Effects of Antibody Response after Booster Vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections and Disease Outcomes in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Prospective Analysis of the Vax-on-Third Study.

(1) Background: The clinical implications of COVID-19 outbreaks following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunocompromised recipients are a worldwide concern. Cancer patients on active treatment remain at an increased risk of developing breakthrough infections because of waning immunity and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. There is a paucity of data on the effects of COVID-19 outbreaks on long-term survival outcomes in this population. (2) Methods: We enrolled 230 cancer patients who were on active treatment for advanced disease and had received booster dosing of an mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine as part of the Vax-On-Third trial between September 2021 and October 2021. Four weeks after the third immunization, IgG antibodies against the spike receptor domain of SARS-CoV-2 were tested in all patients. We prospectively evaluated the incidence of breakthrough infections and disease outcomes. The coprimary endpoints were the effects of antibody titers on the development of breakthrough infections and the impact of COVID-19 outbreaks on cancer treatment failure. (3) Results: At a median follow-up of 16.3 months (95% CI 14.5-17.0), 85 (37%) patients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalization was required in 11 patients (12.9%) and only 2 (2.3%) deaths related to COVID-19 outbreaks were observed. Median antibody titers were significantly lower in breakthrough cases than in non-cases (291 BAU/mL (95% CI 210-505) vs. 2798 BAU/mL (95% CI 2323-3613), p < 0.001). A serological titer cut-off below 803 BAU/mL was predictive of breakthrough infection. In multivariate testing, antibody titers and cytotoxic chemotherapy were independently associated with an increased risk of outbreaks. Time-to-treatment failure after booster dosing was significantly shorter in patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection (3.1 months (95% CI 2.3-3.6) vs. 16.2 months (95% CI 14.3-17.0), p < 0.001) and had an antibody level below the cut-off (3.6 months (95% CI 3.0-4.5) vs. 14.6 months (95% CI 11.9-16.3), p < 0.001). A multivariate Cox regression model confirmed that both covariates independently had a worsening effect on time-to-treatment failure. (4) Conclusions: These data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing the incidence and severity of COVID-19 outbreaks. Enhanced humoral immunity after the third vaccination significantly correlates with protection against breakthrough infections. Strategies aimed at restraining SARS-CoV-2 transmission in advanced cancer patients undergoing active treatment should be prioritized to mitigate the impact on disease outcomes.

Eastern Regional Meeting 2021

The proceedings contain 63 papers. The topics discussed include: doxorubicin cardiotoxicity in human organotypic cardiac slices is modulated by P38 MAPK inhibition in a sex- and isoform-specific manner;validation of a modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors after stereotactic ablative radiosurgery for lung cancer;safer use of aspirin in older adults, need for a consensus;efficacy of facemasks in prevention of COVID-19: a systematic review;practice patterns of rapid influenza diagnostic test;equity and inclusion in patient centered outcomes research: lessons from the adaptable study at Montefiore site;a solution to decrease potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) use during hospitalization;predictors of misperceptions, risk perceptions, and personal risk perceptions about COVID-19 by country, education and income;cognitive function and the consumption of probiotic foods in older adults: an NHANES study;and registered dietitian nutritionist care impacts nutrition-related outcomes for patients with cancer in the outpatient setting.

PD13-08 Phase 1 TROPION-PanTumor01 Study Evaluating Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in Unresectable or Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer (BC)

Background: Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a humanized anti-TROP2 IgG1 monoclonal antibody covalently linked to a highly potent topoisomerase I (Topo I) inhibitor payload via a stable, tumor-selective, tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. Dato-DXd demonstrated compelling single-agent antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative BC (Krop, SABCS 2021). This is the first report of results from the TROPION-PanTumor01 study in pts with unresectable or metastatic hormone receptor- positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-;including HER2-low and HER2-zero) BC. Method(s): TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385) is a phase 1, multicenter, open-label, 2-part doseescalation/expansion study evaluating Dato-DXd in previously treated pts with solid tumors. Based on previous clinical findings and exposure-response results from pts with NSCLC, Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg IV Q3W is being evaluated in pts with unresectable or metastatic HR+/HER2- BC that progressed on standard therapies. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability. Tumor responses, including ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) and DCR (CR + PR + stable disease [SD]), were assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review. Result(s): As of the April 29, 2022, data cutoff, 41 pts had received Dato-DXd (median follow-up, 10.9 mo [range, 7-13]);9 pts were ongoing. The primary cause of treatment discontinuation was disease progression (63% progressive disease [PD] or clinical progression). Median age was 57 y (range, 33- 75);54% had de novo metastatic disease. Pts were heavily pretreated (Table) with a median of 5 (range, 3-10) prior regimens in the advanced setting;95% had prior CDK4/6i (adjuvant/metastatic). Median time from initial treatment for metastatic disease to the first dose of Dato-DXd was 42.7 mo (range, 10.2-131.1). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs;all cause) were observed in 98% (any grade) and 41% (grade >=3) of pts. Most common TEAEs (any grade, grade >=3) were stomatitis (80%, 10%), nausea (56%, 0%), fatigue (46%, 2%), and alopecia (37%, 0%). Serious TEAEs were observed in 6 pts (15%);1 pt died due to dyspnea, which was not considered to be treatment related. Dose reductions occurred in 5 pts due to stomatitis (n=3), fatigue (n=2), keratitis (n=1), and decreased appetite (n=1) (>1 AE per pt);14 pts had treatment delayed due to stomatitis (n=8), retinopathy (n=1), dysphagia (n=1), fatigue (n=1), malaise (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), cellulitis (n=1), urinary tract infection (n=1), decreased lymphocyte count (n=1), and nasal congestion (n=1;>1 AE per pt). Three pts discontinued treatment due to keratitis (n=1) and pneumonitis (n=2);1 case of pneumonitis was adjudicated as grade 2 drug-related interstitial lung disease. The ORR was 29% (11 confirmed PRs;1 pending confirmation), the DCR was 85% (35/41), and the clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD >=6 mo) was 41% (17/41). Conclusion(s): Dato-DXd demonstrated a manageable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity, with high disease control in heavily pretreated pts, the majority having received prior CDK4/6i. Based on these findings, the TROPION-Breast01 (NCT05104866) randomized phase 3 study comparing 2L+ Dato-DXd vs investigator's choice chemotherapy is currently enrolling pts with HR+/HER2- BC.

Lorigerlimab, a bispecific PD-13CTLA-4 DART molecule in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): A phase 1 expansion (exp) cohort

Background: Lorigerlimab (MGD019) is an investigational, bispecific Fc-bearing (IgG4) DART molecule designed to enhance CTLA-4 blockade on dual expressing, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, while maintaining maximal PD-1 blockade on PD-1 expressing cells. Lorigerlimab has approximate dose proportional PK across 1-10 mg/kg IV dosing Q3W, with sustained PD-1 receptor occupancy evident at doses >=1 mg/kg Q3W. MGD019-01 is a global first-in-human dose finding and activity estimating study of lorigerlimab in advanced solid tumors (AST). Method(s): The exp phase of MGD019-01 evaluates single agent safety, PK, and antitumor effects of lorigerlimab at the recommended dose for exp of 6 mg/ kg IV Q3W in 4 tumor specific cohorts. Confirmed responses were noted in each cohort. Preliminary results of the mCRPC cohort are reported here. Response evaluable pts received >=1 dose and had >=1 postbaseline imaging evaluation. Measurable lesions were evaluated per RECIST v1.1 and skeletal metastases assessed by bone scan. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response was defined as a >=50% (PSA50) or>=90% (PSA90) PSA decline from baseline with confirmation>=3 weeks later. Expression of proliferation marker, Ki67, and inducible costimulator (ICOS) by peripheral T cells was assessed by flow cytometry. Result(s): At data cutoff (9/10/22), 127 pts with AST received >=1 dose of lorigerlimab 6 mg/ kg. Median exposure was 10 weeks (range, 0.1, 94.4) with median of 4 infusions. 6 pts remain on therapy;36 discontinued for PD (n=13), AEs (n=17), or patient/physician decision (n=6). Treatment related adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 109/127 (85.8%) pts. TRAEs occurring in>=15% of pts were fatigue, pruritus, hypothyroidism, pyrexia. Rates of grade >=3 TRAEs and immune-related AEs were 32.3% and 7.9%, respectively. AEs leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 22.8% of pts. There were no fatal AEs related to lorigerlimab. In the mCRPC exp cohort (n=42), pts had a median of 2 prior lines of therapy for CRPC, >80% received prior ART or taxanes;88% had visceral (liver, 26%;lung, 26%) or nodal disease and 95% had bone metastases. 42 pts were PSA response evaluable;35 were RECIST evaluable. ORR was 25.7% (9/35;9 confirmed PRs). Median duration of response was 16.1 weeks (range 6-25+ weeks). 5 responders remain on study, 4 discontinued for unrelated fatal AEs: COVID-19 (2) cardiac arrest (1) C. difficile infection (1). Confirmed PSA50 and PSA90 response rates were 28.6%(12/42) and 21.4% (9/42), respectively. Increased frequencies of Ki67+ and ICOS+ T cells were observed on day 8 posttreatment compared to pretherapy per the flow cytometry analyses from 35 pts. Conclusion(s): Lorigerlimab demonstrates a manageable safety profile with evidence of encouraging and durable antitumor activity in a chemotherapy refractory mCRPC population. Randomized evaluation of lorigerlimab in mCRPC is warranted.

Treatment of HER2-positive (HER2+) hormonereceptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with the novel combination of zanidatamab, palbociclib, and fulvestrant

Background: HER2+ mBC remains incurable, with a need for new HER2-directed therapies and regimens, including chemotherapy-free options. Zanidatamab (zani) is a novel HER2-targeted bispecific antibody that binds HER2 in a unique trans configuration, driving multiple mechanisms of antitumor activity, including complement-dependent cytotoxicity. A CDK4/6 inhibitor combined with endocrine therapy is an approved treatment for HER2-negative/HR+ mBC and this combination has also demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity when paired with HER2-targeted therapy(ies) in HER2+/HR+ mBC. Here, we report results from ZWI-ZW25-202 (NCT04224272), an ongoing singlearm phase 2 study of zani combined with palbociclib (palbo) and fulvestrant (fulv) in pts with HER2+/HR+ mBC. Method(s): Eligibility requirements include: HER2+/HR+ unresectable, locally advanced BC or mBC;ECOG PS of 0 or 1;prior treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab and T DM1 (additional prior HER2-targeting agents are permitted);and no prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Part 1 of the study evaluated the safety and tolerability of the zani/palbo/fulv combination and determined the recommended doses for use in Part 2, where the antitumor activity of the combination is being evaluated. Endpoints include safety outcomes, progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6), confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per RECIST v1.1;disease control rate (DCR=complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR] plus stable disease [SD]);duration of response (DOR);PFS;and overall survival. Result(s): As of 24 Feb 2022, 34 pts (33 HER2+/HR+ per central analysis) with a median age of 52 (range 36-77) have been treated. In the metastatic setting, pts had received a median (range) of 4 (1-10) prior systemic regimens, including 3 (1-8) different prior HER2 targeted therapies, and 1 (0-4) endocrine therapy. Seven pts (20%) had prior T DXd treatment and 7 pts had prior fulv treatment. All pts received zani (20 mg/kg Q2W) and standard doses of palbo and fulv. Eighteen pts (53%) remained on treatment;median duration of zani treatment was 6.9 mo (range 0.5- 16.3). A dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of neutropenia occurred in 1 of 7 DLT-evaluable pts in Part 1. Among all pts (n=34), the most common (>20%) treatment (zani, palbo and/or fulv)-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (74%), neutrophil count decreased/neutropenia (62%), stomatitis (41%), asthenia (26%), nausea (24%), and anemia (21%). Grade (Gr) >=3 TRAEs in 2 or more pts included neutrophil count decreased/neutropenia (50%), anemia (6%), diarrhea (6%), and thrombocytopenia (6%). AEs of special interest were all Gr <=2 and included 4 pts with cardiac events (LVEF decrease of >=10% from baseline) and 1 pt with infusion-related reaction. There were no treatment-related serious AEs. Palbo was discontinued for 1 pt due to an AE (AST increase);no pt discontinued zani treatment as a result of AEs. Two deaths occurred: 1 due to disease progression and 1 due to an unrelated AE of pneumonia caused by COVID-19. In 29 pts with measurable disease, the cORR was 34.5% (95% CI: 17.9, 54.3), all responses were cPRs, of which 1 is pending CR confirmation. DOR ranged from 2.3 to 14.9+ mo, with 8 confirmed responses ongoing, and the DCR was 93.1% (95% CI: 77.2, 99.2). Interim median PFS was 11.3 mo (range 0.03-16.7;95% CI: 5.6, not estimable). PFS6 analysis is planned following the completion of enrollment. Conclusion(s): Zani in combination with palbo and fulv shows encouraging antitumor activity with durable responses in heavily pretreated pts and a manageable safety profile. This regimen has the potential to be a chemotherapy-free treatment option in pts with HER2+/HR+ mBC. Enrollment in the study is continuing.

Outcome of COVID-19 Infection in Cancer Patients in Pune.

Introduction We document our data on the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in cancer patients in an attempt to help optimize their management in India and globally. Material and Methods Between February 2020 and January 2021, participating oncologists from Pune (members of the Oncology Group of Pune) documented effect of COVID-19 infection in their cancer patients. Binomial logistic regression analysis as well as correlation analysis was done using Pearson Chi-square test to determine significance of clinical factors. Results A total of 29 oncologists from 20 hospitals contributed their data involving 147 cancer patients who developed COVID-19 infections. COVID-19 infection resulted in higher deaths (likelihood ratio of 4.4) amongst patients with hematological malignancies (12/44 = 27.2%) as compared with those with solid tumors (13/90 = 14.4%, p = 0.030). Patients with uncontrolled or progressive cancer (11/34 = 32.4%) when they got infected with COVID-19 had higher mortality as compared with patients whose cancer was under control (14/113 = 12.4%; p = 0.020). Complication of thromboembolic episodes (seen in eight patients; 5.4% cases) was associated with higher risk (25.6 times) of death (five-eighths; 62.5%) as compared with those who did not develop it (20/139;14.4%; p <0.001). Discussion Patients with cancer should be advised to take strict precautions to reduce the risk of being infected with COVID-19. They should also be given priority for COVID-19 vaccination. If infected with COVID-19, patients with hematological malignancy and uncontrolled cancer are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality. When they are being treated (OPD or inpatient basis), additional precautions are necessary to ensure their exposure to potential COVID-19 virus is minimized. If they get infected with COVID-19, they should be given aggressive treatment to prevent complications, especially thromboembolic episodes. If they develop any thromboembolic complication, their risk of dying are significantly higher, and management should be modified accordingly.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) + durvalumab (D) as first-line (1L) treatment for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic hormone receptor-negative (HR-), HER2-low breast cancer: updated results from BEGONIA, a phase 1b/2 study

Background: Patients with HR- advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC) with a low level of HER2 (immunohistochemistry [IHC] score 1+ or IHC 2+ and negative in situ hybridization [ISH]) have poor prognosis. Combining 1L chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors can modestly improve outcomes vs chemotherapy alone, but treatment benefit is largely seen in patients with PD-L1+ disease. BEGONIA (NCT03742102) is an ongoing 2-part, open-label platform study, evaluating safety and efficacy of D, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, combined with other novel therapies in 1L triple-negative a/mBC, including HR-, HER2-low disease. T-DXd is a trastuzumab-topoisomerase I inhibitor antibody-drug conjugate that improves survival in patients with previously treated HR-, HER2-low mBC (NCT03734029;Modi NEJM 2022). Here, we report updated results of the T-DXd + D combination from BEGONIA. Method(s): Patients with unresectable HR-, HER2-low (per local testing, IHC 2+/ISH-, IHC 1+/ISH-, or IHC 1+/ISH untested) a/mBC were enrolled in the T-DXd + D arm. Patients eligible for 1L treatment, regardless of PD-L1 status, received intravenous T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg + D 1120 mg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PD-L1, assessed using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay, was defined as high if >= 5% of the tumor area was populated by PDL1-expressing tumor or immune cells. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR;RECIST v1.1);progressionfree survival [PFS];and response duration. Patients included in the efficacy analysis had >= 2 ontreatment disease assessments, progressed, died, or withdrew from the study. Result(s): As of April 8, 2022, 56 patients received T-DXd + D (34 ongoing) and 46 were included in the efficacy analysis. Median (range) follow-up was 10.1 (0-22) months. Median age was 53.5 years, 71% had received prior treatment for early stage BC, and 64% had visceral metastases at baseline. Confirmed ORR was 26/46 (57% 95% CI, 41-71) and unconfirmed ORR was 33/54 (61% 95% CI, 47-74);1/46 patients (2%) had complete and 25/46 (54%) had partial responses. Confirmed response occurred irrespective of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 high ORR, 5/7 [71%];PD-L1 low, 13/21 [62%];PD-L1 missing, 8/18 [44%]). Median duration of response was not reached;however, 64% of patients remained in response at 12 month follow-up and 73% had an ongoing response at data cutoff. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 8-not reached). Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the agents' known safety, with treatment-related AEs occurring in 49 patients (88%), any Grade 3/4 AEs in 18 patients (32%), and any serious AEs in 10 patients (18%). The most common all-Grade AEs were nausea (41 [73%]), fatigue (26 [46%]), and vomiting (17 [30%]). Adjudicated treatment-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis occurred for 5 patients (9%), which were mostly Grade 1 or 2 and 1 case of Grade 5 associated with COVID pneumonia. Seven patients (13%) and 21 patients (38%) had T-DXd dose reduction and dose delay, respectively;22 (39%) had D dose delay. Seven patients (13%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Conclusion(s): For patients with HR-, HER2-low a/mBC, T-DXd in combination with D in the 1L setting shows manageable safety and promising efficacy including durable responses and an encouraging PFS. Although subgroups were small, responses were observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression. Analysis of additional translational data is ongoing. Funding(s): AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo.

Clinical outcomes in patients with solid tumors living in rural and urban areas followed via telemedicine: experience in a highly complex latin american hospital.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties in cancer services access increase the burden of disease and mortality in rural areas, and telehealth can be a useful tool to address these inequalities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the outcomes of patients in rural and urban areas with solid tumors managed by oncologists through telemedicine. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with solid tumors from March to December 2020. A total of 1270 subjects with solid tumors were included, 704 living in urban areas and 566 in rural areas. RESULTS: The most frequent tumors were breast (51.8%) and prostate (12.4%). The trend of telemedicine care was similar for both populations; in-person care was more frequent in the urban population. There were no differences in referral to the emergency room, need for hospitalization, and mortality for both groups. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is a care modality that reduces barriers in the care of patients with solid tumors, evidencing similar outcomes regardless of living in rural or urban areas.

Humoral Effect of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination with booster dose in solid tumor patients with different anticancer treatments.

Introduction: Cancer patients are at risk for serious complications in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In these patients SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is strongly recommended, with the preferential use of mRNA vaccines. The antibody response in cancer patients is variable, depending on the type of cancer and antitumoral treatment. In solid tumor patients an antibody response similar to healthy subjects has been confirmed after the second dose. Only few studies explored the duration of immunization after the two doses and the effect of the third dose. Methods: In our study we explored a cohort of 273 solid tumor patients at different stages and treated with different anticancer therapies. Results and Discussion: Our analysis demonstrated that the persistence of the neutralizing antibody and the humoral response after the booster dose of vaccine was not dependent on either the tumor type, the stage or type of anticancer treatment.

Influence of Cancer on COVID-19 Incidence, Outcomes, and Vaccine Effectiveness: A Prospective Cohort Study of U.S. Veterans.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a constant health threat since its emergence. Amongst risk factors proposed, a diagnosis of cancer has been worrisome. We report the impact of cancer and other risk factors in US Veterans receiving care at Veterans Administration (VA) Hospitals, their adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for infection and death, and report on the impact of vaccines on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections in Veterans without/with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of US Veterans without/with cancer by mining VA COVID-19 Shared Data Resource (CSDR) data using the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). Our observation period includes index dates from 14DEC2020 to 25JAN2022, encompassing both the delta and omicron waves in the US. RESULTS: We identified 915,928 Veterans, 24% of whom were African Americans who had undergone COVID testing-688,541 were and 227,387 were not vaccinated. 157,072 had a cancer diagnosis in the preceding two years. Age emerged as the major risk factor, with gender, BMI, and (Elixhauser) comorbidity contributing less. Among veterans with solid tumors other than lung cancer, risks of infection and death within 60 days were comparable to Veterans without cancer. However, those with hematologic malignancies fared worse. Vaccination was highly effective across all cancer cohorts; the respective rates of infection and death after infection were 8% and 5% among the vaccinated compared to 47% and 10% in the unvaccinated. Amongst vaccinated, increased risk of infection was noted in both, Veterans with hematologic malignancy treated with chemotherapy (HR, 2.993, P < 0.0001) or targeted therapies (HR, 1.781, P < 0.0001), and in solid tumors treated with either chemotherapy (HR 2.328, 95%CI 2.075-2.611, P < 0.0001) or targeted therapies (HR 1.328, P < 0.0001) when compared to those not on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for COVID-19 infection and death from infection vary based on cancer type and therapies administered. Importantly and encouragingly, the duration of protection from infection following vaccination in Veterans with a diagnosis of cancer was remarkably like those without a cancer diagnosis. Veterans with hematologic malignancies are especially vulnerable, with lower vaccine effectiveness (VE).

Lymphadenopathies before and during the Pandemic COVID-19: Increasing Incidence of Metastases from Solid Tumors.

Since December 2019, the world has experienced a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, a virus which spread throughout the world. Anti-COVID19 measures were applied to limit the spread of the infection, affecting normal clinical practice. In 2020, studies on the possible impact of the pandemic considering the screening programs for early diagnosis of cancer were conducted, resulting in a prediction of delayed diagnosis of cancer. We performed a retrospective monocentric study on patients who present with the onset of lymphadenomegalies evaluated at our Hematological Department from February 2019 to October 2021 and undergoing excisional lymph-node biopsy. Three periods were considered: pre-pandemic, first pandemic period and second pandemic period (Group A, B and C). We included 258 patients who underwent a surgical biopsy and received a histological diagnosis. Hematological evaluation of outpatients sent by the general practitioner and surgical biopsies did not decrease among the three groups, despite limitations placed during this pandemic as well as new diagnoses of hematological malignancies. However, the diagnosis of metastatic cancer significantly increased from 2019 (7.8%) to 2021 (22.1%) (p = 0.042). Our data supports the hypothesis that the pandemic affected the national screening programs of early cancer detection.

PET-derived parameters for response assessment in neoadjuvant atezolizumab: A secondary analysis of PRINCEPS phase II trial

Background: Immune Checkpoint Blockade (ICB) is moving from metastatic to curative setting in different diseases including NSCLC. While for metastatic disease radiological endpoints are currently the standard surrogate marker of benefit from ICBs, based on RECIST or PERCIST criteria, in neoadjuvant setting they often underestimate the response and then pathological response (PR) criteria were developed to evaluate Major PR (MPR), defined as ≤10% viable tumor cells after neoadjuvant treatment, and PR, defined as less than 50% residual tumor cells. Anyway, a non-invasive approach to determine the response to treatment is still an unmet need. Methods: PRINCEPS was a phase 2 clinical trial including limited-stage (IB-IIIA) NSCLC patients who received one administration of atezolizumab before surgery. 18-F FDG PET was performed within 28 days and after 15-22 days from atezolizumab. Surgery was performed at day 22-29 from atezolizumab. PET derived parameters including MTV and TLG was extracted by experienced nuclear physicians. Results: 30 patients were enrolled, all received A and underwent surgical resection after a median of 23 days. MPR was identified in 4, pPR in 8 tumors. Paired PET were available for 28 pts. Mean time from A to PET was 18 days (IQR 3.5). Total TLG and MTV reduction was not correlated with percentage of pPR (p=0.117 and p=0.843, respectively). Reduction of MTV (Pearson correlation 0.509, p=0.006) and TLG (Pearson correlation 0.562, p=0.002) in the primary tumor were strongly correlated with pPR, while no correlation was observed between percentage of pPR and variation in tumor diameters by RECIST criteria (-0.24, p=0.2) nor metabolic response (-0.12, p=0.55). The appearance of metabolically active hilar and mediastinal, non-pathological lymph nodes (LN) was noted in 12/28 patients, and specifically in. 2 out of 4 MPR and 5 out of 8 pPR. A trend toward an higher pPR was observed with LN appearance (mean 52% reduction in pts with LN appearance vs 29% without, p 0.061), probably reflecting immune activation. LN appearance was associated with hyperplasia and histiocytosis in resected, non-metastatic LNs. Conclusions: PET is able to early detect tumor response in localized NSCLC patients treated with ICBs in neoadjuvant setting. Clinical trial identification: NCT02994576. Legal entity responsible for the study: Institut Gustave Roussy. Funding: Roche. Disclosure: N. Chaput-Gras: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Strong-Iopredi Scientific Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Educational Session On Immune Cell Death: Servier;Financial Interests, Institutional, Expert Testimony, Expertise On Immune Cell Death Biomarkers: Servier;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Cytune Pharma;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Research grant to identify immune biomarkers associated to clinical response in patients treated with agonistic mAbs: GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Preclinical studies in mice: GSK;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Immune profiling of Head & Neck tumors: Sanofi. D. Planchard: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Celgene, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, priME Oncology, Peer CME, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, Institutional financial interests: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AbbVie, Sanofi, Janssen. L. Mezquita: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, SEOM Beca Retorno 2019: BI;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, ESMO TR Research Fellowship 2019: BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Resea ch Grant, COVID research Grant: Amgen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Inivata, Stilla. J. Remon Masip: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Boehringer-Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Expert Testimony: Ose Immunotherapeutics;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator, PI of PECATI trial in Thymic malignancies endorsed by a grant by MSD: MSD;Non-Financial Interests, Other, Co-PI of APPLE trial (EORTC-1525): AstraZeneca. F. Barlesi: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Takeda;Non-Financial Interests, Principal Investigator: AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. B. Besse: Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: 4D Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Genzyme Corporation, Inivata, Ipsen, Turning Point Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The safety and efficacy of surufatinib for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumors: A prospective, multicenter, real-world study

Background: Surufatinib (a small-molecule inhibitor of VEGFR1-3, FGFR1, and CSF-1R) has exhibited encouraging antitumor activity for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumors (including NEN and NEC) in multiple registration studies. Here, we report the preliminary results of advanced neuroendocrine tumors of an ongoing, multicenter, real-world study of surufatinib + MDT (ChiCTR2100049999). Challenges in tumor clinical trials management in the face of the COVID-19 resurgence period in Shanghai. Methods: In this multicenter, single-arm real-world study, adults (18-80) with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (including NEN and NEC) were eligible and received surufatinib (300mg orally, QD) with MDT（multidisciplinary collaborative diagnosis and treatment). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1. We minimized the interruptions caused by the pandemic using telemedicine platforms for all patients. This included online consultations, follow-up drug distributions, and health management services. Results: Twenty-three pts were enrolled, with 20 NEN and 3 NEC. At the data cutoff date (April 10, 2022), 15 pts had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment;of them, the confirmed ORR (95%CI) was 20% (4.3-48.1), and DCR (95%CI) was 93.33% (68.1-99.8). Median PFS (mPFS) (95%CI): 10.640 mo (3.796-17.484);median OS: not reached and median duration of follow up was 6.870 mo (6.797-6.943). A pNET patient (NO. 010007) was interrupted by asymptomatic COVID-19 infection 9 mo after enrollment. There are no interruptions caused by COVID-19 for other patients. An NEC patient treated with single agent had a 5.85 mo PFS, evaluated as NE, in whom target lesion resected after baseline. In overall pts (n=23), most commonly (≥3 pts) with hemorrhage, anemia, hypertension, proteinuria, and abdominal pain. Three pts had TRAEs that led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Surufatinib + MDT exhibited promising efficacy and manageable toxicity in pts with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Now and in the future, it is necessary to design regulatory changes in telehealth adoption for clinical trial design in the pandemic era. Clinical trial identification: ChiCTR2100049999. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Hutchison MediPharma Limited. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Neoadjuvant cemiplimab in patients (pts) with stage II–IV (M0) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC): Primary analysis of a phase II study

Background: CSCC is highly immune-responsive;a prior pilot study demonstrated a high rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) or major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor), using cemiplimab anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapy in the neoadjuvant setting. Here, we present the primary analysis of a confirmatory, open-label, multicenter, Phase 2, single-arm trial of neoadjuvant cemiplimab in pts with resectable Stage II–IV (M0) CSCC. Methods: Pts received cemiplimab 350 mg IV q3W for up to 4 doses before surgery. The primary endpoint was pCR rate per independent central pathologic review (ICPR). Key secondary endpoints included MPR rate per ICPR, objective response rate (ORR;complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) per RECIST v1.1, investigator-assessed pCR and MPR, safety and tolerability. Results: At data cutoff date of 01 Dec 2021, 79 pts were enrolled (67 male;median age 73.0 yrs [range, 66.0–81.0];ECOG performance status 0 (n=60) and 1 (n=19) with stage II (n=5), III (n=38), or IV(M0) (n =36) disease;62 pts received all 4 doses (median number of doses given (Q1:Q3), 4 (4:4);70 pts underwent surgery. The study met its primary endpoint: pCR was observed in 40 (50.6%) pts (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.1–62.1%). MPR was observed in an additional 10 (12.7%) pts (95% CI, 6.2–22.0%). ORR was 68.4% (95% CI, 56.9–78.4) (5 CR, 49 PR, 16 stable disease, 8 progressive disease (PD), 1 non evaluable. Reasons 9 pts did not have surgery: 3 responders declined surgery, 2 lost to follow-up or noncompliance, 2 had inoperable PD, 2 due to AE. Fourteen (17.7%) pts experienced Grade ≥3 AE. Four pts died due to AEs: 1 exacerbation of cardiac failure, 2 myocardial infarctions, and 1 COVID-19 pneumonia. The most common AEs regardless of attribution (all grades) were fatigue (30.4%), rash maculo-papular (13.9%), diarrhea (13.9%) and nausea (13.9%). Conclusions: The pCR + MPR of 63.3% by ICPR in pts with Stage II–IV (M0) CSCC is the highest observed in a multicenter anti-PD-1 neoadjuvant monotherapy study for any solid tumor type. The safety profile of neoadjuvant cemiplimab is consistent with previous anti-PD-1 monotherapy experience. Ongoing follow-up will describe disease-free survival. Clinical trial identification: NCT04154943. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing support was provided by John G Facciponte, PhD, of Prime, Knutsford, UK, funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Legal entity responsible for the study: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Disclosure: N. Gross: Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: PDS Biotechnology, Shattuck Labs and Genzyme;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: PDS Biotechnology, Shattuck Labs and Genzyme. D.M. Miller: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Castle Biosciences, EMD Serono, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme;Financial Interests, Personal, Ownership Interest: Checkpoint Therapeutics;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Kartos Therapeutics, NeoImmune Tech, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. N. Khushanlani: Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, HUYA Bioscience International, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Amgen;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: EMD Serono, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Genentech, AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Merck, Array Biopharma, Jounce Therapeutics, Immunocore, Bristol Myers Squibb, HUYA Bioscience International;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, honoraria: Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin, Transenetrix. V. Divi: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Genentech. E.S. Ruiz: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Genentech, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi;Financial Int rests, Personal, Advisory Role, consulting fees: Genentech, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Member of the Board of Directors: Checkpoint Therapeutics. E.J. Lipson: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Advisory board and consulting fees: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Eisai, Genentech, Immunocore, Instil Bio, MacroGenics, Merck, Natera, Nektar Therapeutics, Odonate Therapeutics, OncoSec, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron. F. Meier: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel support, speaker’s fees or advisor’s honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Novartis and Roche. P.L. Swiecicki: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Ascentage Pharma, Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Prelude Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. J.L. Atlas: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb. J.L. Geiger: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Alkermes, Debio, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Roche/Genentech;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Exelixis, Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. A. Hauschild: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria and consultancy fees: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Provectus and Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Institutional grants and consultancy fees: EMD Serono, Philogen and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: OncoSec Medical. J.H. Choe: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Exelixis, Coherus Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. B.G.M. Hughes: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Amgen. S. Yoo: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. K. Fenech: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M.D. Mathias: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. H. Han: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M.G. Fury: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. D. Rischin: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Genentech, Sanofi, Kura Oncology, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, ALX Oncology;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Niraparib plus aromatase inhibitors (AI) for germinal mutated BRCA1/2 (gBRCAm) or homologous recombination-deficient (HRd), hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC): LUZERN interim analysis

Background: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib showed clinical activity in advanced gBRCAm ovarian and breast cancers. LUZERN aims to assess the effectiveness of niraparib plus AI in HR+/HER2–, AI-resistant ABC with a pathogenic variant in homologous recombination-related genes. Here we report findings from the stage 1 interim analysis. Methods: This open-label, single-arm, Simon’s 2-stage, phase II trial is enrolling HR+/HER2– ABC patients (pts) with gBRCAm (cohort A;n=6 in stage 1, n=7 in stage 2) and gBRCA wild-type/HRd (cohort B;n=9 in stage 2). Pts had to have received ≤1 prior line of chemotherapy for ABC, 1–2 prior lines of endocrine therapy for early or ABC with secondary endocrine resistance to the last AI regimen. Pts receive niraparib (200/300mg daily orally) plus AI (same agent given with the prior regimen) on each 28-day cycle. Primary endpoint: clinical benefit rate (CBR) as per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints: overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety per CTCAE 5.0. If ≥1/6 pts experienced clinical benefit, the trial should proceed to stage 2. Results: Six pts were enrolled in stage 1. Median age was 46 years (range 32–76), 66.7% of pts had visceral disease, and 83.3% had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor-containing regimen for ABC. At data cut-off, 50.0% of pts were ongoing and median duration of treatment was 4.6 months (range 2.4–5.7). One patient achieved complete response, meeting the criterion to proceed to stage 2. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 5.3 months (95%CI 3.9–NA). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) of any grade (G) were nausea (3 [50.0%]), neutropenia (2 [33.3%];16.7% G3), constipation (2 [33.3%]), and vomiting (1 [16.7%]). Serious AEs occurred in 3 pts (50.0%;G3 COVID-19 pneumonia;G3 pseudomonal bacteriemia;G2 sacral pain). No treatment-related discontinuations/deaths were reported. Conclusions: Niraparib plus AI showed preliminary activity with a tolerable safety profile in gBRCAm HR+/HER2– AI-resistant ABC pts. Based on the steering committee recommendation, enrolment in cohorts A and B is ongoing. Clinical trial identification: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04240106. Legal entity responsible for the study: MEDSIR. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. Disclosure: J.Á. García Saenz: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Seagen, Gilead;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Exact Sciences;Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: AstraZeneca. J. De la Haba Rodriguez: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consultant and Advisory Role, Research Funding and Speaking: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, grant support: Pfizer. J.E. Ales Martínez: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel grant: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: MEDSIR. E. Alba Conejo: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, BMS, Astrazeneca, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi, Exact Sciences;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Pfizer. J. Balmaña: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer;Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Steering committee member: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Institutional, Principal Investigator: Medsir, Pfizer. J.M. Perez Garcia: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Lilly,Roche, Eisai, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Medsir;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel expenses: Roche. M. Sampayo-Cordero: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, honoraria: Medsir, Syntax for Science, Optimapharm, and Ability pharma;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Medsir;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel expenses: Medsir, Syntax for Science, Optimapharm, and Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, consultant: Medsir, Syntax for Science, and Optimapharm;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Medsir;Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Me sir. A. Malfettone: Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: MEDSIR. J. Cortés: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, Astrazeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F.Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, Queen Mary University of London.;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: MEDSIR, Nektar Pharmaceuticals, Leuko (relative);Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accomodation: Roche, Novartis, Eisai, pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca. A. Llombart Cussac: Financial Interests, Personal, Leadership Role: Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: MEDSIR and Initia-Research;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, GenomicHealth, GSK;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant: Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel compensation: Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Assessing the accuracy of multiple prognostic scores for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with advanced solid tumors

Background: Many patients fail to achieve a clinical benefit from ICI. Several scores have been developed to improve ICI candidates selection but it is uncertain which one better predicts patients’ outcome. Here, we performed a direct comparison of the most successful scores. Methods: This is a sub-analysis of the immunoblood prospective observational study that enrolled patients diagnosed with advanced solid tumors treated with ICI. Main clinicopathological data were retrieved from medical records and responses assessed according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. LIPI, RMH, PMH, dNLR, NLR, PIPO and GRIm scores were calculated. Receiving operator characteristics (ROC) curves and their area under curve (AUC) were used to predict PFS and durable clinical benefit (DCB;stable disease≥6 months or better). Associations with PFS, OS and DCB, where assessed with Cox and logistic regressions. Scores’ correlation was assessed with Spearman rho. Significance was set at p<0.05. Results: We recruited 155 patients (65% male, mean age 63). NSCLC (28%), colorectal (20%) breast (9%) H&N (6%) cancer and melanoma (6%) were the most frequent tumor types. Frequency of the high risk/bad outcome group of each score were: LIPI 13%, RMH 36%, PMH 54%, GRIm 14%, PIPO 6%, NLR 32% and dNRL 27%. Fair accuracy in identifying patients at higher risk of progression or mild accuracy in predicting DCB were observed for the RMH (AUC PFS: 0.7, 95%CI: 0.6-0.8;AUC DCB: 0.6, 0.5-0.8) and LIPI (AUC PFS: 0.7, 95%CI: 0.6-0.8;AUC: 0.6, 0.5-0.7) scores. All other scores provided poor/no accuracy. No significant difference was observed between RMH and LIPI AUC for PFS and DCB (both p>0.05). Additionally, only LIPI and RMH were associated with PFS (p=0.001;p<0.001), OS (p<0.001;p=0.001) and DCB (p=0.034;p=0.010) at univariate analyses. At multivariate analyses RMH and LIPI remained significantly associated with PFS (p=0.030;p=0.021) and OS (p=0.012;p<0.001). A strong correlation between both scores (rho=0.72, p<0.001) was observed. Conclusions: RMH and LIPI scores were sufficiently reliable in assessing the prognosis of patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ICI. They were superior to other analyzed scores in our population and highly correlated. Legal entity responsible for the study: Hospital Clinic y Provincial de Barcelona, Medical Oncology Department. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: J. Garcia-Corbacho: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, FGFR inhibitors implementation in clinical practice: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Participation in clinical trials of the company as PI: Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Cytomx, Incyte, Lilly, Menarini, Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo. L. Mezquita: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, SEOM Beca Retorno 2019: BI;Financial Interests, Personal, Research Grant, ESMO TR Research Fellowship 2019: BMS;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, COVID research Grant: Amgen;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Inivata, Stilla. N. Baste Rotllan: Non-Financial Interests, Advisory Role: Eisai, MSD, Merck Serono, BioNTech, Roche, BMS, Exelixis. A. Prat: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Lecture fees: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Advisory role/consultancy: Novartis, Pfizer, BMS, Puma, Oncolytics Biotech, MSD, Guardant Health, Peptomyc;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Clinical trials: Daiichi Sankyo;Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Contracted research: Boehringer, Medica Scientia Inno. Research;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Leadership role: Reveal Genomics, SL.;Financial I terests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Reveal Genomics, Oncolytics Biotech;Financial Interests, Personal, Royalties: Reveal Genomics;Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis;Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Invited Speaker: Daiichi Sankyo;Non-Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Leadership roles: Patronage committee: SOLTI Foundation, Actitud Frente al Cáncer Foundation. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Phase Ib study of AVB-S6-500 (axl inhibition) in combination with durvalumab (MEDI4736) in patients with platinum-resistant, recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (NCT04019288) (320)

Objectives: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in a small fraction of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), some with durable responses. The receptor tyrosine kinase AXL and its sole ligand, GAS6, are possible mediators of T cell exclusion and an attractive target due to the expected synergy between AXL inhibition and immune targeting agents. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, and efficacy of the combination of AXL inhibition via AVB-S6-500 with durvalumab (MEDI4736) were evaluated in patients with PROC. Methods: In this open-label Phase Ib open-label study, patients with PROC received AVB-S6-500 and durvalumab therapy in escalating dosing regimens guided by a Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design: durvalumab (1500 mg Q4W) and AVB-S6-500 (10mg/kg Q2W, 15mg/kg Q2W, 20mg/kg Q2W) with durvalumab infused prior to AVB-S6-500. The response was evaluated using modified RECIST v1.1. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies were collected, and PD-L1 status and tumor/tumor microenvironment AXL and GAS6 staining pre and on-treatment were assessed. Results: Eleven patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (six clear cells [55%], four high-grade serous [36%], one endometrioid histology [1%]) received treatment per protocol. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 1-5);73% (8/11) of patients had received prior bevacizumab. There were no DLTs noted over the 6-week period and no grade ≥3 adverse events attributed to study drugs. Five patients experienced an immune-related AE, most commonly liver enzyme elevations (36%). Infusion reaction with AVB-S6- 500 was noted in the first two subjects, prompting the institution of a premedication regimen, after which only one of the nine additional patients experienced an infusion reaction. Dose delays greater than one week occurred in six (55%) patients;three patients experienced delays for cancer-related complications (small bowel obstruction, pneumonia, severe fatigue), while three patients experienced delays for non-medical causes (COVID/travel, weather). Patients received therapy for a median of two cycles (range: 1-6), and there were no responses noted across all dosing levels. One patient had stable disease, with a duration of response of three months. Only two patients had strong (2+) AXLstaining on pretreatment biopsy, both with high-grade serous histology. The majority of serum AXL levels were within previously demonstrated ranges (range: 5.6-112ng/mL), though two patients had comparatively high levels (102, 112ng/mL). PK/PD analysis revealed expected AVB-S6-500 levels at initial postdose (C1D1), but low levels at trough (C2D1 predose) when compared to prior AVB-S6-500 data [1]. Conclusions: The combination of AVB-S6-500 and durvalumab was tolerable in this PROC patient population at all dosing levels tested. Exploratory studies to correlate lack of response to AXL-GAS6 pathway alterations, tumor microenvironment, and clinical characteristics, such as prior treatment, dosing delays, burden of disease, and ascites, are ongoing.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Cancer Patients: A Review Article.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Adults with cancer are immunocompromised due to several causes including cancer itself and immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, cancer patients are more susceptible to develop COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 vaccines became available, patients with cancer would benefit from receiving the vaccine. This article aims to review the recent evidences and recommendations about COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients.Current guidelines recommend that patients with cancer should have the priority to receive the vaccine given their immunocompromised state. The timing of administration varies depending on cancer type and treatment. Generally, the vaccine should be given before starting the chemotherapy if possible or in between chemotherapy cycles and away from nadir phase. For other cancer treatments, it is recommended to give the vaccine when there is evidence of blood count recovery. In general, induction therapy and treatment for newly diagnosed patients should not be delayed for the vaccination purpose. It is noteworthy to mention that cancer patients especially those with hematologic malignancies might have absented or attenuated response to the vaccine due to their pathophysiological status.On the other hand, the current vaccine guidelines have been criticized for lacking evidence on some important topics that need to be addressed. Firstly, some vaccines have been granted an emergency use authorization, prior to the usual comprehensive safety and efficacy evaluation process. Secondly, specific populations including cancer patients were excluded from the approval trials for safety reasons. Finally, some recommendations regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are extrapolated from other vaccines studies. Further studies are required to fill these gaps and observational studies that include cancer patients are warranted to have a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in cancer patients.

GALLANT-1: Galectin-3 (Gal-3) inhibitor GB1211 plus atezolizumab (atezo) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)?A randomized, double-blind trial

Background: Gal-3 is a protein that binds specifically to N-acetylglucosamine-expressing carbohydrates, which are upregulated on key tumorigenic cell surface proteins. Gal-3 is widely over-expressed in the tumor microenvironment and is generally linked to poor outcomes. Gal-3 regulates immune cell function of T cells and macrophages, and promotes neovascularization and fibrosis [Peng Cancer Res 2008;Markowska J Biol Chem 2011;Kouo Cancer Immunol Res 2015]. Gal-3 sequesters interferon gamma, reduces T-cell influx, and contributes to tumor cell evasion of the immune system via LAG-3 activation [Chen PNAS 2009;Gordon-Alonso Nat Commun 2017]. Gal-3 has been identified as a marker of resistance to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs);patients with stage IV NSCLC with high Gal-3 levels (> 70% Gal-3 immunohistochemical staining) have been shown to be resistant to the CPI pembrolizumab [Capalbo Int J Mol Sci 2019]. Animal data indicate synergy between CPI therapy and Gal-3 inhibition [Vuong Cancer Res 2019;Zhang FEBS Open Bio 2021]. Thus, inhibiting Gal-3 together with CPI-based immunotherapy may enhance tumor-specific immune responses, and overcome CPI resistance. Methods: GALLANT-1 (NCT05240131) is a 3-part, placebo-controlled phase Ib/IIa trial that will investigate safety and efficacy of GB1211 (a Gal-3 inhibitor) + atezo vs placebo + atezo in patients with advanced NSCLC. Part A will include 8-12 patients and study safety and tolerability of 200 mg and 400 mg GB1211 twice-daily + atezo (open-label). Primary endpoint is number of adverse events (AEs) after 12 weeks' treatment and will determine the dosage for Part B. Part B will include 75-94 patients, and is a randomized, double-blind study of GB1211 + atezo or placebo + atezo. Primary endpoints are safety (number of AEs) and efficacy (percentage change from baseline in the sum of longest diameter of target lesions after 12 weeks' treatment). Part C is an expansion study including patients from Parts A and B, with safety and efficacy assessments. Eligibility criteria: advanced or metastatic stage IIIB or IV NSCLC adenocarcinoma;measurable disease per RECIST v1.1;expression of programmed death ligand-1 on ≥50% of tumor cells;eligible for 1200 mg atezo every 3 weeks. Exclusion criteria: symptomatic, untreated, or actively progressing central nervous system metastases;prior systemic chemotherapy for treatment of recurrent advanced or metastatic disease, except if part of neoadjuvant/ adjuvant therapy;prior treatment with immune CPIs and/or GB1211;presence of EGFR mutation and ALK, ROS1, and RET alterations;treatment with antineoplastic or systemic immunotherapeutic agents prior to first GB1211 dose;severe infectious disease < 4 weeks prior to first GB1211 dose;active hepatitis B or C, HIV, or COVID-19. The study is being initiated;updated enrollment status will be presented at the meeting.

A phase 2 clinical trial of axitinib and avelumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC)

Background: ACC is a heterogeneous neoplasm and there is no standard treatment for patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) disease. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi) are frequently used to treat R/M ACC rendering mostly disease stabilization. ACC is resistant to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (PD-L1i), consistent with its low mutational burden and uninflamed immune microenvironment. We hypothesized that the immunomodulatory role of VEGFRi (axitinib) would enhance PD-L1i (Avelumab) activity and be a more effective therapy for R/M ACC. Methods: Eligible pts had R/M ACC with radiological or clinical progression within 6 months (mos) of enrollment. Treatment consisted of axitinib 5 mg PO bid and avelumab 10 mg/Kg IV every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1;secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Simon 2-stage design was applied to test the null hypothesis of ORR ≤ 5% versus the alternative ORR ≥ 20%;≥ 4 responses out of 29 pts was required to reject the null hypothesis. Results: 41 pts enrolled from 07/24/19 to 06/29/ 21;28 were evaluable for the primary endpoint (7 screen failures, 6 evaluable for safety only due to loss of insurance/logistics issues related to COVID-19 pandemic);16 pts were treated in first-line. Mutation data was available for 23 of 28 evaluable pts;7 had NOTCH1 activating mutations. The ORR was 17.9% (5/28, 95%CI: 6.1-36.9%). One response was unconfirmed (pt progressed in non-target lesions 2 mos after achieving a PR), for a confirmed ORR of 14.3% (95%CI: 4-32.7%). The median follow-up time for the 15 alive pts was 11.6 mos (min-max: 7.7-29.2 mos). Median PFS was 7.2 mos (95%CI: 3.7-11.7 mos) with a 6-mos PFS rate of 57% (95%CI: 41-79%). Median OS was 17.4 mos (95%CI: 13-NA). 5 pts remain on therapy, 2/5 with a PR. The median DOR for the 5 responders was 5.2 mos (95% CI: 3.7-NA mos). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were fatigue (62%), hypertension (32%), diarrhea (29%), and stomatitis (29%). Serious TRAEs occurred in 8 (24%) pts, all grade 3 and manageable. 4 (15%) pts discontinued avelumab and 9 (32%) underwent axitinib dose reduction due to toxicity. Conclusions: The study reached its primary endpoint with ≥ 4 responses out of 28 evaluable pts (ORR of 17.8%;confirmed ORR of 14.3%). The ORR and 6- mos PFS rate of 57% with axitinib and avelumab compares favorably with single agent axitinib and warrants further study of the combination.