Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Chemotherapy in NSCLC Harboring ERBB2 Mutations

IntroductionIn contrast to other driver mutations, no targeted therapies have yet been approved in ERBB2-mutated NSCLC (HER2mu NSCLC). Nevertheless, several compounds have revealed promising early efficacy data, which need to be evaluated in the context of current standard approaches. Although data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in second or subsequent lines of treatment remain limited and conflicting, there are virtually no data on patient outcome under ICI/platinum-doublet combinations in the first-line setting.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated outcomes of patients with HER2mu NSCLC treated with ICI alone or in combination with chemotherapy within the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer consortium by means of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsICI either in combination with chemotherapy or as monotherapy was applied as first-line treatment in 27 patients, whereas 34 received single-agent ICI in second or subsequent lines. Patient characteristics were in line with previously published data. In treatment-naive patients receiving ICI in combination with chemotherapy, the ORR, median PFS, and OS rate at 1 year were 52%, 6 months, and 88%, respectively. In second or subsequent lines, ICI monotherapy was associated with an ORR of 16%, a median PFS of 4 months, and a median OS of 10 months.ConclusionsICIs are effective as monotherapy and in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Therefore, ICI-based treatments may be found as the current standard of care and benchmark for targeted therapies in HER2mu NSCLC.     

Efficacy and safety of capecitabine-based first-line chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine-based therapy as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials of capecitabine monotherapy or combined treatment were included in the meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library database and important meeting summaries were searched systematically. Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and grades 3–4 drug-related adverse events.Nine trials with 1798 patients were included. The results indicated a significant improvement with capecitabine-based chemotherapy compared with capecitabine-free chemotherapy in ORR (relative risk [RR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.26, P = 0.013) and PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87, P < 0.0001). Overall survival favoured capecitabine-based chemotherapy, but this was not significant. There were more incidences of neutropenia and neutropenic fever in the capecitabine-free chemotherapy group and more vomiting, diarrhoea and hand–foot syndrome in the capecitabine-based chemotherapy group. There were no significant differences in nausea, fatigue, cardiotoxicity or mucositis/stomatitis between the two treatment regimens.Capecitabine-based chemotherapy significantly improves ORR and PFS in patients with advanced breast cancer, but has no demonstrable impact on OS. Capecitabine-based regimens are suitable as first-line treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer.     

A randomized,multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study

Vandetanib did not demonstrate any superiority alone or in combination with gemcitabine in the progression-free survival of patients affected by advanced biliary tract cancer compared with gemcitabine alone. The safety profile of vandetanib given (alone or in combination with gemcitabine) does not show any additional adverse events (AEs) or worsening of already known AEs.BackgroundThe management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes.ResultsA total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72–155), 114 (91–193) and 148 (71–225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm).ConclusionsVandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs.Clinical trial numberNCT00753675.     

Second-line single-agent versus doublet chemotherapy as salvage therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of a combination of chemotherapeutic agent compared with single-agent chemotherapy in the second-line setting of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) are unclear. We aimed to study the survival impact of single-agent compared with doublet chemotherapy as second-line chemotherapy of advanced UC.Patients and methodsLiterature was searched for studies including single-agent or doublet chemotherapy in the second-line setting after platinum-based chemotherapy. Random-effects models were used to pool trial-level data according to treatment arm, including median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) probability, and grade 3–4 toxicity. Univariable and multivariable analyses, including sensitivity analyses, were carried out, adjusting for the percent of patients with ECOG performance status ≥1 and hepatic metastases.ResultsForty-six arms of trials including 1910 patients were selected: 22 arms with single agent (n = 1202) and 24 arms with doublets (n = 708). The pooled ORR with single agents was 14.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1–17.9] versus 31.9% [95% CI 27.3–36.9] with doublet chemotherapy. Pooled median PFS was 2.69 and 4.05 months, respectively. The pooled median OS was 6.98 and 8.50 months, respectively. Multivariably, the odds ratio for ORR and the pooled median difference of PFS were statistically significant (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002) whereas the median difference in OS was not (P = 0.284). When including single-agent vinflunine or taxanes only, differences were significant only for ORR (P < 0.001) favoring doublet chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in grade 3–4 toxicity were seen between the two groups.ConclusionsDespite significant improvements in ORR and PFS, doublet regimens did not extend OS compared with single agents for the second-line chemotherapy of UC. Prospective trials are necessary to elucidate the role of combination chemotherapy, with or without targeted agents, in the salvage setting. Currently, improvements in this field should be pursued considering single-agent chemotherapy as the foundation for new more active combinations.     

Analysis of the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel (albumin-bound) combined with S-1 and oxaliplatin combined with S-1 in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a cohort study

BackgroundSingle-drug albumin-bound paclitaxel is one of the standard second-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer. Some clinical studies suggest that albumin-bound paclitaxel combined with S-1 can be used in the first-line treatment of gastric cancer. Both the two regimens have been commonly used in the past few years. Which is more effective? What’s the safety?MethodsFrom 2016 to 2021, a total of 70 untreated patients with advanced gastric cancer were included in our study. They all received at least two cycles of chemotherapy. Among them, 37 cases received standard S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) regimen, and 33 cases received albumin-bound paclitaxel combined with S-1 (aTS) regimen. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed. The OS and PFS curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsThe PFS of the aTS group was higher than that of the SOX group (9.27 vs. 7.03 months; P=0.046), but there was no significant difference in the OS between the two groups (19.2 vs. 12.5 months; P=0.131). The ORR of the aTS group was higher than that of the SOX group, and the side effects were tolerable.ConclusionsBoth regimens can be applied to advanced gastric cancer patients. Albumin-bound paclitaxel showed a higher ORR and could effectively prolong PFS.     

Efficacy of capecitabine-based combination therapy and single-agent capecitabine maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Objective

The purpose of this study was to observe the efficacy and toxicities of capecitabine-based chemotherapy and capecitabine monotherapy as maintenance therapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Patients and methods

A total of 98 MBC patients were treated with capecitabine combined with vinorelbine (NX).

Results

The median number of treatment was 6 cycles (1-7 cycles). There were two cases of complete remission (CR), 58 partial remission, 27 stable disease (SD), 11 progression disease. The overall response rate (ORR) (CR + PR) was 61.2%. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 75.5%. Fifty of effective patients received with capecitabine monotherapy as maintenance therapy. The ORR (CR + PR) was 4%. The CBR was 48%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months. In maintenance therapy or not, the median post metastasis survival rate (MSR) was 63 and 28 months, respectively. In the combination therapy group, the major grade 3/4 toxicities included hand-foot syndrome (3.1%), skin pigmentation (2.0%), diarrhoea and abdominal distension (5.1%), stomatitis (1.0%), and leukopenia (20.4%).

Conclusions

Capecitabine-based combination therapy and single-agent capecitabine maintenance therapy were well tolerated and effective to MBC.     

Comparison of efficacy and safety between pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy and simple chemotherapy in neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BackgroundImmunotherapy can activate the recognition of tumor antigen, build immune memory, and more and more clinical trials have taken the scheme of immunochemotherapy or immunoradiotherapy as a treatment strategy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety between pembrolizumab combined with the chemotherapy group and simple chemotherapy in neoadjuvant therapy of ESCC.MethodsFifty-four ESCC patients with stage II–IVa were enrolled at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between January 2018 and December 2020, including 23 in the pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy group (combined group), and 31 in the simple chemotherapy group. All patients received radical surgical treatment after two cycles of neoadjuvant therapy.ResultsThe pathological complete response (pCR) and objective response rate (ORR) in the combined group were significantly higher than that of the simple chemotherapy group (30.4% vs. 9.7%, P=0.048; 86.9% vs. 95.7%, P=0.017) as well as the score of tumor regression ≥2 (80.7% vs. 50.0%, P=0.013). And the complete rate of esophagectomy and R0 /R1 resection rate in the two groups were not statistically significant. Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events in the combined group was similar compared with the simple chemotherapy group.ConclusionsPembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed promising activity with a manageable safety profile. And it could offer a potential new neoadjuvant treatment approach for patients with ESCC.     

Impact of prior treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors on dacarbazine efficacy in metastatic melanoma

Background Despite its low efficacy, chemotherapy with dacarbazine remains an option in metastatic melanoma patients after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) ± targeted therapy. Some observations suggested an increased efficacy of chemotherapy in melanoma or lung cancer patients previously treated with ICI; we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dacarbazine in a controlled-group study of patients pre-treated or not with ICI.Methods We retrospectively collected data from all consecutive patients treated with dacarbazine for advanced cutaneous melanoma without brain metastasis, in our skin cancer centre between June 2006 and September 2019. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety of dacarbazine.Results Among 72 patients, 17 (23.6%) received dacarbazine after ICI and 55 (76.3%) without prior ICI. Despite less favourable prognostic factors in patients ICI-pre-treated, median PFS was 4.27 months (range 0.89–43.69) in this group versus 2.04 months (range 1.25–39.25) P = 0.03 in non-ICI-pre-treated patients; ORR were 35.3% and 12.7%, respectively. The median OS and the occurrence of adverse events were similar in both groups.Conclusion Dacarbazine seems to offer a short-lived benefit in patients with progressive advanced disease despite ICI (±targeted therapy), and could be an alternative before considering best supportive care.Subject terms: Melanoma, Immunization     

Antibiotic Treatment is an Independent Poor Risk Factor in NSCLC But Not in Melanoma Patients Who had Received Anti-PD-1/L1 Monotherapy

BackgroundAntibiotic treatment may reduce the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy by disrupting gut microbiome. We aimed to study the association of antibiotics and survival outcomes in advanced cutaneous melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had received anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy.Patients and MethodsA total of 222 melanoma and 199 NSCLC patients had received anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy in 5 Finnish hospitals between January 2014 and December 2020. Clinical characteristics, antibiotic and corticosteroid treatment, and survival outcomes were retrospectively collected from hospital and national medical records.ResultsThere were 32% of melanoma and 31% of NSCLC patients who had received antibiotic treatment (ABT) 3 months before to 1 month after the first anti-PD-1/L1 antibody infusion. In survival analyses, early antibiotic treatment was associated with inferior overall survival (OS) (ABT 19.2 [17.6-43.7] vs. no ABT 35.6 [29.3-NA] months, P = .033) but not with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) (ABT 5.8 [3.0-12.6] vs. no ABT 10.2 [7.7-15.3] months, P = .3) in melanoma patients and with inferior OS (ABT 8.6 [6.4-12.3] vs. no ABT 18.5 [15.1-21.6] months, P < .001) and PFS (ABT 2.8 [2.1-4.5] vs. no ABT 5.6 [4.4-8.0] months, P = .0081) in NSCLC patients. In multivariable analyses, ABT was not an independent risk-factor for inferior OS and PFS in melanoma but was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.12 [1.37-3.28]) and PFS (HR 1.65 [1.10-2.47]) in NSCLC after adjusted for other risk factors.ConclusionsEarly ABT was an independent poor risk factor in NSCLC patients who had received anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy but not in melanoma patients. The weight of ABT as a poor risk factor might depend on other prognostic factors in different cancers.     

Safety and clinical activity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitors after programmed cell death 1 inhibitor treatment in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundEmerging agents blocking the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway show activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy after PD-1 inhibition.Patients and methodsPatients with mRCC treated with anti-PD-1 antibody (aPD-1) monotherapy or in combination (with VEGFR-TKI or ipilimumab) that subsequently received VEGFR-TKI were retrospectively reviewed. The efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by the type of prior PD-1 regimen. Safety by the type and PD-1 exposure was also evaluated.ResultsSeventy patients were included. Forty-nine patients received prior therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) alone and 21 had combination therapy of aPD-1 and VEGFR-TKI. Overall, ORR to VEGFR-TKI after PD-1 inhibition was 28% (19/68) and the median PFS was 6.4 months (mo) (4.3–9.5). ORR to VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI was lower than that in patients treated with VEGFR-TKI after CPI alone (ORR 10% versus 36%, P = 0.039). In the multivariable analysis, patients treated with prior CPI alone were more likely to achieve an objective response than those treated with aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (OR = 5.38; 95% CI 1.12–26.0, P = 0.03). There was a trend toward numerically longer median PFS in the VEGFR-TKI after the CPI alone group, 8.4 mo (3.2–12.4) compared with 5.5 mo (2.9–8.3) for those who had VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (P = 0.15). The most common adverse events (AEs) were asthenia, hypertension, and diarrhea.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of VEGFR-TKIs after PD-1 inhibition were demonstrated in this retrospective study. The response rate was lower and the median progression-free survival was shorter in those patients who received prior PD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI. PD-1 exposure does not seem to significantly influence the safety of subsequent VEGFR-TKI treatment.     

EGFR-TKIs或联合化疗一线治疗77例晚期肺腺癌临床分析

目的随着肺癌靶向治疗耐药问题的出现,靶向治疗与传统化疗联合成为研究热点。本研究对比表皮生长因子受体-酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors,EGFR-TKIs)联合化疗或单药一线治疗驱动表皮生长因子受体(epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR)基因阳性晚期肺腺癌的临床疗效及安全性差异,筛选联合治疗优势人群。方法回顾性收集2016-12-01-2018-12-01河南省人民医院收治的初治晚期EGFR(+)肺腺癌77例,依据治疗方案分为联合组和单药组。联合组36例采用培美曲塞+铂类方案化疗,同步口服靶向药物;单药组41例口服EGFR-TKIs。观察随访其治疗后临床疗效及不良反应。采用Kaplan-Meier法行生存分析,Cox回归模型进行多因素分析。结果治疗3个月后联合组客观有效率(objective response rate,ORR)为66.7%(24/36),与单药组53.7%(22/41)相比,差异无统计学意义,χ^2=1.349,P=0.246。疾病控制率(disease control rate,DCR)联合组为100.0%(36/36),单药组为97.6%(40/41),差异无统计学意义,P=1.000。随访截至2019-06-30,总体中位无进展生存期(median progression-free survival,mPFS)为11.5个月,其中联合组mPFS为12个月(95%CI:9.864~14.136),单药组为8个月(95%CI:2.981~13.019),联合组PFS明显优于单药组,差异有统计学意义,χ^2=4.469,P=0.035。胸腔内转移(M1a期)亚组,2组间mPFS差异有统计学意义(HR=0.389,95%CI:0.173~0.874,χ^2=5.873,P=0.015)。联合组血液系统及消化系统不良反应事件发生率更高,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05。2组不良反应均集中在Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,均可耐受。结论 EGFR(+)肺腺癌一线治疗中,1代EGFR-TKIs同步联合培美曲塞+铂类化疗可改善患者PFS,在转移程度较低的M1a期患者中,这种优势更突出。联合治疗增加不良反应事件发生率,但均符合预期并可耐受。     

The commensal consortium of the gut microbiome is associated with favorable responses to anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy in thoracic neoplasms

Objective:Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer therapy for multiple types of solid tumors, but as expected, a large percentage of patients do not show durable responses. Biomarkers that can predict clinical responses to immunotherapies at diagnosis are therefore urgently needed. Herein, we determined the associations between baseline gut commensal microbes and the clinical treatment efficiencies of patients with thoracic neoplasms during anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy.Methods:Forty-two patients with advanced thoracic carcinoma who received anti-PD-1 treatment were enrolled in the study. Baseline and time-serial stool samples were analyzed using 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. Tumor responses, patient progression-free survival, and overall survival were used to measure clinical outcomes.Results:The diversities of the baseline gut microbiota were similar between responders (n = 23) and nonresponders (n = 19). The relative abundances of the Akkermansiaceae, Enterococcaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Carnobacteriaceae and Clostridiales Family XI bacterial families were significantly higher in the responder group. These 5 bacterial families acted as a commensal consortium and better stratified patients according to clinical responses (P = 0.014). Patients with a higher abundance of commensal microbes had prolonged PFS (P = 0.00016). Using multivariable analysis, the abundance of the commensal consortium was identified as an independent predictor of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in thoracic neoplasms (hazard ratio: 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.05–0.55; P = 0.003).Conclusions:Baseline gut microbiota may have a critical impact on anti-PD-1 treatment in thoracic neoplasms. The abundance of gut commensal microbes at diagnosis might be useful for the early prediction of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy responses.     

Randomized phase 2 study of carboplatin and bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma

BackgroundThe optimal use of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM), including the choice of monotherapy or combination therapy, remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare combination therapy with bevacizumab monotherapy.MethodsThis was a 2-part randomized phase 2 study. Eligibility criteria included recurrent GBM after radiotherapy and temozolomide, no other chemotherapy for GBM, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. The primary objective (Part 1) was to determine the effect of bevacizumab plus carboplatin versus bevacizumab monotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) using modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Bevacizumab was given every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg; and carboplatin every 4 weeks, (AUC 5). On progression, patients able to continue were randomized to continue or cease bevacizumab (Part 2). Secondary endpoints included objective radiological response rate (ORR), quality of life, toxicity, and overall survival (OS).ResultsOne hundred twenty-two patients (median age, 55y) were enrolled to Part 1 from 18 Australian sites. Median follow-up was 32 months, and median on-treatment time was 3.3 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months for each arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.64–1.33, P = .66). ORR was 14% (combination) versus 6% (monotherapy) (P = .18). Median OS was 6.9 (combination) versus 7.5 months (monotherapy) (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82–1.69, P = .38). The incidence of bevacizumab-related adverse events was similar to prior literature, with no new toxicity signals. Toxicities were higher in the combination arm. Part 2 data (n = 48) will be reported separately.ConclusionsAdding carboplatin resulted in more toxicity without additional clinical benefit. Clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab were inferior to those in previously reported studies.

Clinical trials registration nr

ACTRN12610000915055.     

Efficacy and safety of camrelizumab in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundTrastuzumab plus chemotherapy is the standard-of-care (SoC) first-line therapy for HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer. Combining PD-1 antibody with SoC first-line therapy showed encouraging results in the KEYNOTE-811 study. The retrospective study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SoC vs. SoC plus camrelizumab (PD-1 antibody) as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer in a real-world setting.MethodsThis study included 41 patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer who received SoC or SoC plus camrelizumab from June 2017 to December 2020. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsThirteen patients received SoC (SoC group) and 28 patients received SoC plus camrelizumab (camrelizumab group). As of December 2020, the median follow-up time was 10.0 months. In the camrelizumab and SoC groups, the ORRs were 75.0% and 46.2% (P=0.032), respectively. The DCR was 96.4% in the camrelizumab group and 69.2% in the SoC group (P=0.003). The median OS was 18.4 in the camrelizumab group and 13.2 months in the SoC group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.343; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.151–0.783; P=0.008]. The median PFS was 3.78 in the camrelizumab group and 1.74 months in the SoC group (HR =0.416; 95% CI: 0.186–0.932; P=0.027). In the HER2 subgroups in the camrelizumab group, the median PFS of immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+ vs. IHC 2+ fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was 11.3 vs. 9.0 months (HR =1.684; 95% CI: 0.710–3.994; P=0.047). The incidence rates of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) (P<0.001), abnormal liver function (P=0.040), and hypothyroidism (P=0.039) between the two groups were significantly different. RCCEP and hypothyroidism were considered to be related to camrelizumab.ConclusionsFirst-line treatment with camrelizumab combined with SoC showed significant clinical benefits and good tolerance compared with SoC for HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer.     

Toxicity management with combination chemotherapy and programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor therapy in advanced lung cancer

PurposeThe combination of an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody with platinum-based chemotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) compared with chemotherapy alone. For patients receiving these new treatment regimens, it is important that toxicities be managed effectively. A particular challenge can be determining the etiology of an event, especially when there are overlapping symptoms that can be attributed to either immunotherapy or to platinum-based chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate adverse events (AEs) reported in clinical trials of combination therapy with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 (anti-PD-[L]1) immunotherapy and chemotherapy to provide information on toxicity management.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature focused on randomized controlled trials of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC and SCLC.ResultsEleven reports from 9 randomized studies evaluating pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung cancer were identified. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred more commonly in patients who received anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone; however, there was no evidence of unexpected or unanticipated toxicity with these combinations.ConclusionCombinations of anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy regimens improve outcomes for patients with NSCLC and SCLC, and toxicity is generally manageable. Strategies for appropriate workup of AEs to allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding causality and treatment modifications when appropriate are an important element of management of patients receiving an anti-PD-(L)1 agent combined with platinum-based chemotherapy.     

Classification of Tumor Immune Microenvironment According to Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression and Immune Infiltration Predicts Response to Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Patients With NSCLC

IntroductionAccording to mechanisms of adaptive immune resistance, tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) is classified into four types: (1) programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–negative and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL)–negative (type I); (2) PD-L1–positive and TIL-positive (type II); (3) PD-L1–negative and TIL-positive (type III); and (4) PD-L1–positive and TIL-negative (type IV). However, the relationship between the TIME classification model and immunotherapy efficacy has not been validated by any large-scale randomized controlled clinical trial among patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsOn the basis of RNA-sequencing and immunohistochemistry data from the ORIENT-11 study, we optimized the TIME classification model and evaluated its predictive value for the efficacy of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy.ResultsPD-L1 mRNA expression and immune score calculated by the ESTIMATE method were the strongest predictors for the efficacy of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. Therefore, they were determined as the optimized definition of the TIME classification system. When compared between combination therapy and chemotherapy alone, only the type II subpopulation with high immune score and high PD-L1 mRNA expression was significantly associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio = 0.12, 95% confidence interval: 0.06–0.25, p < 0.001) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.13–0.55, p < 0.001). In the combination group, the type II subpopulation had a much longer survival time, not even reaching the median PFS or overall survival, but the other three subpopulations were susceptible to having similar PFS. In the chemotherapy group, there was no marked association between survival outcomes and TIME subtypes.ConclusionsOnly patients with both high PD-L1 expression and high immune infiltration could benefit from chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. For patients lacking either PD-L1 expression or immune infiltration, chemotherapy alone might be a better treatment option to avoid unnecessary toxicities and financial burdens.     

Efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a two-center study in China

BackgroundRegorafenib is a standard 2nd-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib among advanced HCC patients in China is not clear.MethodsThis was a retrospective, two-center, cohort study of advanced HCC patients who received sequential therapy of sorafenib and regorafenib from October 2018 to April 2020 at 2 Chinese institutions. The patients were converted directly to regorafenib after failing to respond to sorafenib monotherapy. The patients underwent evaluations every 4–6 weeks to determine the efficacy and safety of the treatment according to physiological, laboratory, and radiological results. A radiological evaluation using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans was conducted. The outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsA total of 43 patients received regorafenib as a 2nd-line treatment after sorafenib progression. Of these patients, 26 (60.5%) and 17 (39.5%) were diagnosed with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 11.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.8–16.2] months, and the median OS was 17.0 (95% CI: 12.8–21.2) months. Conversely, the most common toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (48.8%), diarrhea (32.6%), and hypertension (14%). The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were hypoalbuminemia (4.7%), anemia (4.7%), and thrombocytopenia (4.7%). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400, alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥60 IU/L, and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ≥60 IU/L before 2nd-line treatment were associated with PFS in the univariable analyses. The Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis showed that AFP [hazard ratio (HR) =0.225; 95% CI: 0.073–0.688; P=0.009], ALT (HR =0.195; 95% CI: 0.051–0.741; P=0.016), AST (HR =0.209; 95% CI: 0.063–0.697; P=0.011), and presence of extrahepatic metastasis (HR =0.074; 95% CI: 0.009–0.608; P=0.015) before 2nd-line treatment were independently associated with PFS.ConclusionsThe sequential therapy of sorafenib and regorafenib is well-tolerated and effective in advanced HCC patients after sorafenib progression based on our two-center real-world data. Patients with good liver function reserve and a high level of AFP before 2nd-line treatment may benefit from sequential treatment. These results still need further validation.     

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first‐line maintenance treatment of BRCA‐mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first‐line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)–positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO‐1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA‐1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high‐grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD‐positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression‐free survival and favorable benefit‐risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting.Implications for PracticeThese approvals represent the first poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first‐line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA‐mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient–positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum‐based chemotherapy.     

A feasibility study of gemcitabine,S-1 and leucovorin combination therapy (GSL) for advanced biliary tract cancer

Objective: Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) combination chemotherapy is the current standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Recently, a randomized controlled trial showed the non-inferiority in overall survival of gemcitabine and S-1 (GS) compared to GC. Because leucovorin is known to enhance the activity of S-1, we conducted this study to evaluate the feasibility of combination therapy of gemcitabine, S-1 and leucovorin (GSL). Methods: Advanced BTC patients without prior treatment other than surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible to this study. Gemcitabine was administered at a dose of 1000?mg/m² on day 1, and oral S-1 at a dose of 40?mg/m² and oral leucovorin at a dose of 25?mg twice daily on days 1–7, every 2?weeks. The primary endpoint was PFS and the secondary endpoints included OS, objective tumour response and the safety. Results: Between June 2013 and December 2015, 20 patients with advanced BTC (12 gallbladder, 4 extrahepatic, 2 intrahepatic, 2 ampulla) including 16 unresectable disease and 4 recurrent disease were enroled. The median PFS and OS were 5.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 – not reached) and 16.0 (95% CI, 6.4–20.8) months, respectively. A partial response was achieved in 3 (15%) and stable disease in 8 (40%), giving a disease control rate of 55%. Major grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (30%), anaemia (5%), stomatitis (15%), diarrhoea (15%) and anorexia (10%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: This study showed the feasibility and potential efficacy of GSL as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced BTC.     

Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: a multicentre analysis

Background Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown.Methods Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined.Results Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028).Conclusions Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.Subject terms: Targeted therapies, Melanoma, Melanoma