User login
TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis in IBD patients a consideration
WASHINGTON – (IBD), Sophia Delano, MD, said during a session on the cutaneous effects of IBD at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
This is a paradoxical reaction, which can happen “weeks to years after starting a TNF blocker,” with about 70% of cases occurring during the first year of therapy, said Dr. Delano, an attending physician in the dermatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Those receiving infliximab are more likely to develop TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis, compared with those on adalimumab or etanercept. TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis may not track with gastrointestinal activity, and some patients whose gastrointestinal disease is responding to treatment can begin to develop psoriasis, she noted.
The clinical presentation of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis can also vary. In one study of 216 cases, 26.9% of patients had a mixed morphology, with the most common presentations including plaque psoriasis (44.8%) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (36.3%). Other presentations were psoriasiform dermatitis (19.9%), scalp involvement with alopecia (7.5%), and generalized pustular psoriasis (10.9%). Locations affected were the soles of the feet (45.8%), extremities (45.4%), palms (44.9%), scalp (36.1%), and trunk (32.4%), Dr. Delano said.
TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis is likely a class effect, she said, noting that, in the same review, symptoms resolved in 47.7% of patients who discontinued TNF inhibitors, in 36.7% of patients who switched to another TNF inhibitor, and in 32.9% of patients who continued their original therapy (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76[2]:334-41). In the study, Crohn’s disease and RA were the most common diseases, in 40.7% and 37.0% of the patients, respectively.
There have been case reports of TNF antagonist–induced lupus-like syndrome (TAILS), which is more common in patients with RA and ulcerative colitis. TAILS occurs more often in women than in men; can present similarly to systemic lupus erythematosus, subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and chronic cutaneous lupus; and resolves by stopping TNF inhibitor treatment, Dr. Delano said.
Skin cancer risk, infections, and injection site reactions
Both adult and pediatric patients treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD may be at increased risk for lymphoma, visceral tumors, melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Dr. Delano referred to a study published in 2014, which identified 972 reports of melanoma in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database associated with TNF inhibitor use; of these, 69 cases involved patients using more than one TNF inhibitor. Infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, and adalimumab were associated with a safety signal for melanoma, but not certolizumab (Br J Dermatol. 2014 May;170[5]:1170-2).
Dr. Delano observed that thiopurines such as azathioprine are also associated with an increased cancer risk, as noted in one retrospective study that found that the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 2.1 times higher in a mostly white male cohort with ulcerative colitis during treatment with thiopurines, compared with patients not treated with thiopurines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109[11]:1781-93). A greater duration of treatment (more than 6 months) and higher doses were associated with higher risks.
Adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab can also cause injection site reactions, typically within 1- 2 days of injection, said Dr. Delano. In these cases, symptoms of erythema, warmth, burning, or pruritus are worse at the beginning of treatment and can be relieved by rotating the injection site as well as providing cool compresses, topical steroids, antihistamines, and supportive care.
“If you have a patient with a worsening reaction, consider it may represent the type 1 IgE-related hypersensitivity requiring desensitization to continue that systemic,” she noted.
Cutaneous bacterial, fungal, and viral infections such as molluscum contagiosum, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster can occur as a result of TNF inhibition as well, and can be difficult to clear because of immunosuppression, she added.
Dr. Delano reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
WASHINGTON – (IBD), Sophia Delano, MD, said during a session on the cutaneous effects of IBD at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
This is a paradoxical reaction, which can happen “weeks to years after starting a TNF blocker,” with about 70% of cases occurring during the first year of therapy, said Dr. Delano, an attending physician in the dermatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Those receiving infliximab are more likely to develop TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis, compared with those on adalimumab or etanercept. TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis may not track with gastrointestinal activity, and some patients whose gastrointestinal disease is responding to treatment can begin to develop psoriasis, she noted.
The clinical presentation of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis can also vary. In one study of 216 cases, 26.9% of patients had a mixed morphology, with the most common presentations including plaque psoriasis (44.8%) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (36.3%). Other presentations were psoriasiform dermatitis (19.9%), scalp involvement with alopecia (7.5%), and generalized pustular psoriasis (10.9%). Locations affected were the soles of the feet (45.8%), extremities (45.4%), palms (44.9%), scalp (36.1%), and trunk (32.4%), Dr. Delano said.
TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis is likely a class effect, she said, noting that, in the same review, symptoms resolved in 47.7% of patients who discontinued TNF inhibitors, in 36.7% of patients who switched to another TNF inhibitor, and in 32.9% of patients who continued their original therapy (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76[2]:334-41). In the study, Crohn’s disease and RA were the most common diseases, in 40.7% and 37.0% of the patients, respectively.
There have been case reports of TNF antagonist–induced lupus-like syndrome (TAILS), which is more common in patients with RA and ulcerative colitis. TAILS occurs more often in women than in men; can present similarly to systemic lupus erythematosus, subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and chronic cutaneous lupus; and resolves by stopping TNF inhibitor treatment, Dr. Delano said.
Skin cancer risk, infections, and injection site reactions
Both adult and pediatric patients treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD may be at increased risk for lymphoma, visceral tumors, melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Dr. Delano referred to a study published in 2014, which identified 972 reports of melanoma in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database associated with TNF inhibitor use; of these, 69 cases involved patients using more than one TNF inhibitor. Infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, and adalimumab were associated with a safety signal for melanoma, but not certolizumab (Br J Dermatol. 2014 May;170[5]:1170-2).
Dr. Delano observed that thiopurines such as azathioprine are also associated with an increased cancer risk, as noted in one retrospective study that found that the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 2.1 times higher in a mostly white male cohort with ulcerative colitis during treatment with thiopurines, compared with patients not treated with thiopurines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109[11]:1781-93). A greater duration of treatment (more than 6 months) and higher doses were associated with higher risks.
Adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab can also cause injection site reactions, typically within 1- 2 days of injection, said Dr. Delano. In these cases, symptoms of erythema, warmth, burning, or pruritus are worse at the beginning of treatment and can be relieved by rotating the injection site as well as providing cool compresses, topical steroids, antihistamines, and supportive care.
“If you have a patient with a worsening reaction, consider it may represent the type 1 IgE-related hypersensitivity requiring desensitization to continue that systemic,” she noted.
Cutaneous bacterial, fungal, and viral infections such as molluscum contagiosum, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster can occur as a result of TNF inhibition as well, and can be difficult to clear because of immunosuppression, she added.
Dr. Delano reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
WASHINGTON – (IBD), Sophia Delano, MD, said during a session on the cutaneous effects of IBD at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
This is a paradoxical reaction, which can happen “weeks to years after starting a TNF blocker,” with about 70% of cases occurring during the first year of therapy, said Dr. Delano, an attending physician in the dermatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Those receiving infliximab are more likely to develop TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis, compared with those on adalimumab or etanercept. TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis may not track with gastrointestinal activity, and some patients whose gastrointestinal disease is responding to treatment can begin to develop psoriasis, she noted.
The clinical presentation of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis can also vary. In one study of 216 cases, 26.9% of patients had a mixed morphology, with the most common presentations including plaque psoriasis (44.8%) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (36.3%). Other presentations were psoriasiform dermatitis (19.9%), scalp involvement with alopecia (7.5%), and generalized pustular psoriasis (10.9%). Locations affected were the soles of the feet (45.8%), extremities (45.4%), palms (44.9%), scalp (36.1%), and trunk (32.4%), Dr. Delano said.
TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis is likely a class effect, she said, noting that, in the same review, symptoms resolved in 47.7% of patients who discontinued TNF inhibitors, in 36.7% of patients who switched to another TNF inhibitor, and in 32.9% of patients who continued their original therapy (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76[2]:334-41). In the study, Crohn’s disease and RA were the most common diseases, in 40.7% and 37.0% of the patients, respectively.
There have been case reports of TNF antagonist–induced lupus-like syndrome (TAILS), which is more common in patients with RA and ulcerative colitis. TAILS occurs more often in women than in men; can present similarly to systemic lupus erythematosus, subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and chronic cutaneous lupus; and resolves by stopping TNF inhibitor treatment, Dr. Delano said.
Skin cancer risk, infections, and injection site reactions
Both adult and pediatric patients treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD may be at increased risk for lymphoma, visceral tumors, melanoma, and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Dr. Delano referred to a study published in 2014, which identified 972 reports of melanoma in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System database associated with TNF inhibitor use; of these, 69 cases involved patients using more than one TNF inhibitor. Infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, and adalimumab were associated with a safety signal for melanoma, but not certolizumab (Br J Dermatol. 2014 May;170[5]:1170-2).
Dr. Delano observed that thiopurines such as azathioprine are also associated with an increased cancer risk, as noted in one retrospective study that found that the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 2.1 times higher in a mostly white male cohort with ulcerative colitis during treatment with thiopurines, compared with patients not treated with thiopurines (Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109[11]:1781-93). A greater duration of treatment (more than 6 months) and higher doses were associated with higher risks.
Adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab can also cause injection site reactions, typically within 1- 2 days of injection, said Dr. Delano. In these cases, symptoms of erythema, warmth, burning, or pruritus are worse at the beginning of treatment and can be relieved by rotating the injection site as well as providing cool compresses, topical steroids, antihistamines, and supportive care.
“If you have a patient with a worsening reaction, consider it may represent the type 1 IgE-related hypersensitivity requiring desensitization to continue that systemic,” she noted.
Cutaneous bacterial, fungal, and viral infections such as molluscum contagiosum, verruca vulgaris, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster can occur as a result of TNF inhibition as well, and can be difficult to clear because of immunosuppression, she added.
Dr. Delano reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAD 2019
Novel immunostimulant combo shows early efficacy
SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.
Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.
Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.
“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.
The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.
In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.
The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.
The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.
Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.
Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.
Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.
The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.
The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.
The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.
SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.
SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.
Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.
Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.
“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.
The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.
In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.
The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.
The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.
Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.
Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.
Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.
The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.
The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.
The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.
SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.
SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of two novel immune-stimulating agents has shown early evidence of efficacy against malignant melanoma, leiomyosarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer in a phase 1b, dose-escalating study.
Among 11 evaluable patients enrolled in a trial of NKTR-262, a small molecule agonist of toll-like receptors (TLR) 7/8, and bempegaldesleukin, an interleukin-2 pathway agonist, 2 had a partial response and 3 had stable disease, reported Adi Diab, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his colleagues.
Patients tolerated the combination well, and there have been no serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities.
“Pharmacodynamic data demonstrate both activation of the systemic adaptive and the local innate immune system, and we have seen early evidence of clinical activity in patients who are refractory to checkpoint inhibitors with immunotherapy regimens,” Dr. Diab said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
NKTR-262 is injected into tumors and is designed to be retained in the tumor microenvironment where it helps to activate antigen-presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, and primes development of new, antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells. Bempegaldesleukin is a cytokine that works within the IL-2 pathway to increase CD8-positive T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in the tumor microenvironment.
The rationale for the combination is that NKTR-262 can activate innate immunity in cells surrounding the tumor microenvironment and activate the machinery of antigen-presenting cells, and bempegaldesleukin can prime and boost a systemic tumor immune response that can ultimately mediate antitumor activity in distant lesions, Dr. Adib said.
In preclinical models, the combination of these agents led to a robust antitumor effect that also involved distant lesions through mediation of the abscopal effect, in which treatment of a tumor activates an immune response against distant tumor cells as well, Dr. Diab said.
The REVEAL study is an ongoing, phase 1b/2 trial looking at the combination in melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ovarian cancer, renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and sarcoma.
The primary goal of the study is to evaluate safety and determine the optimal phase 2 dose of the combination, evaluate biomarkers of response, and assess antitumor activity. As of Jan. 23, 2019, 13 patients were enrolled and evaluable for safety, and 11 were evaluable for the preliminary efficacy analysis.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with the combination were transient grade 1 or 2 flu-like symptoms, rash, fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. One patients developed grade 3 maculopapular rash and leukocytosis.
Most of the TRAEs are attributable to bempegaldesleukin. There were no immune-mediated AEs and no TRAEs resulted in study discontinuation.
Tumor biopsies obtained 24 hours after injection of NKTR-262 confirmed the activation of TLR 7/8 and robust induction of type 1 interferon, interferon-alpha, and interferon-beta gene-related signatures necessary for optimal antigen presentation.
Dr. Diab noted that in a different trial of bempegaldesleukin monotherapy there was no significant increase in the type 1 interferon gene signature, but the agent did promote activation of the adaptive immune system.
The complementary nature of the two novel agents could also be demonstrated in evaluation of peripheral blood samples, which showed that, although there was no proliferation of T or NK cells following NKTR-262 injection, the addition of bempegaldesleukin resulted in the proliferation of both effector T cells and NK cells to enhance the systemic immune response.
The preliminary efficacy analysis showed that two of five patients with stage IV melanoma who experienced disease progression on prior immune checkpoint inhibitors had partial responses, including one who had a 100% reduction in target lesions and the other with a 50% reduction. In addition, two patients with heavily pretreated leiomyosarcoma had stable disease as the best response, as did the single patient with TNBC.
The maximum tolerated dose of the combination has not been identified, and the investigators are continuing to enroll patients.
The REVEAL study is supported by Nektar Therapeutics. Dr. Diab reported institutional research funding, consulting fees, and advisory board participation from Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squib, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, and Array BioPharma.
SOURCE: Diab A et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 26.
REPORTING FROM ASCO-SITC
Antibiotics gut checkpoint inhibitor efficacy
SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.
A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.
The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”
Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.
To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.
The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.
Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.
Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).
In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.
An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.
The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.
SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.
SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.
A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.
The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”
Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.
To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.
The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.
Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.
Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).
In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.
An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.
The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.
SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.
SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.
A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.
“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.
The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”
Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.
To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.
The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.
Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.
Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).
In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).
In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.
An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.
The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.
SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.
REPORTING FROM ASCO-SITC
31-GEP test predicts likelihood of metastasis for cutaneous melanoma
WASHINGTON – The for accurately predicting recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival and melanoma-specific survival, according to results presented by Bradley N. Greenhaw, MD, at a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Greenhaw, a dermatologist affiliated with the North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo, and his colleagues pooled together 1,268 patients from the following studies that analyzed results from melanoma patients who had their disease classified with the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test.
- A single-center study, conducted by Dr. Greenhaw and his associates (Greenhaw BN et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001588.
- A multicenter prospective study (J Hematol Oncol. 2017 Aug. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0520-1.
- A retrospective archival study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.028.
The 31-GEP test stratifies an individual’s likelihood of developing metastasis within 5 years as low and high risk. In the three studies, the test was used to identify tumors with low-risk (class 1A, class 1B), higher-risk (class 2A), and highest-risk (class 2B) melanoma based on tumor gene expression. In these individual studies, class 2B melanoma independently predicted recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis–free, and melanoma-specific survival.
Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 1,268 patients with stage I through stage III melanoma from those three studies, using fixed and random effects weighting to account for study differences and heterogeneity, respectively. For class 2B tumors, they found a 2.96 increased risk for recurrent metastases and a 2.88 increased risk for distant metastases. The researchers also found no heterogeneity across the studies.
Melanoma-specific survival was not included in the meta-analysis because one paper did not contain any mortality events in class 1A melanoma patients.
“The meta-analysis demonstrated that the GEP test was able to accurately identify those melanoma patients who were at higher risk of metastasis, and we saw a consistent effect across multiple studies,” Dr. Greenhaw said.
Since publication of the 2019 JAAD paper, there were an additional 211 patients who met inclusion criteria and were included in an additional meta-analysis to determine whether inclusion of these patients affected the results. Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues found a 91.4% recurrence-free survival rate and a 94.1% distant metastasis–free survival rate for class 1A melanomas, compared with 45.7% and 55.5% , respectively, for class 2B tumors.
“You can see a big divergence,” Dr. Greenhaw said at the meeting. “Just by using this one test, it’s able to separate out melanomas that otherwise may be grouped in together under current AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging,” he added. “The class 2B designation really did confirm a higher risk for recurrence in distant metastasis.”
The researchers used the SORT method to rate the quality of the data across all three studies. Level 1 evidence under the SORT method represents a systematic review or meta-analysis of good-quality studies and/or a prospective study with good follow-up, while an A-level recommendation represents good, quality evidence. Based on the meta-analysis results, the 31-GEP test meets level 1A evidence under the SORT method, Dr. Greenhaw said.
As a prognostic tool, 31-GEP has the potential to change how dermatologists manage their patients with regard to follow-up and adjuvant therapy. “It is being used not just as this novel test that gives us more information, it’s being used clinically,” said Dr. Greenhaw, who noted he regularly uses the 31-GEP test in his practice.
This is the first time that a meta-analysis has been performed for this test, he noted.
Dr. Greenhaw reports a pending relationship with Castle Biosciences.
SOURCE: Greenhaw BN et al. AAD 19. Session F055, Abstract 11370.
WASHINGTON – The for accurately predicting recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival and melanoma-specific survival, according to results presented by Bradley N. Greenhaw, MD, at a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Greenhaw, a dermatologist affiliated with the North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo, and his colleagues pooled together 1,268 patients from the following studies that analyzed results from melanoma patients who had their disease classified with the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test.
- A single-center study, conducted by Dr. Greenhaw and his associates (Greenhaw BN et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001588.
- A multicenter prospective study (J Hematol Oncol. 2017 Aug. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0520-1.
- A retrospective archival study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.028.
The 31-GEP test stratifies an individual’s likelihood of developing metastasis within 5 years as low and high risk. In the three studies, the test was used to identify tumors with low-risk (class 1A, class 1B), higher-risk (class 2A), and highest-risk (class 2B) melanoma based on tumor gene expression. In these individual studies, class 2B melanoma independently predicted recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis–free, and melanoma-specific survival.
Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 1,268 patients with stage I through stage III melanoma from those three studies, using fixed and random effects weighting to account for study differences and heterogeneity, respectively. For class 2B tumors, they found a 2.96 increased risk for recurrent metastases and a 2.88 increased risk for distant metastases. The researchers also found no heterogeneity across the studies.
Melanoma-specific survival was not included in the meta-analysis because one paper did not contain any mortality events in class 1A melanoma patients.
“The meta-analysis demonstrated that the GEP test was able to accurately identify those melanoma patients who were at higher risk of metastasis, and we saw a consistent effect across multiple studies,” Dr. Greenhaw said.
Since publication of the 2019 JAAD paper, there were an additional 211 patients who met inclusion criteria and were included in an additional meta-analysis to determine whether inclusion of these patients affected the results. Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues found a 91.4% recurrence-free survival rate and a 94.1% distant metastasis–free survival rate for class 1A melanomas, compared with 45.7% and 55.5% , respectively, for class 2B tumors.
“You can see a big divergence,” Dr. Greenhaw said at the meeting. “Just by using this one test, it’s able to separate out melanomas that otherwise may be grouped in together under current AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging,” he added. “The class 2B designation really did confirm a higher risk for recurrence in distant metastasis.”
The researchers used the SORT method to rate the quality of the data across all three studies. Level 1 evidence under the SORT method represents a systematic review or meta-analysis of good-quality studies and/or a prospective study with good follow-up, while an A-level recommendation represents good, quality evidence. Based on the meta-analysis results, the 31-GEP test meets level 1A evidence under the SORT method, Dr. Greenhaw said.
As a prognostic tool, 31-GEP has the potential to change how dermatologists manage their patients with regard to follow-up and adjuvant therapy. “It is being used not just as this novel test that gives us more information, it’s being used clinically,” said Dr. Greenhaw, who noted he regularly uses the 31-GEP test in his practice.
This is the first time that a meta-analysis has been performed for this test, he noted.
Dr. Greenhaw reports a pending relationship with Castle Biosciences.
SOURCE: Greenhaw BN et al. AAD 19. Session F055, Abstract 11370.
WASHINGTON – The for accurately predicting recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival and melanoma-specific survival, according to results presented by Bradley N. Greenhaw, MD, at a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Greenhaw, a dermatologist affiliated with the North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo, and his colleagues pooled together 1,268 patients from the following studies that analyzed results from melanoma patients who had their disease classified with the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test.
- A single-center study, conducted by Dr. Greenhaw and his associates (Greenhaw BN et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001588.
- A multicenter prospective study (J Hematol Oncol. 2017 Aug. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0520-1.
- A retrospective archival study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.07.028.
The 31-GEP test stratifies an individual’s likelihood of developing metastasis within 5 years as low and high risk. In the three studies, the test was used to identify tumors with low-risk (class 1A, class 1B), higher-risk (class 2A), and highest-risk (class 2B) melanoma based on tumor gene expression. In these individual studies, class 2B melanoma independently predicted recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis–free, and melanoma-specific survival.
Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 1,268 patients with stage I through stage III melanoma from those three studies, using fixed and random effects weighting to account for study differences and heterogeneity, respectively. For class 2B tumors, they found a 2.96 increased risk for recurrent metastases and a 2.88 increased risk for distant metastases. The researchers also found no heterogeneity across the studies.
Melanoma-specific survival was not included in the meta-analysis because one paper did not contain any mortality events in class 1A melanoma patients.
“The meta-analysis demonstrated that the GEP test was able to accurately identify those melanoma patients who were at higher risk of metastasis, and we saw a consistent effect across multiple studies,” Dr. Greenhaw said.
Since publication of the 2019 JAAD paper, there were an additional 211 patients who met inclusion criteria and were included in an additional meta-analysis to determine whether inclusion of these patients affected the results. Dr. Greenhaw and colleagues found a 91.4% recurrence-free survival rate and a 94.1% distant metastasis–free survival rate for class 1A melanomas, compared with 45.7% and 55.5% , respectively, for class 2B tumors.
“You can see a big divergence,” Dr. Greenhaw said at the meeting. “Just by using this one test, it’s able to separate out melanomas that otherwise may be grouped in together under current AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging,” he added. “The class 2B designation really did confirm a higher risk for recurrence in distant metastasis.”
The researchers used the SORT method to rate the quality of the data across all three studies. Level 1 evidence under the SORT method represents a systematic review or meta-analysis of good-quality studies and/or a prospective study with good follow-up, while an A-level recommendation represents good, quality evidence. Based on the meta-analysis results, the 31-GEP test meets level 1A evidence under the SORT method, Dr. Greenhaw said.
As a prognostic tool, 31-GEP has the potential to change how dermatologists manage their patients with regard to follow-up and adjuvant therapy. “It is being used not just as this novel test that gives us more information, it’s being used clinically,” said Dr. Greenhaw, who noted he regularly uses the 31-GEP test in his practice.
This is the first time that a meta-analysis has been performed for this test, he noted.
Dr. Greenhaw reports a pending relationship with Castle Biosciences.
SOURCE: Greenhaw BN et al. AAD 19. Session F055, Abstract 11370.
REPORTING FROM AAD 19
Diagnostic devices may increasingly aid melanoma diagnosis
“If you incorporate the data from these devices into the biopsy decision, you can improve biopsy sensitivity and accuracy of selection. I think there’s no question with these technologies that’s a true statement,” said Dr. Rigel, of New York University Langone Health.
When considering diagnostic devices, evaluate whether they produce results that outperform dermatologists, are low cost, user-friendly, time-efficient and have a high sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Rigel advised. But since no device has a perfect sensitivity and specificity, they cannot be followed blindly. The data from these devices should be used to inform, but not replace, clinical decisions made by dermatologists.
“They’re basically additional information to integrate into the biopsy decision,” he said. “At the end of the day, if you see something with a low score but it really looks funky, the reality is you have to really consider it for biopsy.”
Dr. Rigel discussed five device types that were used to analyze a number of preselected, noninvasive melanoma lesions. The devices required little training to use and a dermatologist would be required to correctly identify the lesions in a deeper analysis.
- Multispectral digital skin lesion analysis (MDSLA) uses 10 spectral wavelengths to measure the light reflected from the tissue, generating a score from a proprietary algorithm that predicts the risk of melanoma. Use of MDSLA improved the biopsy sensitivity for melanoma from 65% to 93% among 179 dermatologists who reviewed images of 24 lesions, 5 of which were melanoma (Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(4):541-3).
- Spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis scope uses a similar analytic method as the MDSLA device but is difficult to find in the United States; however, one recent study cited a sensitivity of 81.4% and a specificity of 86.4%, indicating it has value for diagnosing melanoma.
- Raman spectroscopy uses monochromatic laser light to analyze the vibratory patterns of cells and examines the shifts in the light to identify a “molecular fingerprint” of potentially cancerous cells, has a high sensitivity and a “relatively reasonable specificity,” Dr. Rigel said.
- Elastic scattering spectroscopy, a newer technology that uses a smartphone-sized device to measure the difference in light scattered from different cellular structures, holds promise to reduce the number of negative biopsies when differentiating between malignant and benign skin conditions. It is currently pending approval with the Food and Drug Administration.
- Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), which uses an electrical alternating current to detect the electrical resistance of potentially cancerous tissue, generates a score with a high negative predictive value and a higher positive predictive value as the score increases. In a study of melanoma diagnoses made by dermatology trainees, use of EIS decreased the number of missed melanomas by 23.4% and resulted in fewer benign biopsies. (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:285-7).
All these technologies have been proven effective, but have encountered various economic roadblocks, including delays in regulatory approval, which are partly responsible for why some are no longer on the market, Dr. Rigel said. “If you have to wait 5 years or 7 years to get approval of these devices, by the time they’re approved, the technology is already passed by.”
There are also issues with reimbursements, Dr. Rigel noted, which can further reduce the clinical implementation of these technologies.
Dr. Rigel reported relationships with Derm Tech International, Scibase (maker of EIS) and a number of dermatologic drug companies.
“If you incorporate the data from these devices into the biopsy decision, you can improve biopsy sensitivity and accuracy of selection. I think there’s no question with these technologies that’s a true statement,” said Dr. Rigel, of New York University Langone Health.
When considering diagnostic devices, evaluate whether they produce results that outperform dermatologists, are low cost, user-friendly, time-efficient and have a high sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Rigel advised. But since no device has a perfect sensitivity and specificity, they cannot be followed blindly. The data from these devices should be used to inform, but not replace, clinical decisions made by dermatologists.
“They’re basically additional information to integrate into the biopsy decision,” he said. “At the end of the day, if you see something with a low score but it really looks funky, the reality is you have to really consider it for biopsy.”
Dr. Rigel discussed five device types that were used to analyze a number of preselected, noninvasive melanoma lesions. The devices required little training to use and a dermatologist would be required to correctly identify the lesions in a deeper analysis.
- Multispectral digital skin lesion analysis (MDSLA) uses 10 spectral wavelengths to measure the light reflected from the tissue, generating a score from a proprietary algorithm that predicts the risk of melanoma. Use of MDSLA improved the biopsy sensitivity for melanoma from 65% to 93% among 179 dermatologists who reviewed images of 24 lesions, 5 of which were melanoma (Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(4):541-3).
- Spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis scope uses a similar analytic method as the MDSLA device but is difficult to find in the United States; however, one recent study cited a sensitivity of 81.4% and a specificity of 86.4%, indicating it has value for diagnosing melanoma.
- Raman spectroscopy uses monochromatic laser light to analyze the vibratory patterns of cells and examines the shifts in the light to identify a “molecular fingerprint” of potentially cancerous cells, has a high sensitivity and a “relatively reasonable specificity,” Dr. Rigel said.
- Elastic scattering spectroscopy, a newer technology that uses a smartphone-sized device to measure the difference in light scattered from different cellular structures, holds promise to reduce the number of negative biopsies when differentiating between malignant and benign skin conditions. It is currently pending approval with the Food and Drug Administration.
- Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), which uses an electrical alternating current to detect the electrical resistance of potentially cancerous tissue, generates a score with a high negative predictive value and a higher positive predictive value as the score increases. In a study of melanoma diagnoses made by dermatology trainees, use of EIS decreased the number of missed melanomas by 23.4% and resulted in fewer benign biopsies. (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:285-7).
All these technologies have been proven effective, but have encountered various economic roadblocks, including delays in regulatory approval, which are partly responsible for why some are no longer on the market, Dr. Rigel said. “If you have to wait 5 years or 7 years to get approval of these devices, by the time they’re approved, the technology is already passed by.”
There are also issues with reimbursements, Dr. Rigel noted, which can further reduce the clinical implementation of these technologies.
Dr. Rigel reported relationships with Derm Tech International, Scibase (maker of EIS) and a number of dermatologic drug companies.
“If you incorporate the data from these devices into the biopsy decision, you can improve biopsy sensitivity and accuracy of selection. I think there’s no question with these technologies that’s a true statement,” said Dr. Rigel, of New York University Langone Health.
When considering diagnostic devices, evaluate whether they produce results that outperform dermatologists, are low cost, user-friendly, time-efficient and have a high sensitivity and specificity, Dr. Rigel advised. But since no device has a perfect sensitivity and specificity, they cannot be followed blindly. The data from these devices should be used to inform, but not replace, clinical decisions made by dermatologists.
“They’re basically additional information to integrate into the biopsy decision,” he said. “At the end of the day, if you see something with a low score but it really looks funky, the reality is you have to really consider it for biopsy.”
Dr. Rigel discussed five device types that were used to analyze a number of preselected, noninvasive melanoma lesions. The devices required little training to use and a dermatologist would be required to correctly identify the lesions in a deeper analysis.
- Multispectral digital skin lesion analysis (MDSLA) uses 10 spectral wavelengths to measure the light reflected from the tissue, generating a score from a proprietary algorithm that predicts the risk of melanoma. Use of MDSLA improved the biopsy sensitivity for melanoma from 65% to 93% among 179 dermatologists who reviewed images of 24 lesions, 5 of which were melanoma (Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(4):541-3).
- Spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis scope uses a similar analytic method as the MDSLA device but is difficult to find in the United States; however, one recent study cited a sensitivity of 81.4% and a specificity of 86.4%, indicating it has value for diagnosing melanoma.
- Raman spectroscopy uses monochromatic laser light to analyze the vibratory patterns of cells and examines the shifts in the light to identify a “molecular fingerprint” of potentially cancerous cells, has a high sensitivity and a “relatively reasonable specificity,” Dr. Rigel said.
- Elastic scattering spectroscopy, a newer technology that uses a smartphone-sized device to measure the difference in light scattered from different cellular structures, holds promise to reduce the number of negative biopsies when differentiating between malignant and benign skin conditions. It is currently pending approval with the Food and Drug Administration.
- Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), which uses an electrical alternating current to detect the electrical resistance of potentially cancerous tissue, generates a score with a high negative predictive value and a higher positive predictive value as the score increases. In a study of melanoma diagnoses made by dermatology trainees, use of EIS decreased the number of missed melanomas by 23.4% and resulted in fewer benign biopsies. (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:285-7).
All these technologies have been proven effective, but have encountered various economic roadblocks, including delays in regulatory approval, which are partly responsible for why some are no longer on the market, Dr. Rigel said. “If you have to wait 5 years or 7 years to get approval of these devices, by the time they’re approved, the technology is already passed by.”
There are also issues with reimbursements, Dr. Rigel noted, which can further reduce the clinical implementation of these technologies.
Dr. Rigel reported relationships with Derm Tech International, Scibase (maker of EIS) and a number of dermatologic drug companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAD 2019
Diet appears to play an important role in response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy
Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.
Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.
“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.
Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.
For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.
“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.
Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.
“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”
Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.
“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.
Some of that work has already been done, and updated results will be reported at the AACR meeting.
AACR president and press conference comoderator Elizabeth M. Jaffee, MD, said the findings highlight an “exciting area that’s emerging in cancer research right now.”
Although microbiome research is in its infancy, the MD Anderson group and others are “really making headway,” said Dr. Jaffee, professor of oncology and deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“It’s exciting ... to learn from your study that patients and healthy individuals can also be empowered through diet to control cancer development, and also how they can be empowered to influence favorable response to our therapies,” she said, cautioning, however, that “this is early and certainly we need more research in this area.”
Also of note, the findings show that gut bacteria affect cancers that aren’t necessarily deriving from the gut.
“So the microbiome has importance in, probably, many different cancers and their response to therapy – and possibly in the development of those cancers, so those are areas of research that we need to prioritize in future work, as well,” she said.
This study was sponsored by the Melanoma Research Alliance, the MD Anderson Melanoma Moonshot, the Miriam and Jim Mulva Fund for Melanoma Research, and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. Dr. Spencer disclosed that she is a contributor to U.S. patent application (PCT/US17/53.717) submitted by MD Anderson Cancer Center that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome.
SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.
Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.
Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.
“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.
Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.
For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.
“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.
Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.
“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”
Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.
“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.
Some of that work has already been done, and updated results will be reported at the AACR meeting.
AACR president and press conference comoderator Elizabeth M. Jaffee, MD, said the findings highlight an “exciting area that’s emerging in cancer research right now.”
Although microbiome research is in its infancy, the MD Anderson group and others are “really making headway,” said Dr. Jaffee, professor of oncology and deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“It’s exciting ... to learn from your study that patients and healthy individuals can also be empowered through diet to control cancer development, and also how they can be empowered to influence favorable response to our therapies,” she said, cautioning, however, that “this is early and certainly we need more research in this area.”
Also of note, the findings show that gut bacteria affect cancers that aren’t necessarily deriving from the gut.
“So the microbiome has importance in, probably, many different cancers and their response to therapy – and possibly in the development of those cancers, so those are areas of research that we need to prioritize in future work, as well,” she said.
This study was sponsored by the Melanoma Research Alliance, the MD Anderson Melanoma Moonshot, the Miriam and Jim Mulva Fund for Melanoma Research, and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. Dr. Spencer disclosed that she is a contributor to U.S. patent application (PCT/US17/53.717) submitted by MD Anderson Cancer Center that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome.
SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.
Diet plays an important role in patient response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) cancer immunotherapy, preliminary findings from a gut microbiome study involving 146 melanoma patients suggest.
Specifically, a high-fiber diet was associated with a more diverse gut microbiome and with improved response to anti-PD-1 therapy, whereas a diet high in sugar and processed meat was associated with fewer of the gut bacteria known to be associated with improved response, Christine Spencer, PhD, reported during a press conference highlighting data to be presented at the upcoming American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in Atlanta.
“We found that patients who reported eating high-fiber diets were about five times as likely to respond to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (odds ratio vs. low-fiber diet, 5.3),” said Dr. Spencer, a research scientist at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.
Notably, more than 40% of patients reported taking probiotics, and those, surprisingly, were also associated with reduced gut microbiome diversity, she said.
For this study, Dr. Spencer and her colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, analyzed prospectively collected fecal samples from 146 melanoma patients, and collected baseline diet information via the National Cancer Institute dietary screener questionnaire, as well as information about probiotic and antibiotic use, in a subset of 113 who were initiating therapy at MD Anderson. Those patients were then followed to assess therapy response.
“Our early data suggest that different foods and supplements may impact response to cancer immunotherapy in patients, and we think this is likely mediated by the gut microbiome,” she said.
Since only 20%-30% of cancer patients respond to immunotherapy, the findings hint at potential approaches for improving gut microbiome diversity, and thus response to anti-PD-1 cancer immunotherapy.
“Eat your high-fiber foods: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – lots of different kinds and lots of them,” she said. “High-fiber diets have been linked to health benefits in several other contexts, and this study, although preliminary, shows fiber is linked to more favorable gut microbiome in patients, and better response to cancer immunotherapy.”
Conversations about the use of probiotic supplements also are important, she said.
“A lot of people have the perception that probiotics will provide health benefits, but that might not be the case in cancer patients. We’re not saying all of them are bad, but the message is that these factors have never before been studied in patients on immunotherapy, and our data suggest for the first time that they could matter,” she said, noting that future directions include validation of the findings in larger cohorts.
Some of that work has already been done, and updated results will be reported at the AACR meeting.
AACR president and press conference comoderator Elizabeth M. Jaffee, MD, said the findings highlight an “exciting area that’s emerging in cancer research right now.”
Although microbiome research is in its infancy, the MD Anderson group and others are “really making headway,” said Dr. Jaffee, professor of oncology and deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“It’s exciting ... to learn from your study that patients and healthy individuals can also be empowered through diet to control cancer development, and also how they can be empowered to influence favorable response to our therapies,” she said, cautioning, however, that “this is early and certainly we need more research in this area.”
Also of note, the findings show that gut bacteria affect cancers that aren’t necessarily deriving from the gut.
“So the microbiome has importance in, probably, many different cancers and their response to therapy – and possibly in the development of those cancers, so those are areas of research that we need to prioritize in future work, as well,” she said.
This study was sponsored by the Melanoma Research Alliance, the MD Anderson Melanoma Moonshot, the Miriam and Jim Mulva Fund for Melanoma Research, and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. Dr. Spencer disclosed that she is a contributor to U.S. patent application (PCT/US17/53.717) submitted by MD Anderson Cancer Center that covers methods to enhance immune checkpoint blockade responses by modulating the microbiome.
SOURCE: Spencer C et al. AACR 2019, Abstract preview.
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.
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.
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 personal cancer vaccine NEO-PV-01 shows promise in metastatic cancers
WASHINGTON – according to findings from the ongoing phase 1b NT-001study of patients with metastatic melanoma, smoking-associated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bladder cancer.
No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred in 34 patients in a per-protocol set who were treated with the regimen, Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“We found that NEO-PV-01 in combination with nivolumab was very safe; we did not see any grade 3 to grade 4 toxicity associated with the combination,” said Dr. Hu-Lieskovan, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Most adverse events that occurred were mild and related to the local injection, she noted.
Although safety was the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan and her colleagues also looked at immune responses and treatment efficacy, however, with respect to translational data her presentation addressed only the findings in the melanoma and lung cancer patients.
All patients exhibited an immune response to the vaccine, with 56% of the epitopes generating CD4- and/or CD8-positive T cell responses.
“These immune responses were very durable and still could be detected 52 weeks into the treatment,” she said. Additionally, epitope spreading – increased immune response targeting nonvaccine epitopes (which is indirect evidence of vaccine-induced tumor toxicity) – was observed in 8 of 10 patients tested.
The study subjects, including 16 adults with melanoma, 11 with NSCLC, and 7 with bladder cancer, were treated with nivolumab every 2 weeks for 12 weeks prior to vaccination (while their personalized vaccine was being developed). NEO-PV-01 – which included up to 20 unique peptides plus the immunostimulant poly-ICLC – was then administered subcutaneously in five priming doses followed by two booster doses over the next 12 weeks. Of note, very few patients had programmed cell death protein 1 expression of 50% or greater, including only 13.3%, 28.6%, and 0% of the melanoma, NSCLC, and bladder cancer patients, respectively, and tumor mutation burden was consistent with published reports, she said.
As for efficacy, 11 of 16 melanoma patients (68.6%) had either a partial response (8 pre vaccination and an additional 3 post vaccination) or stable disease. One (6.3%) had a postvaccination complete response, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan said.
“[This is] much better than the historical data,” she noted, adding that 12 patients (75%) are still on the study and continuing treatment with response duration of at least 39.7 weeks.
Of the 11 NSCLC patients, 5 (45.5%) had a partial response (3 pre vaccination and 2 post vaccination), and none had a complete response. Seven (63.6%) remained on the study and were continuing treatment, and response duration was at least 30.6 weeks.
An exploratory analysis of tumor responses after vaccination showed that the majority of melanoma patients and half of the lung cancer patients had further tumor shrinkage after vaccination, and some patients were converted to responders. Most – including some with stable or progressive disease – stayed on treatment, she said.
The findings demonstrate that NEO-PV-01 is very well tolerated and associated with post vaccine responses observed after week 24.
“We saw evidence of vaccination-induced immune response specific to the injected vaccine, as well as epitope spreading, and the T cells induced by these neoantigens can traffic into the tumor and they seem to be functional,” she concluded.
Dr. Hu-Lieskovan reported receiving consulting fees and/or research support from Amgen, BMS, Genmab, Merck, and Vaccinex. She is the UCLA site principal investigator for the NT-001 study and has conducted contracted research for Astellas, F Star, Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Plexxikon, and Xencor.
SOURCE: Hu-Lieskovan S et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 07.
WASHINGTON – according to findings from the ongoing phase 1b NT-001study of patients with metastatic melanoma, smoking-associated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bladder cancer.
No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred in 34 patients in a per-protocol set who were treated with the regimen, Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“We found that NEO-PV-01 in combination with nivolumab was very safe; we did not see any grade 3 to grade 4 toxicity associated with the combination,” said Dr. Hu-Lieskovan, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Most adverse events that occurred were mild and related to the local injection, she noted.
Although safety was the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan and her colleagues also looked at immune responses and treatment efficacy, however, with respect to translational data her presentation addressed only the findings in the melanoma and lung cancer patients.
All patients exhibited an immune response to the vaccine, with 56% of the epitopes generating CD4- and/or CD8-positive T cell responses.
“These immune responses were very durable and still could be detected 52 weeks into the treatment,” she said. Additionally, epitope spreading – increased immune response targeting nonvaccine epitopes (which is indirect evidence of vaccine-induced tumor toxicity) – was observed in 8 of 10 patients tested.
The study subjects, including 16 adults with melanoma, 11 with NSCLC, and 7 with bladder cancer, were treated with nivolumab every 2 weeks for 12 weeks prior to vaccination (while their personalized vaccine was being developed). NEO-PV-01 – which included up to 20 unique peptides plus the immunostimulant poly-ICLC – was then administered subcutaneously in five priming doses followed by two booster doses over the next 12 weeks. Of note, very few patients had programmed cell death protein 1 expression of 50% or greater, including only 13.3%, 28.6%, and 0% of the melanoma, NSCLC, and bladder cancer patients, respectively, and tumor mutation burden was consistent with published reports, she said.
As for efficacy, 11 of 16 melanoma patients (68.6%) had either a partial response (8 pre vaccination and an additional 3 post vaccination) or stable disease. One (6.3%) had a postvaccination complete response, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan said.
“[This is] much better than the historical data,” she noted, adding that 12 patients (75%) are still on the study and continuing treatment with response duration of at least 39.7 weeks.
Of the 11 NSCLC patients, 5 (45.5%) had a partial response (3 pre vaccination and 2 post vaccination), and none had a complete response. Seven (63.6%) remained on the study and were continuing treatment, and response duration was at least 30.6 weeks.
An exploratory analysis of tumor responses after vaccination showed that the majority of melanoma patients and half of the lung cancer patients had further tumor shrinkage after vaccination, and some patients were converted to responders. Most – including some with stable or progressive disease – stayed on treatment, she said.
The findings demonstrate that NEO-PV-01 is very well tolerated and associated with post vaccine responses observed after week 24.
“We saw evidence of vaccination-induced immune response specific to the injected vaccine, as well as epitope spreading, and the T cells induced by these neoantigens can traffic into the tumor and they seem to be functional,” she concluded.
Dr. Hu-Lieskovan reported receiving consulting fees and/or research support from Amgen, BMS, Genmab, Merck, and Vaccinex. She is the UCLA site principal investigator for the NT-001 study and has conducted contracted research for Astellas, F Star, Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Plexxikon, and Xencor.
SOURCE: Hu-Lieskovan S et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 07.
WASHINGTON – according to findings from the ongoing phase 1b NT-001study of patients with metastatic melanoma, smoking-associated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bladder cancer.
No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred in 34 patients in a per-protocol set who were treated with the regimen, Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“We found that NEO-PV-01 in combination with nivolumab was very safe; we did not see any grade 3 to grade 4 toxicity associated with the combination,” said Dr. Hu-Lieskovan, a medical oncologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Most adverse events that occurred were mild and related to the local injection, she noted.
Although safety was the primary endpoint of the study, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan and her colleagues also looked at immune responses and treatment efficacy, however, with respect to translational data her presentation addressed only the findings in the melanoma and lung cancer patients.
All patients exhibited an immune response to the vaccine, with 56% of the epitopes generating CD4- and/or CD8-positive T cell responses.
“These immune responses were very durable and still could be detected 52 weeks into the treatment,” she said. Additionally, epitope spreading – increased immune response targeting nonvaccine epitopes (which is indirect evidence of vaccine-induced tumor toxicity) – was observed in 8 of 10 patients tested.
The study subjects, including 16 adults with melanoma, 11 with NSCLC, and 7 with bladder cancer, were treated with nivolumab every 2 weeks for 12 weeks prior to vaccination (while their personalized vaccine was being developed). NEO-PV-01 – which included up to 20 unique peptides plus the immunostimulant poly-ICLC – was then administered subcutaneously in five priming doses followed by two booster doses over the next 12 weeks. Of note, very few patients had programmed cell death protein 1 expression of 50% or greater, including only 13.3%, 28.6%, and 0% of the melanoma, NSCLC, and bladder cancer patients, respectively, and tumor mutation burden was consistent with published reports, she said.
As for efficacy, 11 of 16 melanoma patients (68.6%) had either a partial response (8 pre vaccination and an additional 3 post vaccination) or stable disease. One (6.3%) had a postvaccination complete response, Dr. Hu-Lieskovan said.
“[This is] much better than the historical data,” she noted, adding that 12 patients (75%) are still on the study and continuing treatment with response duration of at least 39.7 weeks.
Of the 11 NSCLC patients, 5 (45.5%) had a partial response (3 pre vaccination and 2 post vaccination), and none had a complete response. Seven (63.6%) remained on the study and were continuing treatment, and response duration was at least 30.6 weeks.
An exploratory analysis of tumor responses after vaccination showed that the majority of melanoma patients and half of the lung cancer patients had further tumor shrinkage after vaccination, and some patients were converted to responders. Most – including some with stable or progressive disease – stayed on treatment, she said.
The findings demonstrate that NEO-PV-01 is very well tolerated and associated with post vaccine responses observed after week 24.
“We saw evidence of vaccination-induced immune response specific to the injected vaccine, as well as epitope spreading, and the T cells induced by these neoantigens can traffic into the tumor and they seem to be functional,” she concluded.
Dr. Hu-Lieskovan reported receiving consulting fees and/or research support from Amgen, BMS, Genmab, Merck, and Vaccinex. She is the UCLA site principal investigator for the NT-001 study and has conducted contracted research for Astellas, F Star, Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Plexxikon, and Xencor.
SOURCE: Hu-Lieskovan S et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 07.
REPORTING FROM SITC 2018
Key clinical point: The NEO-PV-01 personalized cancer vaccine shows good tolerability and safety and appears to have clinical efficacy.
Major finding: There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events, and all patients exhibited an immune response to the vaccine, with 56% of the epitopes generating CD4- and/or CD8-positive T-cell responses.
Study details: A study of the NEO-PV-01 personalized cancer vaccine in 34 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Hu-Lieskovan reported receiving consulting fees and/or research support from Amgen, BMS, Genmab, Merck, and Vaccinex. She is the UCLA site principal investigator for the NT-001 study and has conducted contracted research for Astellas, F Star, Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Plexxikon, and Xencor.
Source: Hu-Lieskovan S et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 07.