Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit.

Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy were included and assigned to IRS-High (-H) versus -Low (-L) groups. Associations with real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling. Those with available PD-L1 IHC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy were separately assessed. Patients treated with PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy (five relevant tumor types) were assigned to three IRS groups [IRS-L divided into IRS-Ultra-Low (-UL) and Intermediate-Low (-IL), and similarly assessed]. In the 352 patient anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy validation cohort (31 tumor types), IRS-H versus IRS-L patients had significantly longer rwPFS and OS. IRS significantly improved CPH associations with rwPFS and OS beyond microsatellite instability (MSI)/TMB alone. In a 189 patient (10 tumor types) PD-L1 IHC comparison cohort, IRS, but not PD-L1 IHC nor TMB, was significantly associated with anti-PD-L1 rwPFS. In a 1,103-patient cohort (from five relevant tumor types), rwPFS did not significantly differ in IRS-UL patients treated with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus anti-PD-(L)1, nor in IRS-H patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 versus anti-PD-(L)1 + chemotherapy. IRS associations were consistent across subgroups, including both Europeans and non-Europeans. These results confirm the utility of IRS utility for predicting pan-solid tumor PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit beyond available biomarkers and demonstrate utility for informing on anti-PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy treatment. Significance: This study confirms the utility of the integrative IRS biomarker for predicting anti-PD-L1/PD-1 benefit. IRS significantly improved upon currently available biomarkers, including PD-L1 IHC, TMB, and MSI status. Additional utility for informing on chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1/PD-1, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1 plus chemotherapy treatments decisions is shown.

Lenalidomide-Epoetin Alfa Versus Lenalidomide Monotherapy in Myelodysplastic Syndromes Refractory to Recombinant Erythropoietin.

PURPOSE: Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS: In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS: A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) (P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively (P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION: LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor-insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813).

Impact of Survivorship Care Plans and Planning on Breast, Colon, and Prostate Cancer Survivors in a Community Oncology Practice.

With a growing number of cancer survivors, survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to communicate information about late effects of treatment and follow-up care. Community oncology practices follow 85% of adult cancer survivors but report more difficulty in providing SCPs compared to academic centers. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of delivering SCPs in a community oncology practice by examining awareness of SCP receipt as well as how provision affects survivors' perception of care quality and of their condition. Survivors who accepted a SCP as standard of care were recruited from a community oncology practice in the Midwest and completed surveys prior to SCP provision (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up). Within-survivor changes in knowledge of SCP receipt, satisfaction and perceived care coordination were assessed. Thirty cancer survivors (breast, colon, and prostate) completed the baseline survey, while 24 completed the follow-up survey (80% response rate). Participants reported receiving SCPs and treatment summaries more frequently at follow-up after receiving a SCP. At follow-up, there was a significant increase in survivor activation and involvement in care along with satisfaction of knowledge of care. Communication about and during SCP provision may need to be clearer: 34% of survivors could not correctly identify SCP receipt in this study. This may place these survivors at a disadvantage, if this leads to less awareness of important information regarding follow-up surveillance and management. Of those aware of SCP receipt, SCP provision had positive impacts in this small, short-term study.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results of PrE0102.

Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Differences in primary care clinicians' approach to non-small cell lung cancer patients compared with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a disease with a stigma of being primarily self-induced. We hypothesize that this negative connotation for patients and physicians could lead to differences in referral patterns, treatment, and, ultimately, poorer outcomes compared with patients with non-self-induced diseases. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to determine whether treatment and referral patterns of breast cancer patients differed from those of lung cancer patients. METHODS: Case scenarios were mailed to 1132 primary care physicians in Wisconsin. Physicians were randomized to receive one of four scenarios on the basis of cancer type and smoking status. Physicians' referral patterns, length of follow-up, and knowledge about the benefits of chemotherapy were compared. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy-two physicians replied (response rate 59.4%). On the basis of the responses to the clinical scenarios, physicians were less likely to refer patients with advanced lung cancer than patients with advanced breast cancer (p < 0.001). More physicians knew that chemotherapy improved survival in advanced breast cancer than in advanced lung cancer (p = 0.0145). Breast cancer patients were more likely to be referred for further therapy, whereas lung cancer patients were often referred only for symptom control (p = 0.0092). Yet, when asked directly, physicians stated that type of cancer was not a factor in their decisions to refer patients. There were no statistically significant differences between smoking and nonsmoking patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a difference in referral patterns and a lack of knowledge in the primary care community regarding the benefit of treatment of patients with lung cancer compared with breast cancer patients.