Development and validation of an integrative pan-solid tumor predictor of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade benefit.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 (collectively PD-[L]1) therapies are approved for many advanced solid tumors. Biomarkers beyond PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability, and tumor mutation burden (TMB) may improve benefit prediction. METHODS: Using treatment data and genomic and transcriptomic tumor tissue profiling from an observational trial (NCT03061305), we developed Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS), a pan-tumor predictive model of PD-(L)1 benefit. IRS real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) prediction was validated in an independent cohort of trial patients. RESULTS: Here, by Cox modeling, we develop IRS-which combines TMB with CD274, PDCD1, ADAM12 and TOP2A quantitative expression-to predict pembrolizumab rwPFS (648 patients; 26 tumor types; IRS-High or -Low groups). In the 248 patient validation cohort (248 patients; 24 tumor types; non-pembrolizumab PD-[L]1 monotherapy treatment), median rwPFS and OS are significantly longer in IRS-High vs. IRS-Low patients (rwPFS adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.52, p = 0.003; OS aHR 0.49, p = 0.005); TMB alone does not significantly predict PD-(L)1 rwPFS nor OS. In 146 patients treated with systemic therapy prior to pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab rwPFS is only significantly longer than immediately preceding therapy rwPFS in IRS-High patients (interaction test p = 0.001). In propensity matched lung cancer patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab+chemotherapy, monotherapy rwPFS is significantly shorter in IRS-Low patients, but is not significantly different in IRS-High patients. Across 24,463 molecularly-evaluable trial patients, 7.6% of patients outside of monotherapy PD-(L)1 approved tumor types are IRS-High/TMB-Low. CONCLUSIONS: The validated, predictive, pan-tumor IRS model can expand PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit outside currently approved indications.

Therapies activating the immune system (checkpoint inhibitors) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, however new molecular tests may better identify patients who could benefit. Using treatment data and clinical molecular test results, we report the development and validation of Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS) to predict checkpoint inhibitor benefit. Across patients with more than 20 advanced cancer types, IRS better predicted checkpoint inhibitor benefit than currently available tests. Data from >20,000 patients showed that IRS identifies ~8% of patients with advanced cancer who may dramatically benefit from checkpoint inhibitors but would not receive them today based on currently available tests. Our approach may help clinicians to decide which patients should receive checkpoint inhibitors to treat their disease.

Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma without intention for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ENDURANCE): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5-23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8-37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1-not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death). INTERPRETATION: The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen.

Hospitalization Risk During Chemotherapy for Advanced Cancer: Development and Validation of Risk Stratification Models Using Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: Hospitalizations are a common occurrence during chemotherapy for advanced cancer. Validated risk stratification tools could facilitate proactive approaches for reducing hospitalizations by identifying at-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assembled two retrospective cohorts of patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced nonhematologic cancer; cohorts were drawn from three integrated health plans of the Cancer Research Network. We used these cohorts to develop and validate logistic regression models estimating 30-day hospitalization risk after chemotherapy initiation. The development cohort included patients in two health plans from 2005 to 2013. The validation cohort included patients in a third health plan from 2007 to 2016. Candidate predictor variables were derived from clinical data in institutional data warehouses. Models were validated based on the C-statistic, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated in reference to a prespecified risk threshold (hospitalization risk ≥ 18.0%). RESULTS: There were 3,606 patients in the development cohort (median age, 63 years) and 634 evaluable patients in the validation cohort (median age, 64 years). Lung cancer was the most common diagnosis in both cohorts (26% and 31%, respectively). The selected risk stratification model included two variables: albumin and sodium. The model C-statistic in the validation cohort was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.75); 39% of patients were classified as high risk according to the prespecified threshold; 30-day hospitalization risk was 24.2% (95% CI, 19.9% to 32.0%) in the high-risk group and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.1% to 12.0%) in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: A model based on data elements routinely collected during cancer treatment can reliably identify patients at high risk for hospitalization after chemotherapy initiation. Additional research is necessary to determine whether this model can be deployed to prevent chemotherapy-related hospitalizations.

Acupuncture: role in comprehensive cancer care--a primer for the oncologist and review of the literature.

In recent studies, patients have reported an increased use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Acupuncture is a popular complementary therapy for patients with cancer. This article will provide current cancer treatment providers with information on acupuncture as well as the research conducted on cancer symptoms and side effects of cancer treatments. Antiemetic studies are the most prevalent and contain the most promising results. Several studies have found that acupuncture significantly reduces the number of emesis (vomiting) episodes for patients receiving chemotherapy. While studies on pain control vary due to the heterogeneity of pain, there are few studies investigating pain caused from cancer and the removal of cancerous tumors. These studies, while promising, provide basic results that need further investigation for more definitive results. Although relatively few studies have been done on anxiety and depression, several researchers have found acupuncture to be just as effective as or more effective than antidepressants for patients without cancer. Studies on breathlessness, while small, have shown acupuncture to have a significant positive effect on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, breathlessness associated with end-stage cancer, and asthma. Researchers studying xerostomic individuals who have received salivary gland irradiation found significant positive results in salivary flow rates compared to baseline. Patients with hot flashes due to hormonal imbalance may benefit from the use of acupuncture. A recent pilot study showed improvement of chronic postchemotherapy fatigue following acupuncture treatments. Many individuals with cancer have turned to acupuncture because their symptoms persisted with conventional treatments or as an alternative or complement to their ongoing treatments. Despite the immense popularity in the community, few large randomized trials have been conducted to determine the effects acupuncture has on cancer symptoms and side effects of treatments. A majority of the current studies have shown beneficial effects that warrant further investigation with large trial sizes.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of exisulind and docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Exisulind (sulindac sulfone, FGN-1, Aptosyn) is a sulindac metabolite that induces apoptosis via inhibition of cyclic GMP-phosphodiesterase. This agent demonstrated tumor growth inhibition in rodent models of colon, breast, prostate, and lung carcinogenesis. In an orthotopic model of human non-small-cell lung cancer, the combination of exisulind and docetaxel prolonged survival in athymic nude rats, forming the basis of this phase I combination study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study evaluated the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of combining exisulind (150-250 mg) given orally twice daily and docetaxel (30-36 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle. RESULTS: Twenty patients with a range of advanced solid tumors (median age, 59 years; age range, 35-77 years; median performance status, 1) received a total of 70 courses. Observed adverse events were mild to moderate, and there was no dose-limiting toxicity at any level. Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicities were present in 10 of the 70 cycles (10%) and included nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and elevated alkaline phosphatase. Neutropenia was present in four cycles in patients treated with a docetaxel dose of 36 mg/m2. Pharmacokinetic analysis did not demonstrate a clear effect of exisulind on docetaxel pharmacokinetics and vice versa. Relationships were evident between the plasma concentration of exisulind and the development of grade 2 or greater toxicities. One third of patients maintained stable disease for 3 to 12 cycles, but no objective responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of docetaxel (36 mg/m2, weekly) and exisulind (500 mg/d) was reasonably well tolerated, and it is undergoing phase II testing in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.