User login
FDA approves pembrolizumab for completely resected melanoma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following resection.
FDA approval is based on results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EORTC1325/KEYNOTE‑054 trial, in which 1,019 patients with completely resected stage III melanoma received either a placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
Recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.70; P less than .001). The median recurrence-free survival time was 20.4 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the pembrolizumab group, the FDA said in a press release.
About three-quarters of patients received pembrolizumab for at least 6 months, while 14% of patients had to stop pembrolizumab treatment because of adverse events. The most common adverse events in pembrolizumab-treated patients included diarrhea, pruritus, nausea, arthralgia, hypothyroidism, cough, rash, asthenia, influenzalike illness, weight loss, and hyperthyroidism.
“The recommended pembrolizumab dose and schedule for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma is 200 mg administered as an IV infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, for a maximum of 1 year,” the FDA said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following resection.
FDA approval is based on results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EORTC1325/KEYNOTE‑054 trial, in which 1,019 patients with completely resected stage III melanoma received either a placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
Recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.70; P less than .001). The median recurrence-free survival time was 20.4 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the pembrolizumab group, the FDA said in a press release.
About three-quarters of patients received pembrolizumab for at least 6 months, while 14% of patients had to stop pembrolizumab treatment because of adverse events. The most common adverse events in pembrolizumab-treated patients included diarrhea, pruritus, nausea, arthralgia, hypothyroidism, cough, rash, asthenia, influenzalike illness, weight loss, and hyperthyroidism.
“The recommended pembrolizumab dose and schedule for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma is 200 mg administered as an IV infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, for a maximum of 1 year,” the FDA said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following resection.
FDA approval is based on results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EORTC1325/KEYNOTE‑054 trial, in which 1,019 patients with completely resected stage III melanoma received either a placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.
Recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.70; P less than .001). The median recurrence-free survival time was 20.4 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the pembrolizumab group, the FDA said in a press release.
About three-quarters of patients received pembrolizumab for at least 6 months, while 14% of patients had to stop pembrolizumab treatment because of adverse events. The most common adverse events in pembrolizumab-treated patients included diarrhea, pruritus, nausea, arthralgia, hypothyroidism, cough, rash, asthenia, influenzalike illness, weight loss, and hyperthyroidism.
“The recommended pembrolizumab dose and schedule for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma is 200 mg administered as an IV infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, for a maximum of 1 year,” the FDA said in the press release.
CAR T-cell therapies difficult to compare
One chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may appear better than another, but confounding factors make it difficult to compare these therapies effectively, according to a review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Caron A. Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reviewed results from three trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL).
She noted that cross-trial comparisons are always limited, but such comparisons of CAR T-cell therapies are hindered by several confounding factors.
Dr. Jacobson said differences in manufacturing procedures and turnaround time, differences in patient eligibility and management, and the complexity of CAR T-cell therapies make it difficult to compare results from three CAR-T trials in B-NHL:
• The ZUMA-1 trial (NCT02348216) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta)
• The JULIET trial (NCT02445248) of tisagenlecleucel (t-cel, Kymriah)
• The TRANSCEND-NHL-001 trial (NCT02631044) of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017).
Looking at response rates alone, axi-cel appears the most promising. The overall response rate (ORR) was 82% with axi-cel, 75% with liso-cel, and 52% with t-cel.
When considering cytokine release syndrome (CRS), liso-cel appears the safest. The rate of CRS was 93% with axi-cel (13% grade 3 or higher), 58% with t-cel (22% grade 3 or higher), and 39% with liso-cel (1% grade 3 or higher).
However, as Dr. Jacobson pointed out, it’s impossible to know if these differences in efficacy and toxicity are “statistically meaningful.”
Dr. Jacobson also noted that bridging therapy may have affected these results, as it might reduce tumor burden and increase toxicity, but bridging therapy was not used uniformly across these trials.
Most patients received bridging therapy before t-cel, none received it before axi-cel, and the use of bridging therapy was not reported in the trial of liso-cel.
“It is not possible to know whether patients treated on the ZUMA-1 trial, who were more likely to receive their CAR T cells, were healthier and more fit than patients on other studies or, because they were not allowed to receive bridging therapy, were actually sicker with a higher tumor burden and were therefore at risk for greater toxicity,” Dr. Jacobson wrote.
The fact that ZUMA-1 patients were more likely to receive CAR T cells brings up another issue—the difference between the reported results and the intent-to-treat (ITT) results in these trials. Since most patients on ZUMA-1 received the study treatment, there isn't much difference between the reported results and ITT results. However, about a third of patients who underwent apheresis on the JULIET trial did not ultimately receive CAR T cells, which means a bigger difference between the reported results and ITT results.
In ZUMA-1, 111 patients underwent leukapheresis, and 101 received treatment with axi-cel and were evaluable for efficacy. So the ORR was 75% (83/111) in the ITT population, compared to 82% in the population evaluable for efficacy.
In JULIET, 165 patients underwent leukapheresis, 111 received t-cel, and 93 were evaluable. The ORR was 30% (48/161) in the ITT population, compared to 52% in the evaluable population.
In TRANSCEND-NHL-001, 134 patients underwent leukapheresis, 114 patients received liso-cel, and 102 were evaluable. The ORR was 63% (77/122) in the ITT population, compared to 75% in the evaluable population.
Dr. Jacobson said these differences can be explained, in part, by differences in manufacturing. The time to manufacture cells was longer on the JULIET trial than on ZUMA-1, which may have been due to differences in transfection and manufacturing procedures as well as manufacturing ability.
In addition, differences in patient eligibility may have played a role, as healthier patients might be able to tolerate a longer manufacturing period than sicker patients.
Unfortunately, these differences cannot be accounted for without a randomized trial, but Dr. Jacobson said a randomized trial of these therapies is unlikely to occur.
“[S]o perhaps the best answers will come from institutions that have experience with all three products,” she wrote. “And in these cases, physicians and institutions will have to decide to what extent they would sacrifice efficacy for improved safety or sacrifice safety for improved reliability and consistency of treatment delivery.”
Dr. Jacobson disclosed relationships with Kite Pharma/Gilead Sciences, Bayer AG, Pfizer, Precision BioSciences, Novartis, Celgene, and Cowen.
SOURCE: Jacobson CA. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;37(4):328-35. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01457
One chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may appear better than another, but confounding factors make it difficult to compare these therapies effectively, according to a review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Caron A. Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reviewed results from three trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL).
She noted that cross-trial comparisons are always limited, but such comparisons of CAR T-cell therapies are hindered by several confounding factors.
Dr. Jacobson said differences in manufacturing procedures and turnaround time, differences in patient eligibility and management, and the complexity of CAR T-cell therapies make it difficult to compare results from three CAR-T trials in B-NHL:
• The ZUMA-1 trial (NCT02348216) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta)
• The JULIET trial (NCT02445248) of tisagenlecleucel (t-cel, Kymriah)
• The TRANSCEND-NHL-001 trial (NCT02631044) of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017).
Looking at response rates alone, axi-cel appears the most promising. The overall response rate (ORR) was 82% with axi-cel, 75% with liso-cel, and 52% with t-cel.
When considering cytokine release syndrome (CRS), liso-cel appears the safest. The rate of CRS was 93% with axi-cel (13% grade 3 or higher), 58% with t-cel (22% grade 3 or higher), and 39% with liso-cel (1% grade 3 or higher).
However, as Dr. Jacobson pointed out, it’s impossible to know if these differences in efficacy and toxicity are “statistically meaningful.”
Dr. Jacobson also noted that bridging therapy may have affected these results, as it might reduce tumor burden and increase toxicity, but bridging therapy was not used uniformly across these trials.
Most patients received bridging therapy before t-cel, none received it before axi-cel, and the use of bridging therapy was not reported in the trial of liso-cel.
“It is not possible to know whether patients treated on the ZUMA-1 trial, who were more likely to receive their CAR T cells, were healthier and more fit than patients on other studies or, because they were not allowed to receive bridging therapy, were actually sicker with a higher tumor burden and were therefore at risk for greater toxicity,” Dr. Jacobson wrote.
The fact that ZUMA-1 patients were more likely to receive CAR T cells brings up another issue—the difference between the reported results and the intent-to-treat (ITT) results in these trials. Since most patients on ZUMA-1 received the study treatment, there isn't much difference between the reported results and ITT results. However, about a third of patients who underwent apheresis on the JULIET trial did not ultimately receive CAR T cells, which means a bigger difference between the reported results and ITT results.
In ZUMA-1, 111 patients underwent leukapheresis, and 101 received treatment with axi-cel and were evaluable for efficacy. So the ORR was 75% (83/111) in the ITT population, compared to 82% in the population evaluable for efficacy.
In JULIET, 165 patients underwent leukapheresis, 111 received t-cel, and 93 were evaluable. The ORR was 30% (48/161) in the ITT population, compared to 52% in the evaluable population.
In TRANSCEND-NHL-001, 134 patients underwent leukapheresis, 114 patients received liso-cel, and 102 were evaluable. The ORR was 63% (77/122) in the ITT population, compared to 75% in the evaluable population.
Dr. Jacobson said these differences can be explained, in part, by differences in manufacturing. The time to manufacture cells was longer on the JULIET trial than on ZUMA-1, which may have been due to differences in transfection and manufacturing procedures as well as manufacturing ability.
In addition, differences in patient eligibility may have played a role, as healthier patients might be able to tolerate a longer manufacturing period than sicker patients.
Unfortunately, these differences cannot be accounted for without a randomized trial, but Dr. Jacobson said a randomized trial of these therapies is unlikely to occur.
“[S]o perhaps the best answers will come from institutions that have experience with all three products,” she wrote. “And in these cases, physicians and institutions will have to decide to what extent they would sacrifice efficacy for improved safety or sacrifice safety for improved reliability and consistency of treatment delivery.”
Dr. Jacobson disclosed relationships with Kite Pharma/Gilead Sciences, Bayer AG, Pfizer, Precision BioSciences, Novartis, Celgene, and Cowen.
SOURCE: Jacobson CA. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;37(4):328-35. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01457
One chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may appear better than another, but confounding factors make it difficult to compare these therapies effectively, according to a review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Caron A. Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reviewed results from three trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL).
She noted that cross-trial comparisons are always limited, but such comparisons of CAR T-cell therapies are hindered by several confounding factors.
Dr. Jacobson said differences in manufacturing procedures and turnaround time, differences in patient eligibility and management, and the complexity of CAR T-cell therapies make it difficult to compare results from three CAR-T trials in B-NHL:
• The ZUMA-1 trial (NCT02348216) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta)
• The JULIET trial (NCT02445248) of tisagenlecleucel (t-cel, Kymriah)
• The TRANSCEND-NHL-001 trial (NCT02631044) of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017).
Looking at response rates alone, axi-cel appears the most promising. The overall response rate (ORR) was 82% with axi-cel, 75% with liso-cel, and 52% with t-cel.
When considering cytokine release syndrome (CRS), liso-cel appears the safest. The rate of CRS was 93% with axi-cel (13% grade 3 or higher), 58% with t-cel (22% grade 3 or higher), and 39% with liso-cel (1% grade 3 or higher).
However, as Dr. Jacobson pointed out, it’s impossible to know if these differences in efficacy and toxicity are “statistically meaningful.”
Dr. Jacobson also noted that bridging therapy may have affected these results, as it might reduce tumor burden and increase toxicity, but bridging therapy was not used uniformly across these trials.
Most patients received bridging therapy before t-cel, none received it before axi-cel, and the use of bridging therapy was not reported in the trial of liso-cel.
“It is not possible to know whether patients treated on the ZUMA-1 trial, who were more likely to receive their CAR T cells, were healthier and more fit than patients on other studies or, because they were not allowed to receive bridging therapy, were actually sicker with a higher tumor burden and were therefore at risk for greater toxicity,” Dr. Jacobson wrote.
The fact that ZUMA-1 patients were more likely to receive CAR T cells brings up another issue—the difference between the reported results and the intent-to-treat (ITT) results in these trials. Since most patients on ZUMA-1 received the study treatment, there isn't much difference between the reported results and ITT results. However, about a third of patients who underwent apheresis on the JULIET trial did not ultimately receive CAR T cells, which means a bigger difference between the reported results and ITT results.
In ZUMA-1, 111 patients underwent leukapheresis, and 101 received treatment with axi-cel and were evaluable for efficacy. So the ORR was 75% (83/111) in the ITT population, compared to 82% in the population evaluable for efficacy.
In JULIET, 165 patients underwent leukapheresis, 111 received t-cel, and 93 were evaluable. The ORR was 30% (48/161) in the ITT population, compared to 52% in the evaluable population.
In TRANSCEND-NHL-001, 134 patients underwent leukapheresis, 114 patients received liso-cel, and 102 were evaluable. The ORR was 63% (77/122) in the ITT population, compared to 75% in the evaluable population.
Dr. Jacobson said these differences can be explained, in part, by differences in manufacturing. The time to manufacture cells was longer on the JULIET trial than on ZUMA-1, which may have been due to differences in transfection and manufacturing procedures as well as manufacturing ability.
In addition, differences in patient eligibility may have played a role, as healthier patients might be able to tolerate a longer manufacturing period than sicker patients.
Unfortunately, these differences cannot be accounted for without a randomized trial, but Dr. Jacobson said a randomized trial of these therapies is unlikely to occur.
“[S]o perhaps the best answers will come from institutions that have experience with all three products,” she wrote. “And in these cases, physicians and institutions will have to decide to what extent they would sacrifice efficacy for improved safety or sacrifice safety for improved reliability and consistency of treatment delivery.”
Dr. Jacobson disclosed relationships with Kite Pharma/Gilead Sciences, Bayer AG, Pfizer, Precision BioSciences, Novartis, Celgene, and Cowen.
SOURCE: Jacobson CA. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;37(4):328-35. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01457
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
CMS proposes coverage of CAR T-cell therapy in trials
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed to cover chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness, according to a Feb. 15 announcement.
The proposed national coverage determination would require CMS to cover CAR T-cell therapies nationwide when the treatment is offered in CMS-approved registries or clinical studies in which patients are monitored for 2 or more years following treatment.
Results from the studies would help CMS identify which patients benefit most from CAR T-cell therapies and inform future coverage decisions, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said.
“CAR T-cell therapy was the first FDA-approved gene therapy, marking the beginning of an entirely new approach to treating serious and even life-threatening diseases,” Ms. Verma said in a statement. “Today’s proposed coverage decision would improve access to this therapy while deepening CMS’s understanding of how patients in Medicare respond to it, so the agency can ensure that it is paying for CAR T-cell therapy for cases in which the benefits outweigh the risks.”
As part of the proposal, CMS would cover autologous treatment with T cells expressing at least one chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) through coverage with evidence development when prescribed by a treating oncologist and performed in a hospital, according to a summary of the proposal.
The patient and hospital must meet specific criteria to be eligible for coverage, including that patients have relapsed or refractory cancer and do not have a comorbidity that would otherwise preclude patient benefit.
Hospitals, meanwhile, must have a cellular therapy program consisting of an integrated medical team that includes a clinical program director, a quality manager, and at least one physician experienced in cellular therapy, among other requirements.
CMS also would require that treatment is an FDA-approved biologic, providing targeted therapy for a known antigen expressed in the patient’s cancer according to an FDA indication. Repeat treatment would be covered only when a new primary cancer diagnosis is made by the treating oncologist and certain patient conditions are met.
Both inpatient and outpatient settings for the CAR T-cell therapy treatment are acceptable under the proposal. In either case, the patient and the hospital must be participating in a prospective, national, audited registry that consecutively enrolls patients, accepts all manufactured products, follows the patient for at least 2 years, and addresses a set of approved evidence-development questions. Additionally, all registries must be reviewed and approved by CMS.
The proposed national coverage determination was the result of an Aug. 22, 2018 meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. The committee provides CMS with an external assessment of the appropriateness of therapies under review.
Public comments about the CAR T-cell therapy proposal will be accepted online here until March 15. A final decision on the proposal is expected by May 2019.
The agency’s proposal follows an Aug. 17 final rule by CMS that sets a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorizes CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigns ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018. CMS also approved a temporary New Technology Add-On Payment for use of the therapies with a maximum threshold of $186,500.
In April 2018, CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed to cover chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness, according to a Feb. 15 announcement.
The proposed national coverage determination would require CMS to cover CAR T-cell therapies nationwide when the treatment is offered in CMS-approved registries or clinical studies in which patients are monitored for 2 or more years following treatment.
Results from the studies would help CMS identify which patients benefit most from CAR T-cell therapies and inform future coverage decisions, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said.
“CAR T-cell therapy was the first FDA-approved gene therapy, marking the beginning of an entirely new approach to treating serious and even life-threatening diseases,” Ms. Verma said in a statement. “Today’s proposed coverage decision would improve access to this therapy while deepening CMS’s understanding of how patients in Medicare respond to it, so the agency can ensure that it is paying for CAR T-cell therapy for cases in which the benefits outweigh the risks.”
As part of the proposal, CMS would cover autologous treatment with T cells expressing at least one chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) through coverage with evidence development when prescribed by a treating oncologist and performed in a hospital, according to a summary of the proposal.
The patient and hospital must meet specific criteria to be eligible for coverage, including that patients have relapsed or refractory cancer and do not have a comorbidity that would otherwise preclude patient benefit.
Hospitals, meanwhile, must have a cellular therapy program consisting of an integrated medical team that includes a clinical program director, a quality manager, and at least one physician experienced in cellular therapy, among other requirements.
CMS also would require that treatment is an FDA-approved biologic, providing targeted therapy for a known antigen expressed in the patient’s cancer according to an FDA indication. Repeat treatment would be covered only when a new primary cancer diagnosis is made by the treating oncologist and certain patient conditions are met.
Both inpatient and outpatient settings for the CAR T-cell therapy treatment are acceptable under the proposal. In either case, the patient and the hospital must be participating in a prospective, national, audited registry that consecutively enrolls patients, accepts all manufactured products, follows the patient for at least 2 years, and addresses a set of approved evidence-development questions. Additionally, all registries must be reviewed and approved by CMS.
The proposed national coverage determination was the result of an Aug. 22, 2018 meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. The committee provides CMS with an external assessment of the appropriateness of therapies under review.
Public comments about the CAR T-cell therapy proposal will be accepted online here until March 15. A final decision on the proposal is expected by May 2019.
The agency’s proposal follows an Aug. 17 final rule by CMS that sets a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorizes CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigns ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018. CMS also approved a temporary New Technology Add-On Payment for use of the therapies with a maximum threshold of $186,500.
In April 2018, CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed to cover chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness, according to a Feb. 15 announcement.
The proposed national coverage determination would require CMS to cover CAR T-cell therapies nationwide when the treatment is offered in CMS-approved registries or clinical studies in which patients are monitored for 2 or more years following treatment.
Results from the studies would help CMS identify which patients benefit most from CAR T-cell therapies and inform future coverage decisions, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said.
“CAR T-cell therapy was the first FDA-approved gene therapy, marking the beginning of an entirely new approach to treating serious and even life-threatening diseases,” Ms. Verma said in a statement. “Today’s proposed coverage decision would improve access to this therapy while deepening CMS’s understanding of how patients in Medicare respond to it, so the agency can ensure that it is paying for CAR T-cell therapy for cases in which the benefits outweigh the risks.”
As part of the proposal, CMS would cover autologous treatment with T cells expressing at least one chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) through coverage with evidence development when prescribed by a treating oncologist and performed in a hospital, according to a summary of the proposal.
The patient and hospital must meet specific criteria to be eligible for coverage, including that patients have relapsed or refractory cancer and do not have a comorbidity that would otherwise preclude patient benefit.
Hospitals, meanwhile, must have a cellular therapy program consisting of an integrated medical team that includes a clinical program director, a quality manager, and at least one physician experienced in cellular therapy, among other requirements.
CMS also would require that treatment is an FDA-approved biologic, providing targeted therapy for a known antigen expressed in the patient’s cancer according to an FDA indication. Repeat treatment would be covered only when a new primary cancer diagnosis is made by the treating oncologist and certain patient conditions are met.
Both inpatient and outpatient settings for the CAR T-cell therapy treatment are acceptable under the proposal. In either case, the patient and the hospital must be participating in a prospective, national, audited registry that consecutively enrolls patients, accepts all manufactured products, follows the patient for at least 2 years, and addresses a set of approved evidence-development questions. Additionally, all registries must be reviewed and approved by CMS.
The proposed national coverage determination was the result of an Aug. 22, 2018 meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. The committee provides CMS with an external assessment of the appropriateness of therapies under review.
Public comments about the CAR T-cell therapy proposal will be accepted online here until March 15. A final decision on the proposal is expected by May 2019.
The agency’s proposal follows an Aug. 17 final rule by CMS that sets a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorizes CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigns ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018. CMS also approved a temporary New Technology Add-On Payment for use of the therapies with a maximum threshold of $186,500.
In April 2018, CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.
Pembrolizumab extends Merkel cell PFS, OS
Patients with the aggressive skin cancer Merkel cell carcinoma who were treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the first line had higher complete response rates, better progression-free survival, and longer overall survival than historical controls treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Among 50 adults with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) with no prior systemic therapy who received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years in a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02267603), 24% had a complete response and 32% a partial response, for an overall response rate of 56%.
The 24-month overall survival rate was 68.7%, with median overall survival not reached after a median follow-up time of 14.9 months. In contrast, a retrospective study of 67 patients with MCC treated with first-line chemotherapy showed an ORR of 29.4%, a median OS of 10.5 months, and a 24-month OS of 24.5% (Future Oncol. 2017 Aug;13(19):1699-1710).
Similarly, a second retrospective study showed that, among 62 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy, the ORR was 55%, median OS was 9.5 months, and 24-month OS was 20% (Cancer Med. 2016 Sep;5(9):2294-2301), reported Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, from the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and his colleagues.
The rationale for using a checkpoint inhibitor for advanced MCC is that “[m]ultiple lines of evidence support the notion that MCC is an immunogenic cancer, including the fact that MCC incidence is greater than 10-fold higher in chronically immunosuppressed persons,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline on Merkel cell carcinoma recommends the use of the programmed death–1/programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors pembrolizumab, avelumab (Bavencio), or nivolumab (Opdivo) as preferred first-line systemic therapy for patients with disseminated disease, Dr. Nghiem and his colleagues noted.
In the current report, they presented data on the longest follow-up to date of patients with advance MCC who received a PD-1 inhibitor in the first line.
In the multicenter, phase 2 trial, 50 patients with a median age of 70.5 years were treated. Of this group, 64% had tumors positive for the Merkel cell polyomavirus and 49% had PD-L1 expression on tumor cells.
Of the 50 total patients, 28 had an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, including 12 with a complete response and 16 with a partial response. A total of 5 patients had stable disease, 16 had progressive disease, and 1 patient died before the first on-treatment scan for assessment.
After a median follow-up of 4.9 months, the 24-month progression-free survival rate (PFS) was 48.3% months, with a median PFS of 16.8 months.
As noted before, the 24-month OS rate was 68.7% and the median OS had not been reached at the time of the analysis.
There were no significant differences in PFS or OS between patients with tumors positive or negative for the Merkel polyomavirus, and there was a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS and OS for patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression greater than 1%.
In all, 48 of the 50 patients had a treatment-related adverse event of any kind, and 14 had grade 3 or greater events. Treatment-related events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab for seven patients, and one patient, a 73-year-old man with metastatic MCC and atrial fibrillation, developed pericardial and pleural effusions 1 day after receiving a single pembrolizumab infusion. The patient died 10 days after receiving pembrolizumab, and his death was deemed to be related to the drug.
The investigators noted that the drug’s efficacy in patients with both polyomavirus- and UV-induced subtypes of MCC “provides compelling evidence that both the quality and quantity of tumor antigens are important factors driving antitumor immunity and tumor rejection.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) patient gift fund at University of Washington, the Kelsey Dickson MCC Challenge Grant from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Merck, which provided pembrolizumab and partial funding. Dr. Nghiem reported receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and a consulting or advisory role from/for Merck and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relations with Merck and/or other companies.
SOURCE: Nghiem P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01896.
Patients with the aggressive skin cancer Merkel cell carcinoma who were treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the first line had higher complete response rates, better progression-free survival, and longer overall survival than historical controls treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Among 50 adults with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) with no prior systemic therapy who received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years in a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02267603), 24% had a complete response and 32% a partial response, for an overall response rate of 56%.
The 24-month overall survival rate was 68.7%, with median overall survival not reached after a median follow-up time of 14.9 months. In contrast, a retrospective study of 67 patients with MCC treated with first-line chemotherapy showed an ORR of 29.4%, a median OS of 10.5 months, and a 24-month OS of 24.5% (Future Oncol. 2017 Aug;13(19):1699-1710).
Similarly, a second retrospective study showed that, among 62 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy, the ORR was 55%, median OS was 9.5 months, and 24-month OS was 20% (Cancer Med. 2016 Sep;5(9):2294-2301), reported Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, from the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and his colleagues.
The rationale for using a checkpoint inhibitor for advanced MCC is that “[m]ultiple lines of evidence support the notion that MCC is an immunogenic cancer, including the fact that MCC incidence is greater than 10-fold higher in chronically immunosuppressed persons,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline on Merkel cell carcinoma recommends the use of the programmed death–1/programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors pembrolizumab, avelumab (Bavencio), or nivolumab (Opdivo) as preferred first-line systemic therapy for patients with disseminated disease, Dr. Nghiem and his colleagues noted.
In the current report, they presented data on the longest follow-up to date of patients with advance MCC who received a PD-1 inhibitor in the first line.
In the multicenter, phase 2 trial, 50 patients with a median age of 70.5 years were treated. Of this group, 64% had tumors positive for the Merkel cell polyomavirus and 49% had PD-L1 expression on tumor cells.
Of the 50 total patients, 28 had an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, including 12 with a complete response and 16 with a partial response. A total of 5 patients had stable disease, 16 had progressive disease, and 1 patient died before the first on-treatment scan for assessment.
After a median follow-up of 4.9 months, the 24-month progression-free survival rate (PFS) was 48.3% months, with a median PFS of 16.8 months.
As noted before, the 24-month OS rate was 68.7% and the median OS had not been reached at the time of the analysis.
There were no significant differences in PFS or OS between patients with tumors positive or negative for the Merkel polyomavirus, and there was a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS and OS for patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression greater than 1%.
In all, 48 of the 50 patients had a treatment-related adverse event of any kind, and 14 had grade 3 or greater events. Treatment-related events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab for seven patients, and one patient, a 73-year-old man with metastatic MCC and atrial fibrillation, developed pericardial and pleural effusions 1 day after receiving a single pembrolizumab infusion. The patient died 10 days after receiving pembrolizumab, and his death was deemed to be related to the drug.
The investigators noted that the drug’s efficacy in patients with both polyomavirus- and UV-induced subtypes of MCC “provides compelling evidence that both the quality and quantity of tumor antigens are important factors driving antitumor immunity and tumor rejection.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) patient gift fund at University of Washington, the Kelsey Dickson MCC Challenge Grant from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Merck, which provided pembrolizumab and partial funding. Dr. Nghiem reported receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and a consulting or advisory role from/for Merck and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relations with Merck and/or other companies.
SOURCE: Nghiem P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01896.
Patients with the aggressive skin cancer Merkel cell carcinoma who were treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the first line had higher complete response rates, better progression-free survival, and longer overall survival than historical controls treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Among 50 adults with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) with no prior systemic therapy who received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years in a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02267603), 24% had a complete response and 32% a partial response, for an overall response rate of 56%.
The 24-month overall survival rate was 68.7%, with median overall survival not reached after a median follow-up time of 14.9 months. In contrast, a retrospective study of 67 patients with MCC treated with first-line chemotherapy showed an ORR of 29.4%, a median OS of 10.5 months, and a 24-month OS of 24.5% (Future Oncol. 2017 Aug;13(19):1699-1710).
Similarly, a second retrospective study showed that, among 62 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy, the ORR was 55%, median OS was 9.5 months, and 24-month OS was 20% (Cancer Med. 2016 Sep;5(9):2294-2301), reported Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, from the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and his colleagues.
The rationale for using a checkpoint inhibitor for advanced MCC is that “[m]ultiple lines of evidence support the notion that MCC is an immunogenic cancer, including the fact that MCC incidence is greater than 10-fold higher in chronically immunosuppressed persons,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline on Merkel cell carcinoma recommends the use of the programmed death–1/programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors pembrolizumab, avelumab (Bavencio), or nivolumab (Opdivo) as preferred first-line systemic therapy for patients with disseminated disease, Dr. Nghiem and his colleagues noted.
In the current report, they presented data on the longest follow-up to date of patients with advance MCC who received a PD-1 inhibitor in the first line.
In the multicenter, phase 2 trial, 50 patients with a median age of 70.5 years were treated. Of this group, 64% had tumors positive for the Merkel cell polyomavirus and 49% had PD-L1 expression on tumor cells.
Of the 50 total patients, 28 had an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, including 12 with a complete response and 16 with a partial response. A total of 5 patients had stable disease, 16 had progressive disease, and 1 patient died before the first on-treatment scan for assessment.
After a median follow-up of 4.9 months, the 24-month progression-free survival rate (PFS) was 48.3% months, with a median PFS of 16.8 months.
As noted before, the 24-month OS rate was 68.7% and the median OS had not been reached at the time of the analysis.
There were no significant differences in PFS or OS between patients with tumors positive or negative for the Merkel polyomavirus, and there was a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS and OS for patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression greater than 1%.
In all, 48 of the 50 patients had a treatment-related adverse event of any kind, and 14 had grade 3 or greater events. Treatment-related events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab for seven patients, and one patient, a 73-year-old man with metastatic MCC and atrial fibrillation, developed pericardial and pleural effusions 1 day after receiving a single pembrolizumab infusion. The patient died 10 days after receiving pembrolizumab, and his death was deemed to be related to the drug.
The investigators noted that the drug’s efficacy in patients with both polyomavirus- and UV-induced subtypes of MCC “provides compelling evidence that both the quality and quantity of tumor antigens are important factors driving antitumor immunity and tumor rejection.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) patient gift fund at University of Washington, the Kelsey Dickson MCC Challenge Grant from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Merck, which provided pembrolizumab and partial funding. Dr. Nghiem reported receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and a consulting or advisory role from/for Merck and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relations with Merck and/or other companies.
SOURCE: Nghiem P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01896.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: A programmed death–1/programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor is preferred in the first line for disseminated Merkel cell carcinoma.
Major finding: Overall survival after 24 months was 68.7%, with the median overall survival not reached.
Study details: A follow-up of a phase 2, open-label trial in 50 patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma.
Disclosures: The study was supported by supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) patient gift fund at University of Washington, the Kelsey Dickson MCC Challenge Grant from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Merck, which provided pembrolizumab and partial funding. Dr. Nghiem reported receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and a consulting or advisory role from/for Merck and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relations with Merck and/or other companies.
Source: Nghiem P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01896.
Pembrolizumab-axitinib nearly halves risk of death in RCC
SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.
“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.
The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.
Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.
“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”
“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Study details
Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).
Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).
Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.
Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.
“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.
The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.
Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.
SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.
“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.
The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.
Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.
“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”
“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Study details
Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).
Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).
Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.
Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.
“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.
The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.
Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.
SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.
“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.
The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.
Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.
“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”
“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Study details
Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).
Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).
Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.
Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.
“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.
The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.
Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.
REPORTING FROM GUCS 2019
Key clinical point: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib may become a new first-line standard of care in advanced renal cell carcinoma.
Major finding: Compared with sunitinib monotherapy, pembrolizumab and axitinib combination therapy prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0001) and overall survival (HR, 0.53; P less than .0001).
Study details: A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial among 861 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426).
Disclosures: Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.
Source: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.
PD-1 blockade plus CD19 CAR T boosts CAR T-cell persistence
SAN DIEGO – Checkpoint inhibition can be used safely and effectively with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and it may bolster CAR T-cell effects and persistence, suggest the findings in a series of 14 patients at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Combined programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade and CAR T-cell therapy appeared to have particular benefit in patients with early B-cell recovery and in those with bulky extramedullary disease, Shannon Maude, MD, PhD, reported during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The patients, aged 4-17 years with heavily pretreated relapsed B-ALL (13 patients) or B lymphoblastic lymphoma (1 patient), were treated with CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, including CTL019 in 4 patients and CTL119 in 10 patients, followed by pembrolizumab (in 13 patients) or nivolumab (in 1 patient).
Six patients received the combination therapy because of early B-cell recovery after initial CAR T-cell infusion, four patients had relapsed or refractory (R/R) bulky extramedullary disease, and four patients had failed to respond or relapsed after initial CAR T-cell therapy.
Three of the six with poor persistence of response reestablished B-cell aplasia (a reflection of CAR T-cell function) after reinfusion of the CAR T-cell product followed by infusion with PD-1 blockade, and they have “sustained CR [complete response] with B-cell aplasia, showing continued persistence of their CAR T cells,” said Dr. Maude, an attending physician in the Cancer Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Of the four patients with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, two patients had a partial response and two patients had CR, she said, explaining that it was hypothesized that the “PD-1 checkpoint pathway may be activated through the microenvironment in that extramedullary situation.”
However, all four patients who had partial or no response to initial CAR T-cell therapy progressed after PD-1 administration, she said, noting that “in one patient, this progression was marked by reduced CD19 expression, which was probably the mode of escape from CD19 CAR T cells.”
Prior studies have shown that patients who respond to CAR T-cell therapy have persistence of CD19 CAR T cells, whereas those with loss of CD19 CAR T cells within 6 months of infusion have a higher rate of relapse, Dr. Maude explained.
“Our hypothesis was that T cells, upon activation, may become exhausted through activation of immune checkpoint pathways, that one such pathway – PD-1 – may be involved in early loss of CD19 CAR T cells and therefore that the combination [of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy] with PD-1 checkpoint blockade may improve the function of the CAR T cells and their persistence,” she said.
The combined approach was well tolerated in this study, she said, noting that mild cytokine release syndrome symptoms and fever typical of CAR T-cell proliferative responses were observed in three patients within 2 days of starting pembrolizumab.
Other adverse effects associated with PD-1 inhibition, including acute pancreatitis, hypothyroidism, arthralgias, and urticaria, occurred in one patient each. There were four cases of grade 3-4 cytopenias that were deemed tolerable or reversible upon discontinuation.
“We show that PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors can be safely combined with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and that this mechanism may be useful to improve CAR T-cell persistence,” Dr. Maude said.
These findings, which showed particular benefit in patients with poor persistence marked by early B-cell recovery and in those with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, should help inform future use of checkpoint inhibitors after CAR T-cell therapy, she added.
Dr. Maude reported financial ties to Novartis.
SOURCE: Li AM et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 556.
SAN DIEGO – Checkpoint inhibition can be used safely and effectively with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and it may bolster CAR T-cell effects and persistence, suggest the findings in a series of 14 patients at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Combined programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade and CAR T-cell therapy appeared to have particular benefit in patients with early B-cell recovery and in those with bulky extramedullary disease, Shannon Maude, MD, PhD, reported during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The patients, aged 4-17 years with heavily pretreated relapsed B-ALL (13 patients) or B lymphoblastic lymphoma (1 patient), were treated with CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, including CTL019 in 4 patients and CTL119 in 10 patients, followed by pembrolizumab (in 13 patients) or nivolumab (in 1 patient).
Six patients received the combination therapy because of early B-cell recovery after initial CAR T-cell infusion, four patients had relapsed or refractory (R/R) bulky extramedullary disease, and four patients had failed to respond or relapsed after initial CAR T-cell therapy.
Three of the six with poor persistence of response reestablished B-cell aplasia (a reflection of CAR T-cell function) after reinfusion of the CAR T-cell product followed by infusion with PD-1 blockade, and they have “sustained CR [complete response] with B-cell aplasia, showing continued persistence of their CAR T cells,” said Dr. Maude, an attending physician in the Cancer Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Of the four patients with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, two patients had a partial response and two patients had CR, she said, explaining that it was hypothesized that the “PD-1 checkpoint pathway may be activated through the microenvironment in that extramedullary situation.”
However, all four patients who had partial or no response to initial CAR T-cell therapy progressed after PD-1 administration, she said, noting that “in one patient, this progression was marked by reduced CD19 expression, which was probably the mode of escape from CD19 CAR T cells.”
Prior studies have shown that patients who respond to CAR T-cell therapy have persistence of CD19 CAR T cells, whereas those with loss of CD19 CAR T cells within 6 months of infusion have a higher rate of relapse, Dr. Maude explained.
“Our hypothesis was that T cells, upon activation, may become exhausted through activation of immune checkpoint pathways, that one such pathway – PD-1 – may be involved in early loss of CD19 CAR T cells and therefore that the combination [of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy] with PD-1 checkpoint blockade may improve the function of the CAR T cells and their persistence,” she said.
The combined approach was well tolerated in this study, she said, noting that mild cytokine release syndrome symptoms and fever typical of CAR T-cell proliferative responses were observed in three patients within 2 days of starting pembrolizumab.
Other adverse effects associated with PD-1 inhibition, including acute pancreatitis, hypothyroidism, arthralgias, and urticaria, occurred in one patient each. There were four cases of grade 3-4 cytopenias that were deemed tolerable or reversible upon discontinuation.
“We show that PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors can be safely combined with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and that this mechanism may be useful to improve CAR T-cell persistence,” Dr. Maude said.
These findings, which showed particular benefit in patients with poor persistence marked by early B-cell recovery and in those with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, should help inform future use of checkpoint inhibitors after CAR T-cell therapy, she added.
Dr. Maude reported financial ties to Novartis.
SOURCE: Li AM et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 556.
SAN DIEGO – Checkpoint inhibition can be used safely and effectively with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and it may bolster CAR T-cell effects and persistence, suggest the findings in a series of 14 patients at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Combined programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade and CAR T-cell therapy appeared to have particular benefit in patients with early B-cell recovery and in those with bulky extramedullary disease, Shannon Maude, MD, PhD, reported during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
The patients, aged 4-17 years with heavily pretreated relapsed B-ALL (13 patients) or B lymphoblastic lymphoma (1 patient), were treated with CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, including CTL019 in 4 patients and CTL119 in 10 patients, followed by pembrolizumab (in 13 patients) or nivolumab (in 1 patient).
Six patients received the combination therapy because of early B-cell recovery after initial CAR T-cell infusion, four patients had relapsed or refractory (R/R) bulky extramedullary disease, and four patients had failed to respond or relapsed after initial CAR T-cell therapy.
Three of the six with poor persistence of response reestablished B-cell aplasia (a reflection of CAR T-cell function) after reinfusion of the CAR T-cell product followed by infusion with PD-1 blockade, and they have “sustained CR [complete response] with B-cell aplasia, showing continued persistence of their CAR T cells,” said Dr. Maude, an attending physician in the Cancer Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Of the four patients with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, two patients had a partial response and two patients had CR, she said, explaining that it was hypothesized that the “PD-1 checkpoint pathway may be activated through the microenvironment in that extramedullary situation.”
However, all four patients who had partial or no response to initial CAR T-cell therapy progressed after PD-1 administration, she said, noting that “in one patient, this progression was marked by reduced CD19 expression, which was probably the mode of escape from CD19 CAR T cells.”
Prior studies have shown that patients who respond to CAR T-cell therapy have persistence of CD19 CAR T cells, whereas those with loss of CD19 CAR T cells within 6 months of infusion have a higher rate of relapse, Dr. Maude explained.
“Our hypothesis was that T cells, upon activation, may become exhausted through activation of immune checkpoint pathways, that one such pathway – PD-1 – may be involved in early loss of CD19 CAR T cells and therefore that the combination [of CD19 CAR T-cell therapy] with PD-1 checkpoint blockade may improve the function of the CAR T cells and their persistence,” she said.
The combined approach was well tolerated in this study, she said, noting that mild cytokine release syndrome symptoms and fever typical of CAR T-cell proliferative responses were observed in three patients within 2 days of starting pembrolizumab.
Other adverse effects associated with PD-1 inhibition, including acute pancreatitis, hypothyroidism, arthralgias, and urticaria, occurred in one patient each. There were four cases of grade 3-4 cytopenias that were deemed tolerable or reversible upon discontinuation.
“We show that PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors can be safely combined with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and that this mechanism may be useful to improve CAR T-cell persistence,” Dr. Maude said.
These findings, which showed particular benefit in patients with poor persistence marked by early B-cell recovery and in those with R/R bulky extramedullary disease, should help inform future use of checkpoint inhibitors after CAR T-cell therapy, she added.
Dr. Maude reported financial ties to Novartis.
SOURCE: Li AM et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 556.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2018
Key clinical point: Major finding: Three of six patients with poor CAR T-cell persistence had a complete response after treatment with the combination therapy. Study details: A clinical study of 14 patients with relapsed B-ALL.
Disclosures: Dr. Maude reported financial relationships with Novartis.
Source: Li AM et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 556.
Checkpoint inhibitors ‘viable treatment option’ in HIV-infected individuals
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are safe and effective in HIV-infected patients with advanced cancers, according to authors of a recently published systematic review.
The treatment was well tolerated and associated with a 9% rate of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, according to results of the review of 73 patient cases.
There were no adverse impacts on HIV load or CD4 cell count detected in the patients, according to researchers Michael R. Cook, MD, and Chul Kim, MD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington.
Antitumor activity of the checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer patients was comparable to what has been seen in previous randomized clinical trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim reported in JAMA Oncology.
“Based on the results of the present systematic review, and in the absence of definitive prospective data suggesting an unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may be considered as a viable treatment option for HIV-infected patients with advanced cancer,” they said.
There are preclinical data suggesting that immune checkpoint modulation could improve function of HIV-specific T cells, the investigators added.
“Prospective trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors are necessary to elucidate the antiviral efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with HIV infection and cancer,” they said.
Several such trials are underway to evaluate the role of the pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and durvalumab in HIV-infected patients with advanced-stage cancers, according to the review authors.
In the present systematic review, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim conducted a literature search and reviewed presentations from major annual medical conferences.
Of the 73 HIV-infected patients they identified, most had non–small cell lung cancer (34.2%), melanoma (21.9%), or Kaposi sarcoma (12.3%), while the rest had anal cancer, head and neck cancer, or other malignancies. Most patients had received either nivolumab (39.7%) or pembrolizumab (35.6%).
There were “no concerning findings” among these patients with regard to immune-mediated toxicities or changes in HIV-related parameters.
Six of 70 patients had immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater.
Thirty-four patients had documented HIV loads before and after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Of those, 28 had undetectable HIV loads at baseline, and all but 2 (7%) maintained undetectable loads in the posttreatment evaluation.
Of the remaining six with detectable HIV loads before treatment, five had a decrease in viral load, to the point that four had undetectable HIV viral load in the posttreatment evaluation, the investigators reported.
The overall response rate was 30% for the lung cancer patients, 27% for melanoma, and 63% for Kaposi sarcoma.
In the non–small cell lung cancer subset, response rates were 26% for those who had received previous systemic treatment, and 50% for those who had not, which was similar to findings from major checkpoint inhibitor trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, the investigators said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation and Georgetown University supported the study. Dr. Kim reported disclosures related to CARIS Life Science and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Cook MR and Kim C. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6737.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are safe and effective in HIV-infected patients with advanced cancers, according to authors of a recently published systematic review.
The treatment was well tolerated and associated with a 9% rate of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, according to results of the review of 73 patient cases.
There were no adverse impacts on HIV load or CD4 cell count detected in the patients, according to researchers Michael R. Cook, MD, and Chul Kim, MD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington.
Antitumor activity of the checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer patients was comparable to what has been seen in previous randomized clinical trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim reported in JAMA Oncology.
“Based on the results of the present systematic review, and in the absence of definitive prospective data suggesting an unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may be considered as a viable treatment option for HIV-infected patients with advanced cancer,” they said.
There are preclinical data suggesting that immune checkpoint modulation could improve function of HIV-specific T cells, the investigators added.
“Prospective trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors are necessary to elucidate the antiviral efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with HIV infection and cancer,” they said.
Several such trials are underway to evaluate the role of the pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and durvalumab in HIV-infected patients with advanced-stage cancers, according to the review authors.
In the present systematic review, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim conducted a literature search and reviewed presentations from major annual medical conferences.
Of the 73 HIV-infected patients they identified, most had non–small cell lung cancer (34.2%), melanoma (21.9%), or Kaposi sarcoma (12.3%), while the rest had anal cancer, head and neck cancer, or other malignancies. Most patients had received either nivolumab (39.7%) or pembrolizumab (35.6%).
There were “no concerning findings” among these patients with regard to immune-mediated toxicities or changes in HIV-related parameters.
Six of 70 patients had immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater.
Thirty-four patients had documented HIV loads before and after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Of those, 28 had undetectable HIV loads at baseline, and all but 2 (7%) maintained undetectable loads in the posttreatment evaluation.
Of the remaining six with detectable HIV loads before treatment, five had a decrease in viral load, to the point that four had undetectable HIV viral load in the posttreatment evaluation, the investigators reported.
The overall response rate was 30% for the lung cancer patients, 27% for melanoma, and 63% for Kaposi sarcoma.
In the non–small cell lung cancer subset, response rates were 26% for those who had received previous systemic treatment, and 50% for those who had not, which was similar to findings from major checkpoint inhibitor trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, the investigators said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation and Georgetown University supported the study. Dr. Kim reported disclosures related to CARIS Life Science and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Cook MR and Kim C. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6737.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are safe and effective in HIV-infected patients with advanced cancers, according to authors of a recently published systematic review.
The treatment was well tolerated and associated with a 9% rate of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events, according to results of the review of 73 patient cases.
There were no adverse impacts on HIV load or CD4 cell count detected in the patients, according to researchers Michael R. Cook, MD, and Chul Kim, MD, MPH, of Georgetown University, Washington.
Antitumor activity of the checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer patients was comparable to what has been seen in previous randomized clinical trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim reported in JAMA Oncology.
“Based on the results of the present systematic review, and in the absence of definitive prospective data suggesting an unfavorable risk-to-benefit ratio, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may be considered as a viable treatment option for HIV-infected patients with advanced cancer,” they said.
There are preclinical data suggesting that immune checkpoint modulation could improve function of HIV-specific T cells, the investigators added.
“Prospective trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors are necessary to elucidate the antiviral efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with HIV infection and cancer,” they said.
Several such trials are underway to evaluate the role of the pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and durvalumab in HIV-infected patients with advanced-stage cancers, according to the review authors.
In the present systematic review, Dr. Cook and Dr. Kim conducted a literature search and reviewed presentations from major annual medical conferences.
Of the 73 HIV-infected patients they identified, most had non–small cell lung cancer (34.2%), melanoma (21.9%), or Kaposi sarcoma (12.3%), while the rest had anal cancer, head and neck cancer, or other malignancies. Most patients had received either nivolumab (39.7%) or pembrolizumab (35.6%).
There were “no concerning findings” among these patients with regard to immune-mediated toxicities or changes in HIV-related parameters.
Six of 70 patients had immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or greater.
Thirty-four patients had documented HIV loads before and after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Of those, 28 had undetectable HIV loads at baseline, and all but 2 (7%) maintained undetectable loads in the posttreatment evaluation.
Of the remaining six with detectable HIV loads before treatment, five had a decrease in viral load, to the point that four had undetectable HIV viral load in the posttreatment evaluation, the investigators reported.
The overall response rate was 30% for the lung cancer patients, 27% for melanoma, and 63% for Kaposi sarcoma.
In the non–small cell lung cancer subset, response rates were 26% for those who had received previous systemic treatment, and 50% for those who had not, which was similar to findings from major checkpoint inhibitor trials that excluded HIV-infected individuals, the investigators said.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation and Georgetown University supported the study. Dr. Kim reported disclosures related to CARIS Life Science and AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Cook MR and Kim C. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6737.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a viable treatment option for HIV-infected patients, according to data supporting their safety and efficacy in this patient population.
Major finding: The treatment was well tolerated, with an 8.6% rate of grade 3 or greater immune-related adverse events, and no impact on HIV-related parameters.
Study details: A systematic review of 73 patients with HIV infection who had received treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.
Disclosures: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation and Georgetown University supported the study. One study author reported disclosures related to CARIS Life Science and AstraZeneca.
Source: Cook MR and Kim C. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6737.
Enoblituzumab plus pembrolizumab shows promise for select solid tumors
WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.
Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.
These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.
“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”
Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.
Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.
“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.
No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.
“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.
In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.
“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”
Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.
“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”
The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.
The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.
In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.
The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.
“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”
Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.
This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.
SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.
WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.
Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.
These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.
“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”
Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.
Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.
“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.
No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.
“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.
In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.
“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”
Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.
“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”
The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.
The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.
In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.
The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.
“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”
Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.
This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.
SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.
WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.
Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.
These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.
“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”
Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.
Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.
“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.
No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.
“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.
In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.
“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”
Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.
“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”
The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.
The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.
In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.
The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.
“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”
Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.
This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.
SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.
REPORTING FROM SITC 2018
Key clinical point: Enoblituzumab plus pembrolizumab shows promise in select patients with B7-H3-expressing solid tumors.
Major finding: The ORRs were 33.3% in IO-naive SCCHN patients and 35.7% in PD-L1-negative IO-naive NSCLC patients.
Study details: A phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of 133 patients.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.
Source: Aggarwal C et al. SITC 2018 Abstract O24.
Immunotherapy’s cardiac effects require early monitoring, management
WASHINGTON – Unquestionably, immunotherapy is revolutionizing the care of patients with various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.
But it’s equally true that there’s no such thing as either a free lunch or a cancer therapy free of side effects, whether it’s increased risk for heart failure associated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, or inflammatory conditions, arrhythmias, and thromboembolic events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“Early awareness and intervention is critical for improved outcomes, and a multidisciplinary approach between oncology, cardiology, the clinic nurse, and other health care providers is critical in managing these patients with these complicated therapies,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
Checkpoint inhibitors and the heart
Toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as the programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy) tend to mimic autoimmune conditions, Dr. Cornell said.
Cardiovascular events associated with these agents, while uncommon, include myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, impaired ventricular function with heart failure, vasculitis, and venous thromboembolism, he said, citing an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) clinical practice guideline (J Clin Oncol 2018;36[17]:1714-68).
Dr. Cornell described the case of a 63-year-old woman with disseminated metastatic melanoma who presented to the emergency department 10 days after starting on combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab. She had developed shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and a mild cough for 1 or 2 days.
Her cardiac laboratory markers had been normal at baseline, but were markedly elevated on presentation, and electrocardiograms showed complete heart block and subsequent ventricular tachycardia.
The patient was started on high-dose prednisone, but she died in hospital, and an autopsy showed that the cause of death was infiltration into the myocardium of CD3-positive and CD8-positive T lymphocytes.
“So how do we manage this? This is a good opportunity, I think, for further cardiology and oncology collaboration to develop more robust guidelines for what we can do to best prevent this,” Dr. Cornell said.
Patients started on the ipilimumab/nivolumab combination should be tested weekly for cardiac troponin, creatine kinase (CK) and CK-muscle/brain (CK-MB) weekly for the first 3-4 weeks of therapy. Therapy should be stopped if troponin levels continue to rise, and the patient should be started on high-dose steroids, he said.
The role of other anti-inflammatory agents such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) is unclear and needs further study, he added.
Dr. Cornell cited a 2018 letter to The Lancet by Javid J. Moslehi, MD, and colleagues from Vanderbilt describing an increase in reports of fatal myocarditis among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors.
“We highlight the high mortality rate with severe immune checkpoint inhibitor–related myocarditis, which is more frequent with combination PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade, but can also occur with monotherapy. Myocarditis was observed across immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens, although it remains too early to determine whether the incidence differs between use of anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs. Furthermore, this condition occurs early on during therapy and across cancer types,” they wrote.
Most of the patients had no preexisting cardiovascular disease, and most were not taking medications for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes.
CAR-T cells and cardiac disease
The primary cardiac complications associated with CAR-T cell therapy are related to the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a condition marked by progressive elevation in inflammatory cytokines that in turn leads to marked elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma, tumor necrosis factor al, and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL) 6, IL-10, IL-12, and IL-1 beta.
In rare instances, CRS can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), capillary leak syndrome, and a hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like (HLH) syndrome, Dr. Cornell said.
Package inserts for the two Food and Drug Administration–approved CAR-T cell products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) show that each was associated in clinical trials with a high incidence of CRS.
Among patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel, 94% developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in severity in 13%. The median time to onset was 2 days, and the median duration was 7 days. Cardiovascular adverse events included grade 3 or greater tachycardia in 2%, arrhythmias in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 3%, pleural effusion in 2%, hypotension in 15%, hypertension in 6%, and thrombosis in 1%.
Among patients treated with tisagenlecleucel, 79% treated for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and 74% treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in 49% and 23% of patients, respectively. The median time to onset was 3 days, and the median duration of CRS was 8 days.
Cardiovascular adverse events of grade 3 or greater among these patients included tachycardia in 4%, fluid overload in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 12%, pulmonary edema in 4%, hypotension in 22%, and hypertension in 6%.
Risk factors for CRS include high pre-infusion tumor burden, active infections, and concurrent inflammatory processes, Dr. Cornell said.
Prevention of cardiovascular complications of CAR-T cell therapy requires management of CRS. Patients with grade 2 or greater CRS should receive the anti-IL-6 agent tocilizumab (Actemra) 8 mg/kg intravenously over 1 hour to a maximum dose of 800 mg. Tocilizumab infusions can be repeated every 8 hours as needed if the patient is not responsive to intravenous fluids or increasing supplement oxygen, but should be limited to a maximum of three doses over 24 hours, and a maximum total of four doses.
Patients with grade 3 CRS should also receive intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg twice daily or the equivalent amount of dexamethasone, with corticosteroids continued until the severity of CRS is grade 1 or less, then tapered over 3 days,
Patients with grade 4 CRS should also receive IV methylprednisolone 1,000 mg per day for 3 days, and if symptoms improve, continue management as per grade 3, Dr. Cornell said.
Dr. Cornell reported having nothing to disclose.
WASHINGTON – Unquestionably, immunotherapy is revolutionizing the care of patients with various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.
But it’s equally true that there’s no such thing as either a free lunch or a cancer therapy free of side effects, whether it’s increased risk for heart failure associated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, or inflammatory conditions, arrhythmias, and thromboembolic events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“Early awareness and intervention is critical for improved outcomes, and a multidisciplinary approach between oncology, cardiology, the clinic nurse, and other health care providers is critical in managing these patients with these complicated therapies,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
Checkpoint inhibitors and the heart
Toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as the programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy) tend to mimic autoimmune conditions, Dr. Cornell said.
Cardiovascular events associated with these agents, while uncommon, include myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, impaired ventricular function with heart failure, vasculitis, and venous thromboembolism, he said, citing an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) clinical practice guideline (J Clin Oncol 2018;36[17]:1714-68).
Dr. Cornell described the case of a 63-year-old woman with disseminated metastatic melanoma who presented to the emergency department 10 days after starting on combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab. She had developed shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and a mild cough for 1 or 2 days.
Her cardiac laboratory markers had been normal at baseline, but were markedly elevated on presentation, and electrocardiograms showed complete heart block and subsequent ventricular tachycardia.
The patient was started on high-dose prednisone, but she died in hospital, and an autopsy showed that the cause of death was infiltration into the myocardium of CD3-positive and CD8-positive T lymphocytes.
“So how do we manage this? This is a good opportunity, I think, for further cardiology and oncology collaboration to develop more robust guidelines for what we can do to best prevent this,” Dr. Cornell said.
Patients started on the ipilimumab/nivolumab combination should be tested weekly for cardiac troponin, creatine kinase (CK) and CK-muscle/brain (CK-MB) weekly for the first 3-4 weeks of therapy. Therapy should be stopped if troponin levels continue to rise, and the patient should be started on high-dose steroids, he said.
The role of other anti-inflammatory agents such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) is unclear and needs further study, he added.
Dr. Cornell cited a 2018 letter to The Lancet by Javid J. Moslehi, MD, and colleagues from Vanderbilt describing an increase in reports of fatal myocarditis among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors.
“We highlight the high mortality rate with severe immune checkpoint inhibitor–related myocarditis, which is more frequent with combination PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade, but can also occur with monotherapy. Myocarditis was observed across immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens, although it remains too early to determine whether the incidence differs between use of anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs. Furthermore, this condition occurs early on during therapy and across cancer types,” they wrote.
Most of the patients had no preexisting cardiovascular disease, and most were not taking medications for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes.
CAR-T cells and cardiac disease
The primary cardiac complications associated with CAR-T cell therapy are related to the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a condition marked by progressive elevation in inflammatory cytokines that in turn leads to marked elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma, tumor necrosis factor al, and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL) 6, IL-10, IL-12, and IL-1 beta.
In rare instances, CRS can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), capillary leak syndrome, and a hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like (HLH) syndrome, Dr. Cornell said.
Package inserts for the two Food and Drug Administration–approved CAR-T cell products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) show that each was associated in clinical trials with a high incidence of CRS.
Among patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel, 94% developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in severity in 13%. The median time to onset was 2 days, and the median duration was 7 days. Cardiovascular adverse events included grade 3 or greater tachycardia in 2%, arrhythmias in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 3%, pleural effusion in 2%, hypotension in 15%, hypertension in 6%, and thrombosis in 1%.
Among patients treated with tisagenlecleucel, 79% treated for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and 74% treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in 49% and 23% of patients, respectively. The median time to onset was 3 days, and the median duration of CRS was 8 days.
Cardiovascular adverse events of grade 3 or greater among these patients included tachycardia in 4%, fluid overload in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 12%, pulmonary edema in 4%, hypotension in 22%, and hypertension in 6%.
Risk factors for CRS include high pre-infusion tumor burden, active infections, and concurrent inflammatory processes, Dr. Cornell said.
Prevention of cardiovascular complications of CAR-T cell therapy requires management of CRS. Patients with grade 2 or greater CRS should receive the anti-IL-6 agent tocilizumab (Actemra) 8 mg/kg intravenously over 1 hour to a maximum dose of 800 mg. Tocilizumab infusions can be repeated every 8 hours as needed if the patient is not responsive to intravenous fluids or increasing supplement oxygen, but should be limited to a maximum of three doses over 24 hours, and a maximum total of four doses.
Patients with grade 3 CRS should also receive intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg twice daily or the equivalent amount of dexamethasone, with corticosteroids continued until the severity of CRS is grade 1 or less, then tapered over 3 days,
Patients with grade 4 CRS should also receive IV methylprednisolone 1,000 mg per day for 3 days, and if symptoms improve, continue management as per grade 3, Dr. Cornell said.
Dr. Cornell reported having nothing to disclose.
WASHINGTON – Unquestionably, immunotherapy is revolutionizing the care of patients with various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.
But it’s equally true that there’s no such thing as either a free lunch or a cancer therapy free of side effects, whether it’s increased risk for heart failure associated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, or inflammatory conditions, arrhythmias, and thromboembolic events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
“Early awareness and intervention is critical for improved outcomes, and a multidisciplinary approach between oncology, cardiology, the clinic nurse, and other health care providers is critical in managing these patients with these complicated therapies,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
Checkpoint inhibitors and the heart
Toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as the programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy) tend to mimic autoimmune conditions, Dr. Cornell said.
Cardiovascular events associated with these agents, while uncommon, include myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, impaired ventricular function with heart failure, vasculitis, and venous thromboembolism, he said, citing an American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) clinical practice guideline (J Clin Oncol 2018;36[17]:1714-68).
Dr. Cornell described the case of a 63-year-old woman with disseminated metastatic melanoma who presented to the emergency department 10 days after starting on combination therapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab. She had developed shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and a mild cough for 1 or 2 days.
Her cardiac laboratory markers had been normal at baseline, but were markedly elevated on presentation, and electrocardiograms showed complete heart block and subsequent ventricular tachycardia.
The patient was started on high-dose prednisone, but she died in hospital, and an autopsy showed that the cause of death was infiltration into the myocardium of CD3-positive and CD8-positive T lymphocytes.
“So how do we manage this? This is a good opportunity, I think, for further cardiology and oncology collaboration to develop more robust guidelines for what we can do to best prevent this,” Dr. Cornell said.
Patients started on the ipilimumab/nivolumab combination should be tested weekly for cardiac troponin, creatine kinase (CK) and CK-muscle/brain (CK-MB) weekly for the first 3-4 weeks of therapy. Therapy should be stopped if troponin levels continue to rise, and the patient should be started on high-dose steroids, he said.
The role of other anti-inflammatory agents such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) is unclear and needs further study, he added.
Dr. Cornell cited a 2018 letter to The Lancet by Javid J. Moslehi, MD, and colleagues from Vanderbilt describing an increase in reports of fatal myocarditis among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors.
“We highlight the high mortality rate with severe immune checkpoint inhibitor–related myocarditis, which is more frequent with combination PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade, but can also occur with monotherapy. Myocarditis was observed across immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens, although it remains too early to determine whether the incidence differs between use of anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs. Furthermore, this condition occurs early on during therapy and across cancer types,” they wrote.
Most of the patients had no preexisting cardiovascular disease, and most were not taking medications for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes.
CAR-T cells and cardiac disease
The primary cardiac complications associated with CAR-T cell therapy are related to the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a condition marked by progressive elevation in inflammatory cytokines that in turn leads to marked elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma, tumor necrosis factor al, and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL) 6, IL-10, IL-12, and IL-1 beta.
In rare instances, CRS can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), capillary leak syndrome, and a hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like (HLH) syndrome, Dr. Cornell said.
Package inserts for the two Food and Drug Administration–approved CAR-T cell products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) show that each was associated in clinical trials with a high incidence of CRS.
Among patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel, 94% developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in severity in 13%. The median time to onset was 2 days, and the median duration was 7 days. Cardiovascular adverse events included grade 3 or greater tachycardia in 2%, arrhythmias in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 3%, pleural effusion in 2%, hypotension in 15%, hypertension in 6%, and thrombosis in 1%.
Among patients treated with tisagenlecleucel, 79% treated for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and 74% treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) developed CRS, which was grade 3 or greater in 49% and 23% of patients, respectively. The median time to onset was 3 days, and the median duration of CRS was 8 days.
Cardiovascular adverse events of grade 3 or greater among these patients included tachycardia in 4%, fluid overload in 7%, edema in 1%, dyspnea in 12%, pulmonary edema in 4%, hypotension in 22%, and hypertension in 6%.
Risk factors for CRS include high pre-infusion tumor burden, active infections, and concurrent inflammatory processes, Dr. Cornell said.
Prevention of cardiovascular complications of CAR-T cell therapy requires management of CRS. Patients with grade 2 or greater CRS should receive the anti-IL-6 agent tocilizumab (Actemra) 8 mg/kg intravenously over 1 hour to a maximum dose of 800 mg. Tocilizumab infusions can be repeated every 8 hours as needed if the patient is not responsive to intravenous fluids or increasing supplement oxygen, but should be limited to a maximum of three doses over 24 hours, and a maximum total of four doses.
Patients with grade 3 CRS should also receive intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg twice daily or the equivalent amount of dexamethasone, with corticosteroids continued until the severity of CRS is grade 1 or less, then tapered over 3 days,
Patients with grade 4 CRS should also receive IV methylprednisolone 1,000 mg per day for 3 days, and if symptoms improve, continue management as per grade 3, Dr. Cornell said.
Dr. Cornell reported having nothing to disclose.
REPORTING FROM ACC CARDIO-ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Monitor for cardiac symptoms and treat or interrupt immunotherapy as needed.
Major finding: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapies are associated with distinct cardiovascular adverse events.
Study details: Review of strategies for managing the cardiovascular consequences of cancer immunotherapies.
Disclosures: Dr. Cornell reported having nothing to disclose.
The Use of Immuno-Oncology Treatments in the VA (FULL)
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work. 
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work.
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work.
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.