Search

Introduction: Dual inhibition with a T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domains plus programmed death (ligand)-1 (PD[L]-1) inhibitors, with or without chemotherapy, is an emerging therapeutic strategy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The STAR-121 (NCT05502237) phase III, global, randomized, open-label study will investigate first-line domvanalimab (anti-TIGIT) and zimberelimab (anti-PD-1) plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in mNSCLC with no actionable gene alterations., Participants and Methods: Approximately 720 participants (≥18 years old) with untreated mNSCLC and no EGFR and ALK mutations will be randomized into 3 groups (A, B, or C) in a 4:4:1 ratio and stratified by baseline PD-L1 expression (tumor cells <50% vs. ≥50%), histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), and geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia). Group A will receive domvanalimab 1200 mg plus zimberelimab 360 mg plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PT), group B will receive pembrolizumab 200 mg plus PT, and group C will receive zimberelimab 360 mg plus PT, every 3 weeks. Treatment will be administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and overall survival for group A versus B. Key secondary endpoints comprise overall response rate (by BICR), safety, and quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include efficacy and safety between groups A and C, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers., Conclusion: Enrollment in the STAR-121 study commenced on October 12, 2022, and is currently ongoing with completion planned by September 2024. The study completion is expected by December 2027., Competing Interests: Disclosure DR-A has provided consulting services to Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; participated in a speaker's bureau for Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and received travel accommodations from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. JB-B reports grants and personal fees from Roche and Pfizer; personal fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Vifor, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Takeda, MSD, and Roche. JEG has received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Oncocyte; has provided consulting services to AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Loxo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, MedImmune, Janssen, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and has received travel accommodations from Novartis, Oncocyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Merck. MJA has provided consulting services to AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Merck, Pfizer, and Yuhan and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Takeda, Merck, and Yuhan. Her institution has received research funding from Yuhan. MJ has provided consulting services to Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Merck, Sanofi, Mirati Therapeutics, Ribon Therapeutics, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline, Gristone Bio, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Axelia Oncology, Black Diamond Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, EcoR1 Capital, Editas Medicine, Genmab, IDEAYA Biosciences, ITeos Therapeutics, Oncorus, Regeneron, Turning Point Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Genocea Biosciences, Molecular Axiom, Novartis, Revolution Medicines, Takeda, VBL Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, Pyramid Biosciences, and Seagen and has received travel accommodations from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Her institution has received research funding from EMD Serono, Kadmon, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Stem CentRX, Novartis, Array Biopharma, Regeneron, Merck, Hengrui Pharmaceutical, Lycera, BeiGene, Tarveda Therapeutics, Loxo, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, CytomX Therapeutics, Dynavax Technologies, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Genocea Biosciences, Gristone Bio, Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Adaptimmune, Syndax, Neovia Oncology, Acerta Pharma, Takeda, Shattuck Labs, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Atreca, OncoMed, Eli Lilly, Immunocore, University of Michigan, TCR2 Therapeutics, Arcus Biosciences, Ribon Therapeutics, BerGenBio, Calithera Biosciences, Tmunity Therapeutics, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals, Curis, Silicon Therapeutics, Dracen, PMV Pharma, Artios, BioAtla, Elicio Therapeutics, Erasca Inc., Harpoon, Helsinn Healthcare, Hutchinson MediPharma, IDEAYA Biosciences, IGM Biosciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NeoImmuneTech, Numab, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics Inc., Turning Point Therapeutics, Vyriad, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Merus, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, Carisma Therapeutics, Rain Therapeutics, Nuvalent Inc., Palleon Pharmaceuticals, EQRx, and Immunitas. XY is a current employee of, and receives stock options from, Gilead Sciences, Inc. SM is a current employee of, and receives stock options from, Gilead Sciences, Inc. XC is a previous employee of Novartis and Innovent Biologics, and a current employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and has received stock options from Novartis and Gilead Sciences, Inc. TT is a current employee of, and receives stock options from, Arcus Biosciences. JK is a current employee of, and receives stock options from, Gilead Sciences, Inc. MR has provided consulting services to Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Daiichi Sankyo and has also participated in a speaker's bureau for Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, and Sanofi/Aventis., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The search for immunological markers with ability of predicting clinical outcome is a priority in lymphomas, and in cancer in general. It is well known that some immunomodulatory cells, such as myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) or regulatory T cells (Tregs), are recruited by tumors, jeopardizing antitumor immunosurveillance. In this work, we have studied blood levels of these immunosuppressive cells in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), prior to and along the course of the experimental rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (R2-GDP) schedule, as a translational substudy of the R2-GDP-GOTEL trial (EudraCT Number: 2014-001620-29), which included lenalidomide as an immunomodulator., Methods: Blood samples were taken before treatment, at cycle 3 and end of induction. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry. Non-parametric tests were used. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare basal cells distributions, and Wilcoxon test was considered to compare cells distribution at different times. Spearman test was performed to measure the degree of association between cell populations., Results: In this study, MDSC and Treg circulating concentration was found increased in all patients compared with a healthy control group and decreased after treatment only in patients with longest overall survival (>24 months), reaching the levels of the healthy group. Likewise, the number of inhibited T lymphocytes expressing Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) were increased in peripheral blood from patients and decreased on the treatment, whereas activated T lymphocytes increased after therapy in those with better overall survival., Conclusions: In conclusion, blood concentration of MDSCs and Treg cells may be good prognostic markers for overall survival after 2 years in R/R DLBCL. These results point to a possible role of these elements in the immunosuppression of these patients, as assessed by the circulating activated and inhibited T lymphocytes, and therefore, they may be considered as therapeutic targets in DLBCL., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumor activity in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study compared pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum (EP) with placebo plus EP for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage (ES) SCLC., Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles plus 4 cycles of EP. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST version 1.1, blinded central review) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response were secondary end points. Prespecified efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = .0048 for PFS and .0128 for OS., Results: Of the 453 participants, 228 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus EP and 225 to placebo plus EP. Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91; P = .0023). Twelve-month PFS estimates were 13.6% with pembrolizumab plus EP and 3.1% with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab plus EP prolonged OS, the significance threshold was not met (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98; P = .0164). Twenty-four-month OS estimates were 22.5% and 11.2%, respectively. ORR was 70.6% in the pembrolizumab plus EP group and 61.8% in the placebo plus EP group; the estimated proportion of responders remaining in response at 12 months was 19.3% and 3.3%, respectively. In the pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP groups, respectively, any-cause adverse events were grade 3-4 in 76.7% and 74.9%, grade 5 in 6.3% and 5.4%, and led to discontinuation of any drug in 14.8% and 6.3%., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS compared with placebo plus EP as first-line therapy for patients with ES-SCLC. No unexpected toxicities were seen with pembrolizumab plus EP. These data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

In clinical trials, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved overall survival (OS) compared with single-agent BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy in a compassionate-use setting [Named Patient Program (NPP); DESCRIBE II]. A retrospective chart review of patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib as compassionate use was conducted. Treatment patterns and duration, clinical outcomes, and tolerability were evaluated. Of 271 patients, 92.6% had stage IV melanoma, including 36.5% with brain metastases. Overall, 162 patients (59.8%) were BRAFi naive and 171 (63.1%) received first-line dabrafenib plus trametinib. Among BRAFi-naive patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 67.3%, median OS (mOS) was 20.0 months, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.5 months. In BRAFi-naive patients with known brain metastases (n = 62), ORR was 61.3%, mOS was 15.5 months, and mPFS was 6.2 months. Eighty-four patients received BRAFi monotherapy for >30 days and switched to dabrafenib plus trametinib prior to progression. Of these 84 patients, 63 had known disease status at the time of switch, and 22 improved with the combination therapy. No new safety signals were identified, and dabrafenib plus trametinib was well tolerated. Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed substantial clinical activity in NPP patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Analysis of treatment patterns demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination in patients with brain metastases and across lines of therapy with a well tolerated and manageable safety profile.

Background: Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC., Methods: We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225., Findings: Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes., Interpretation: Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors., Funding: Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)