Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab vs Standard Chemotherapy in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The MYSTIC Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Objective: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. Results: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. Trial Registration: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

ACCELERATE and European Medicines Agency Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in paediatric patients.

The third multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum organised by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in children and adolescents. As immune checkpoint inhibitors, both as monotherapy and in combinations have shown impressive success in some adult malignancies and early phase trials in children of single agent checkpoint inhibitors have now been completed, it seemed an appropriate time to consider opportunities for paediatric studies of checkpoint inhibitors used in combination. Among paediatric patients, early clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors used as monotherapy have demonstrated a high rate of activity, including complete responses, in Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutant paediatric tumours. Activity has been very limited, however, in more common malignancies of childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, apart from tumour mutational burden, no other predictive biomarker for monotherapy activity in paediatric tumours has been identified. Based on these observations, there is collective agreement that there is no scientific rationale for children to be enrolled in new monotherapy trials of additional checkpoint inhibitors with the same mechanism of action of agents already studied (e.g. anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 anti-CTLA-4) unless additional scientific knowledge supporting a different approach becomes available. This shared perspective, based on scientific evidence and supported by paediatric oncology cooperative groups, should inform companies on whether a paediatric development plan is justified. This could then be proposed to regulators through the available regulatory tools. Generally, an academic-industry consensus on the scientific merits of a proposal before submission of a paediatric investigational plan would be of great benefit to determine which studies have the highest probability of generating new insights. There is already a rationale for the evaluation of combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other agents in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutated tumours in view of the activity shown as single agents. In paediatric tumours where no single agent activity has been observed in multiple clinical trials of anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents as monotherapy, combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other treatment modalities should be explored when a scientific rationale indicates that they could be efficacious in paediatric cancers and not because these combinations are being evaluated in adults. Immunotherapy in the form of engineered proteins (e.g. monoclonal antibodies and T cell engaging agents) and cellular products (e.g. CAR T cells) has great therapeutic potential for benefit in paediatric cancer. The major challenge for developing checkpoint inhibitors for paediatric cancers is the lack of neoantigens (based on mutations) and corresponding antigen-specific T cells. Progress critically depends on understanding the immune macroenvironment and microenvironment and the ability of the adaptive immune system to recognise paediatric cancers in the absence of high neoantigen burden. Future clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors in children need to build upon strong biological hypotheses that take into account the distinctive immunobiology of childhood cancers in comparison to that of checkpoint inhibitor responsive adult cancers.

Delineating the distinct role of AKT in mediating cell survival and proliferation induced by CD154 and IL-4/IL-21 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The functional significance of AKT in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. Given the importance of non-malignant T cells in regulating clonal expansion in CLL, we investigated the role of AKT in T cell-mediated cytoprotection and proliferation using an established co-culture system in which primary CLL cells were incubated on a monolayer of transfected mouse fibroblasts expressing human CD40L (CD154). Stimulation of CLL cells via CD40 induced activation of AKT, which was closely associated with downregulation of its negative regulator PTEN, and protected CLL cells from killing by bendamustine. This cytoprotective effect of CD40 stimulation was prevented by a selective inhibitor of AKT. Stimulation of CLL cells with CD154 + IL-4 or IL-21 induced proliferation detected as reduced fluorescence of cells pre-stained with CFSE. AKT inhibition produced a significant, consistent reduction in proliferation induced by CD154 + IL-4 and a reduction in proliferation induced by CD154 + IL-21 in most but not all cases. In contrast, AKT inhibition had no effect on the proliferation of normal B cells induced by CD154 + IL-4 or IL-21. These findings indicate that AKT contributes in a significant way to T-cell mediated survival and proliferation signalling in CLL and support the clinical evaluation of AKT inhibitors in this disease.

Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient. INTERPRETATION: Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Phase I study assessing the safety and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) with low-dose cytosine arabinoside in elderly patients with AML.

INTRODUCTION: Barasertib is the pro-drug of barasertib-hydroxy-quinazoline pyrazole anilide, a selective Aurora B kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated preliminary anti-AML activity in the clinical setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This Phase I dose-escalation study evaluated the safety and tolerability of barasertib, combined with LDAC, in patients aged 60 years or older with de novo or secondary AML. Barasertib (7-day continuous intravenous infusion) plus LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneous injection twice daily for 10 days) was administered in 28-day cycles. The MTD was defined as the highest dose at which ≤ 1 patient within a cohort of 6 experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (clinically significant adverse event [AE] or laboratory abnormality considered related to barasertib). The MTD cohort was expanded to 12 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (median age, 71 years) received ≥ 1 treatment cycle (n = 6, 800 mg; n = 13, 1000 mg; n = 3, 1200 mg). DLTs were reported in 2 patients (both, National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 stomatitis/mucositis; 1200 mg cohort). The most common AEs were infection (73%), febrile neutropenia (59%), nausea (50%), and diarrhea (46%). Barasertib plus LDAC resulted in an overall response rate (International Working Group criteria) of 45% (n = 10/22; according to investigator opinion). CONCLUSION: The MTD of 1000 mg barasertib in combination with LDAC in older patients with AML was associated with acceptable tolerability and preliminary anti-AML activity.

Stage I of a phase 2 study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) versus low-dose cytosine arabinoside in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In this phase 2 study, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Aurora B kinase inhibitor barasertib compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either open-label barasertib 1200 mg (as a 7-day intravenous infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneously twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective complete response rate (OCRR) (complete responses [CR] plus confirmed CRs with incomplete recovery of neutrophils or platelets [CRi] according to Cheson criteria [also requiring reconfirmation of CRi ≥21 days after the first appearance and associated with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients (barasertib, n = 48; LDAC, n = 26) completed ≥1 cycle of treatment. A significant improvement in the OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% vs 11.5%; difference, 23.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-39.9%; P < .05). Although the study was not formally sized to compare OS data, the median OS with barasertib was 8.2 months versus 4.5 months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.58; P = .663). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events with barasertib versus LDAC (71% vs 15% and 67% vs 19%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Barasertib produced a significant improvement in the OCRR versus LDAC and had a more toxic but manageable safety profile, consistent with previous studies.

Phase I study of barasertib (AZD1152), a selective inhibitor of Aurora B kinase, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics and safety profile for two different dosing regimens of barasertib, a selective inhibitor of Aurora B Kinase. In this Phase I trial, patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with escalating doses of barasertib, administered as either a 48-h continuous infusion or as two 2-h infusions on consecutive days, both every 14 days of a 28-day cycle. Thirty-five patients were treated. The MTDs were 150 mg as a 48-h continuous infusion and 220 mg administered as two 2-h infusions (110 mg/day, days 1, 2, 15 and 16), with neutropenia the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of each schedule. Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (with or without fever) occurred in 34% of patients overall. Other adverse events, many of hematologic or gastrointestinal etiology, were of mild or moderate intensity. No objective tumor responses were observed, although stable disease was observed in 23% of patients. Systemic exposure to barasertib-hQPA, the more active moiety to which barasertib is converted, was observed by 1 and 6 h into the 2-h and continuous infusion, respectively, and exhibited linear pharmacokinetics. In summary, barasertib was generally well tolerated, with neutropenia the most frequent and dose-limiting toxicity, irrespective of schedule. Future development of barasertib will depend on better definition of its therapeutic index.

Vandetanib versus gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a two-part, double-blind, randomized phase ii study.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. In this two-part phase II study, the efficacy and safety of vandetanib was compared with that of gefitinib, an inhibitor of EGFR signaling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 168) with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after failure of first-line with or without second-line platinum-based chemotherapy, received once-daily vandetanib 300 mg (n = 83) or gefitinib 250 mg (n = 85) until disease progression or evidence of toxicity (part A). After a 4-week washout period, eligible patients had the option to switch to the alternative treatment (part B). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy assessment in part A, which was designed to have a higher than 75% power to detect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2. RESULTS: In part A, vandetanib prolonged PFS compared with gefitinib (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; one-sided P = .013). Patients receiving vandetanib experienced adverse events that were manageable and generally consistent with inhibition of EGFR and VEGFR signaling, including diarrhea, rash, and hypertension. There were no unexpected safety findings with gefitinib. Overall survival, a secondary assessment, was not significantly different between patients initially randomly assigned to either vandetanib or gefitinib. CONCLUSION: The primary efficacy objective was achieved, with vandetanib demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS versus gefitinib. Vandetanib 300 mg/d is currently being evaluated as a monotherapy in two randomized phase III studies in advanced NSCLC.