ve seen that up to 10% of patients at the time of acquired resistance progressing on first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs and up to 25% of patients progressing on third-generation TKIs will have resistance driven by MET amplification,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Preliminary analysis of next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA showed that MET amplification was the most common resistance mechanism, occurring in 15% of patients treated for NSCLC with first-line osimertinib in the FLAURA trial. In the AURA3 trial, MET amplification was the mechanism of resistance to second-line osimertinib in 19% of patients, she said.

Savolitinib is a selective oral MET-targeted TKI that has shown preliminary antitumor activity in patients with resistance to EGFR TKIs caused by MET amplification.

Dr. Sequist presented updated interim data on two cohorts of patients enrolled in the phase 1b trial evaluating osimertinib and savolitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC bearing EGFR mutations following failure of one or more prior EGFR-targeted TKIs. A separate cohort of patients was treated with osimertinib and selumetinib, an investigational inhibitor of MEK1/2.

In the dose-expansion phase of the trial, enrolled patients with EGFR mutation–positive and MET-positive NSCLC, and divided them into two groups: patients who received prior therapy with a first- and/or second-generation EGFR-targeted TKI who were negative for the T790M resistance mutation and patients who had received prior treatment with a third-generation EGFR TKI, regardless of mutational status.

Of 46 patients treated with first- and/or second-generation agents, 24 had partial responses for an overall response rate of 52%. Of the remaining 22 patients, 16 (35%) had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 3 had disease progression, and 3 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 43 days.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or greater in this cohort were nausea (4%), fatigue (7%), vomiting (4%), peripheral edema (2%), decreased white blood cell count (2%), pain (7%), AST increase (8%), rash (4%), and decreased neutrophil count (8%).

Among 48 patients treated with the combination after disease progression on a third-generation EGFR TKI, 12 had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 25%. In addition, 21 of the 36 patients without objective responses had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 6 had disease progression, and 9 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 46 days.

In this cohort, the most common adverse events, independent of causality, included nausea (2%), vomiting (4%), diarrhea (2%), fatigue (4%), decreased appetite (6%), and myalgia (1%). “Our data suggest that the combination of osimertinib and savolitinib could overcome MET-driven resistance, but certainly further research is needed to determine the final effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Sequist said.

The combination is being explored in two studies: the ongoing single-arm, phase 2 SAVANNAH trial in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant, MET-positive NSCLC who had disease progression on a prior course of osimertinib; and ORCHARD, currently in the planning stages as a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced NSCLC who had disease progression on first-line osimertinib.

The ORCHARD trial will have multiple biomarker-matched and nonmatched treatment arms to examine both targeted and nontargeted combinations.

“I would say this is impressive early data,” said Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital in New Haven, Conn., the invited discussant in the session where Dr. Sequist presented the data.

“We need randomized trials to confirm the results, need to better define MET-selection criteria, and this could in the future be a very useful refractory EGFR therapy,” he said.

The TATTON trial is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Sequist reported serving as an advisory board member and receiving research support and honoraria from the company. Dr. Herbst reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Merck, and has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, NextCure, and Pfizer.

SOURCES: Yu H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT032; Sequist LV et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT033.

ATLANTA – A combination of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–targeted agent osimertinib (Tagrisso) with savolitinib, an investigational MET inhibitor, showed activity against MET-driven non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients for whom prior lines of EGFR-targeted therapy had failed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Results of the phase 1b TATTON trial suggest that it may be possible to overcome MET-driven drug resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) by targeting MET amplification, said Lecia V. Sequist, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“We’ve seen that up to 10% of patients at the time of acquired resistance progressing on first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs and up to 25% of patients progressing on third-generation TKIs will have resistance driven by MET amplification,” she said at a briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Preliminary analysis of next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA showed that MET amplification was the most common resistance mechanism, occurring in 15% of patients treated for NSCLC with first-line osimertinib in the FLAURA trial. In the AURA3 trial, MET amplification was the mechanism of resistance to second-line osimertinib in 19% of patients, she said.

Savolitinib is a selective oral MET-targeted TKI that has shown preliminary antitumor activity in patients with resistance to EGFR TKIs caused by MET amplification.

Dr. Sequist presented updated interim data on two cohorts of patients enrolled in the phase 1b trial evaluating osimertinib and savolitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC bearing EGFR mutations following failure of one or more prior EGFR-targeted TKIs. A separate cohort of patients was treated with osimertinib and selumetinib, an investigational inhibitor of MEK1/2.

In the dose-expansion phase of the trial, enrolled patients with EGFR mutation–positive and MET-positive NSCLC, and divided them into two groups: patients who received prior therapy with a first- and/or second-generation EGFR-targeted TKI who were negative for the T790M resistance mutation and patients who had received prior treatment with a third-generation EGFR TKI, regardless of mutational status.

Of 46 patients treated with first- and/or second-generation agents, 24 had partial responses for an overall response rate of 52%. Of the remaining 22 patients, 16 (35%) had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 3 had disease progression, and 3 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 43 days.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or greater in this cohort were nausea (4%), fatigue (7%), vomiting (4%), peripheral edema (2%), decreased white blood cell count (2%), pain (7%), AST increase (8%), rash (4%), and decreased neutrophil count (8%).

Among 48 patients treated with the combination after disease progression on a third-generation EGFR TKI, 12 had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 25%. In addition, 21 of the 36 patients without objective responses had stable disease for at least 6 weeks, 6 had disease progression, and 9 were not evaluable. The median time to response was 46 days.

In this cohort, the most common adverse events, independent of causality, included nausea (2%), vomiting (4%), diarrhea (2%), fatigue (4%), decreased appetite (6%), and myalgia (1%). “Our data suggest that the combination of osimertinib and savolitinib could overcome MET-driven resistance, but certainly further research is needed to determine the final effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Sequist said.

The combination is being explored in two studies: the ongoing single-arm, phase 2 SAVANNAH trial in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant, MET-positive NSCLC who had disease progression on a prior course of osimertinib; and ORCHARD, currently in the planning stages as a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced NSCLC who had disease progression on first-line osimertinib.

The ORCHARD trial will have multiple biomarker-matched and nonmatched treatment arms to examine both targeted and nontargeted combinations.

“I would say this is impressive early data,” said Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital in New Haven, Conn., the invited discussant in the session where Dr. Sequist presented the data.

“We need randomized trials to confirm the results, need to better define MET-selection criteria, and this could in the future be a very useful refractory EGFR therapy,” he said.

The TATTON trial is sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Sequist reported serving as an advisory board member and receiving research support and honoraria from the company. Dr. Herbst reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Merck, and has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, NextCure, and Pfizer.

SOURCES: Yu H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT032; Sequist LV et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT033.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.