Recent advances in genomic sequencing and omics-based capabilities are uncovering tremendous therapeutic opportunities and rapidly transforming the field of cancer medicine. Molecularly targeted ...agents aim to exploit key tumor-specific vulnerabilities such as oncogenic or non-oncogenic addiction and synthetic lethality. Additionally, immunotherapies targeting the host immune system are proving to be another promising and complementary approach. Owing to substantial tumor genomic and immunologic complexities, combination strategies are likely to be required to adequately disrupt intricate molecular interactions and provide meaningful long-term benefit to patients. To optimize the therapeutic success and application of combination therapies, systematic scientific discovery will need to be coupled with novel and efficient clinical trial approaches. Indeed, a paradigm shift is required to drive precision medicine forward, from the traditional "drug-centric" model of clinical development in pursuit of small incremental benefits in large heterogeneous groups of patients, to a "strategy-centric" model to provide customized transformative treatments in molecularly stratified subsets of patients or even in individual patients. Crucially, to combat the numerous challenges facing combination drug development-including our growing but incomplete understanding of tumor biology, technical and informatics limitations, and escalating financial costs-aligned goals and multidisciplinary collaboration are imperative to collectively harness knowledge and fuel continual innovation.
Background and aims Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in cancer therapy. Elevated liver enzymes frequently occur in patients treated with ICI but evaluation is poorly ...described. We sought to better understand causes of liver enzyme elevation, investigation and management. Methods Patients treated with anti-PD-1, PDL-1 or CTLA-4 therapy in Phase I/II clinical trials between August 2012 and December 2018 were included. Clinical records of patients with significant liver enzyme elevations were retrospectively reviewed. Results Of 470 ICI-treated patients, liver enzyme elevation occurred in 102 (21.6%), attributed to disease progression (56; 54.9%), other drugs/toxins (7; 6.9%), other causes (22; 21.6%) and ICI immunotoxicity (17; 16.7%; 3.6% of total cohort). Immunotoxicity was associated with higher peak ALT than other causes of enzyme elevation (N = 17; M = 217, 95% CI 145-324 for immunotoxicity, N = 103; M = 74, 95% CI 59-92 for other causes; ratio of means 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.60, p = <0.001) and higher ALT:AST ratio (M = 1.27, 95% CI 0.78-2.06 for immunotoxicity, M = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80 for other causes, ratio of means 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.82, p = 0.004). Immunotoxicity was more often seen in patients with prior CPI exposure (41.2% of immunotoxicity vs 15.9% of patients without, p = 0.01), anti-CTLA-4 -containing ICI treatments (29.4% of immunotoxicity vs 6.8% of patients without, p = <0.001) and other organ immunotoxicity (76.5% of immunotoxicity vs 19.2% of patients without, p = <0.001). Cause for enzyme elevation was established in most patients after non-invasive investigation. Liver biopsy was reserved for four patients with atypical treatment response. Conclusions Liver enzyme elevation is common in patients receiving ICI, but often has a cause other than immunotoxicity. A biochemical signature with higher ALT and ALT/AST ratio, a history of prior ICI exposure and other organ immunotoxicities may help to identify patients at a higher likelihood of immunotoxicity. Liver biopsy can be safely deferred in most patients. We propose an approach to diagnostic evaluation in patients with liver enzyme elevations following ICI exposure.
The combinations of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) with cytotoxic chemotherapy are challenged by overlapping toxicities, which may be lessened with newer generation and more tumor-selective ...ADCs.Complex interplay between ADCs and molecularly targeted agents may overcome treatment resistance of both drug classes and mitigate clonal heterogeneity.Multiple mechanisms support the combination of ADCs with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as induction of immunogenic cell death and increase of T cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment.Clinical trial designs should consider the potential for pharmacological interactions and evaluate target response relationship in the combinatorial setting.
Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) have become a credentialled class of anticancer drugs for both solid and hematological malignancies, with regulatory approvals mainly as single agents. Despite extensive preclinical and clinical efforts to develop rational ADC-based combinations, to date only a limited number have demonstrated survival improvements over standard of care. The most appealing partners for ADCs are those that offer additive or synergistic effects on tumor cells or their microenvironment without unacceptable overlapping toxicities. Coadministration with antiangiogenic compounds, HER2-targeting drugs, DNA-damage response agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent active forerunners. Through the identification of targets with tumor-specific expression, improved conjugation technologies, and novel linkers and payloads offering superior therapeutic indices, the next generation of ADCs brings optimism to combinatorial approaches.
Pembrolizumab is approved for multiple cancer types at 200 mg and 2 mg/kg dose every 3 weeks (Q3W). We used a model-based approach to compare the exposure of pembrolizumab 400 mg dose every 6 weeks ...(Q6W) with the Q3W regimens.
The Q6W dose was selected by matching exposure with the 200 mg and 2 mg/kg Q3W doses. Concentration-time profiles were simulated using the established population pharmacokinetic model of pembrolizumab based on 2993 subjects from five clinical trials across tumour types. Efficacy was bridged by evaluating projections of average concentration over the dosing interval (Cavg) and trough concentration (Cmin) at steady state (ss). Safety was bridged by ensuring that concentrations were below those at 10 mg/kg dose every 2 weeks (Q2W), the maximum clinical dose.
The 400 mg Q6W dose had similar predicted exposure (Cavg,ss, geometric mean ∼1% higher) as the 200 mg Q3W dose. Fewer than 1% of subjects had transiently lower Cmin,ss than that observed for 200 mg and 2 mg/kg Q3W. Despite these reductions, similar target saturation is expected. The predicted peak concentrations (Cmax,ss) for 400 mg Q6W were substantially (∼65%) lower than the 10 mg/kg Q2W dose.
Exposures expected for pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W were similar to the 200 mg and 2 mg/kg Q3W and below the 10 mg/kg Q2W regimens. Established exposure-response relationships for pembrolizumab over a 5-fold dose range (2 mg/kg Q3W to 10 mg Q2W) support that clinical efficacy and safety of 400 mg Q6W would be similar to the 200 mg and 2 mg/kg Q3W doses across tumour types.
NCT01295827, NCT01704287, NCT01866319, NCT01905657, NCT02142738.
•Extended dosing of pembrolizumab will provide greater convenience and flexibility.•Exposure of pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W and Q3W regimens was compared using modelling.•Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W leads to similar exposures as 200 mg and 2 mg/kg Q3W.•Similar efficacy and safety of the pembrolizumab Q6W and Q3W regimens is expected.
To define human papillomavirus (HPV) -positive oropharyngeal cancers (OPC) suitable for treatment deintensification according to low risk of distant metastasis (DM).
OPC treated with radiotherapy ...(RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) from 2001 to 2009 were included. Outcomes were compared for HPV-positive versus HPV-negative patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified outcome predictors. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) stratified the DM risk.
HPV status was ascertained in 505 (56%) of 899 consecutive OPCs. Median follow-up was 3.9 years. HPV-positive patients (n = 382), compared with HPV-negative patients (n = 123), had higher local (94% v 80%, respectively, at 3 years; P < .01) and regional control (95% v 82%, respectively; P < .01) but similar distant control (DC; 90% v 86%, respectively; P = .53). Multivariate analysis identified that HPV negativity (hazard ratio HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.0 to 5.0), N2b-N3 (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.9), T4 (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9), and RT alone (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5) predicted a lower recurrence-free survival (RFS; all P < .01). Smoking pack-years > 10 reduced overall survival (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.7; P = .03) but did not impact RFS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.9; P = .65). RPA segregated HPV-positive patients into low (T1-3N0-2c; DC, 93%) and high DM risk (N3 or T4; DC, 76%) groups and HPV-negative patients into different low (T1-2N0-2c; DC, 93%) and high DM risk (T3-4N3; DC, 72%) groups. The DC rates for HPV-positive, low-risk N0-2a or less than 10 pack-year N2b patients were similar for RT alone and CRT, but the rate was lower in the N2c subset managed by RT alone (73% v 92% for CRT; P = .02).
HPV-positive T1-3N0-2c patients have a low DM risk, but N2c patients from this group have a reduced DC when treated with RT alone and seem less suited for deintensification strategies that omit chemotherapy.
In this issue of Cancer Cell, Topp et al. analyze data from 799 patients treated with pembrolizumab beyond progression by RECIST 1.1 across six trials. Although 8.9%–24.4% of patients demonstrate a ...≥30% reduction in target lesions, conversely 11%–18% of patients had a ≥20% increase. The benefits of treatment beyond progression must be carefully weighed against physical and financial toxicities.
In this issue of Cancer Cell, Topp et al. analyze data from 799 patients treated with pembrolizumab beyond progression by RECIST 1.1 across six trials. Although 8.9%–24.4% of patients demonstrate a ≥30% reduction in target lesions, conversely 11%–18% of patients had a ≥20% increase. The benefits of treatment beyond progression must be carefully weighed against physical and financial toxicities.
Purpose This guideline provides recommendations on the management of adults after head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment, focusing on surveillance and screening for recurrence or second primary ...cancers, assessment and management of long-term and late effects, health promotion, care coordination, and practice implications. Methods ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. The American Cancer Society (ACS) HNC Survivorship Care Guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed the content and recommendations, offering modifications and/or qualifying statements when deemed necessary. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the ACS HNC Survivorship Care Guideline, published in 2016, is clear, thorough, clinically practical, and helpful, despite the limited availability of high-quality evidence to support many of the recommendations. ASCO endorsed the ACS HNC Survivorship Care Guideline, adding qualifying statements aimed at promoting team-based, multispecialty, multidisciplinary, collaborative head and neck survivorship care. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel emphasized that caring for HNC survivors requires a team-based approach that includes primary care clinicians, oncology specialists, otolaryngologists, dentists, and other allied professionals. The HNC treatment team should educate the primary care clinicians and patients about the type(s) of treatment received, the likelihood of potential recurrence, and the potential late and long-term complications. Primary care clinicians should recognize symptoms of recurrence and coordinate a prompt evaluation. They should also be prepared to manage late effects either directly or by referral to appropriate specialists. Health promotion is critical, particularly regarding tobacco cessation and dental care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/HNC-Survivorship-endorsement and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Phase 1 dose-escalation trials are crucial to drug development by providing a framework to assess the toxicity of novel agents in a stepwise and monitored fashion. Despite widely adopted, rule-based ...dose-escalation methods (such as 3 + 3) are limited in finding the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and tend to treat a significant number of patients at subtherapeutic doses. Newer methods of dose escalation, such as model-based and model-assisted designs, have emerged and are more accurate in finding MTD. However, these designs have not yet been broadly embraced by investigators. In this review, we summarise the advantages and disadvantages of contemporary dose-escalation methods, with emphasis on model-assisted designs, including time-to-event designs and hybrid methods involving optimal biological dose (OBD). The methods reviewed include mTPI, keyboard, BOIN, and their variations. In addition, the challenges of drug development (and dose-escalation) in the era of immunotherapeutics are discussed, where many of these agents typically have a wide therapeutic window. Fictional examples of how the dose-escalation method chosen can alter the outcomes of a phase 1 study are described, including the number of patients enrolled, the trial’s timeframe, and the dose level chosen as MTD. Finally, the recent trends in dose-escalation methods applied in phase 1 trials in the immunotherapeutics era are reviewed. Among 856 phase I trials from 2014 to 2019, a trend towards the increased use of model-based and model-assisted designs over time (OR = 1.24) was detected. However, only 8% of the studies used non-rule-based dose-escalation methods. Increasing familiarity with such dose-escalation methods will likely facilitate their uptake in clinical trials.
•Model-based/assisted methods have not been broadly adopted despite favourable features.•Model-assisted methods combine features of both model-based and rule-based designs.•Dose-escalation methods can affect the duration and sample size of phase I trials.•From 2014 to 2019, only 8% of phase I trials used non-ruled based methods.•IO agents should be risk stratified based on therapeutic range and toxicity potential.
Agents inhibiting the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-Akt-mammalian target of rapamycin (PAM) pathway are currently in various stages of clinical development in oncology, ranging from some in early-phase ...evaluations to others that have already received regulatory approval for treatment in advanced cancers. The administration of PAM pathway inhibitors has been associated with metabolic toxicities of hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia. The PAM Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee convened an interdisciplinary expert panel to review the pathophysiology of hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia induced by PAM pathway inhibitors, summarize the incidence of these metabolic toxicities induced by such agents in the current literature, advise on clinical trial screening and monitoring criteria, and provide management guidance and therapeutic goals on occurrence of these toxicities. The overarching aim of this consensus report is to raise awareness of these metabolic adverse events to enable their early recognition, regular monitoring, and timely intervention in clinical trials. Hyperglycemia and hyperlipidemia are generally not acutely toxic and most often reversible with therapeutic intervention. Dose modifications or discontinuation of PAM pathway inhibitors should only be considered in situations of severe events or if progressive metabolic derangement persists after therapeutic interventions have been attempted for a sufficient duration. Specialty consultation should be sought to aid clinical trial planning and the management of these metabolic adverse events.
PDF
