Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after first-line treatment who are not intended for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) have poor outcomes and limited treatment options. We assessed the antitumour activity and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel, an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, as second-line treatment in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma not intended for HSCT. METHODS: PILOT, an open-label, phase 2 trial done at 18 clinical sites in the USA, included adults aged 18 years or older who had relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma and PET-positive disease, had received first-line therapy containing an anthracycline and a CD20-targeted agent, were not intended for HSCT by their physician, and met at least one prespecified transplantation not intended criterion. Patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy (intravenous fludarabine 30 mg/m2 and intravenous cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 daily for 3 days) followed 2-7 days later by two sequential lisocabtagene maraleucel infusions (equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells for a total target dose of 100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate and was assessed in all patients who received lisocabtagene maraleucel and had confirmed PET-positive disease before lisocabtagene maraleucel administration based on an independent review committee according to the Lugano 2014 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who received lisocabtagene maraleucel. Patient follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03483103. FINDINGS: Between July 26, 2018, and Sept 24, 2021 (data cutoff for the primary analysis), 74 patients underwent leukapheresis and 61 received lisocabtagene maraleucel (efficacy and safety sets); median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78), 24 (39%) patients were women versus 37 (61%) men, and 54 (89%) patients were White. 16 (26%) of 61 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, 33 (54%) had refractory disease, 13 (21%) relapsed within 1 year of first-line therapy, and 15 (25%) relapsed after 12 months of first-line therapy. Median on-study follow-up was 12·3 months (IQR 6·1-18·0). 49 (80% [95% CI 68-89]; p<0·0001) patients had an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (29 [48%] patients), leukopenia (13 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (12 [20%]). Lisocabtagene maraleucel-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 13 (21%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 23 (38%; grade 3 in one) patients and neurological events in 19 (31%; grade 3 in three) patients, with no grade 4 events or deaths. INTERPRETATION: These results support lisocabtagene maraleucel as a potential second-line treatment in patients with large B-cell lymphoma for whom HSCT is not intended. FUNDING: Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.

Genomic Profiling of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Community Settings: Gaps and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines have advocated broad molecular profiling as a part of the standard diagnostic evaluation for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the goal of identifying driver mutations for which effective therapies or clinical trials are available. However, adherence to genomic testing guidelines could present challenges to community oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of genomic testing patterns in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC treated by 89 oncologists at 15 sites throughout New Jersey and Maryland from January 2013 to December 2015. RESULTS: A total of 814 patients (89% with stage IV; 11% with stage IIIB) were identified in the COTA Inc database. Of the 814 patients, 479 (59%) met the guideline recommendations for EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) and ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) biomarker testing; 63 (8%) underwent comprehensive genomic profiling for all 4 major types of alterations (point mutations, indels, fusions, and copy number amplifications). Gender, age, race, site of care (referral vs. community center), and practice size did not influence comprehensive genomic profiling frequency. Active smokers and patients who died within 30 days were tested less frequently (P < .05). Among those not tested for EGFR and ALK, 52% received chemotherapy without documented reasons for no testing, 32% did not receive antineoplastic therapy, and 13% had insufficient tissue for genotyping. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing presents multiple logistical challenges for the community-based oncologist, including coordination of sample handling, long turnaround times, test reimbursement, access to targeted therapies, insufficient tissue, and patient harm from the repeat biopsies necessary if the tissue sample is insufficient. Opportunities exist for improvement in guideline adherence, possibly through new technologies such as "liquid biopsies," which obviates the need tissue biopsy samples in select settings.

A novel paradigm in the treatment of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is thought to uniformly carry a poor prognosis with a median survival of less than 1 year and 5-year survival of less than 5%. In patients with a low volume (i.e. single site) of distant disease, the prognosis is slightly more favorable than that of more advanced (i.e. multiple sites of metastases) disease. For those with limited metastases, we developed a paradigm of adding concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy to the primary tumor once the tumor demonstrated chemotherapy sensitivity. METHODS: Charts of patients from 1999-2006 with non-small cell lung cancer were reviewed to find those with a single extra-thoracic site of disease treated with combined modality therapy. We found nine patients of 640 who met these criteria. Initial treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy, except for brain metastases which were managed first (n=1). If patients experienced a response to chemotherapy without new metastases, the extra-thoracic site was treated for total control with curative dose chemoradiotherapy to the primary site. Survival, time to progression, and sites of progression were assessed. RESULTS: Median survival was 28 months (95% CI 18-50 mo) with median time to progression of 15 months (95% CI 8-24 mo). All except one patient progressed in the CNS, either with brain metastases (n=7) or leptomeningeal disease (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: Such an approach offers the potential for enhanced quality and quantity of survival by incorporating aggressive RT for select patients without disease progression after induction chemotherapy. Patients tended to fail in the CNS, suggesting the importance of continued surveillance of the neuraxis or possibly prophylactic cranial irradiation. Future plans will correlate outcomes with molecular markers.

Phase I evaluation of sequential topoisomerase targeting with irinotecan/cisplatin followed by etoposide in patients with advanced malignancy.

PURPOSE: To investigate pharmacologically guided addition of etoposide to a weekly irinotecan/cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced nonhematologic malignancies were eligible. Treatment consisted of i.v. administration of 50 mg/m(2) irinotecan and 20 mg/m(2) cisplatin on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 42-day cycle or on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Etoposide was administered in a dose-escalating fashion 2 days after each dose of irinotecan/cisplatin, either i.v. as a single dose or p.o. as two doses administered 12 h apart. Pharmacologic analyses included measurement of plasma concentrations of irinotecan, SN-38, and SN-38 glucuronide, as well as quantitation of topoisomerase protein levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients with a variety of malignancies received 122 cycles of therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities included neutropenia and diarrhea, with the 21-day cycle tolerated better than the 42-day cycle. For the 21-day cycle, the maximum tolerated dose was 75 mg/m(2) for i.v. etoposide and 85 mg/m(2) for oral etoposide. Objective responses were observed in four patients with previously treated mesothelioma, gastric, breast, and ovarian cancer, respectively. PBMNC levels of topoisomerase IIalpha were increased at the time of etoposide administration in two patients, with these patients having the highest SN-38 glucuronide peak-plasma-concentration and area-under-the-curve values among 15 patients with available pharmacokinetic data. One of these patients had a partial response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacologically guided administration of etoposide in combination with irinotecan/cisplatin using a 21-day cycle is associated with acceptable toxicity and significant antitumor activity. The finding that PBMNC topoisomerase IIalpha protein levels increased after irinotecan/cisplatin treatment in two of six patients supports the continued development of sequential topoisomerase targeting in the treatment of malignancy.