120O Pembrolizumab (Pembro) with or without lenvatinib (Lenva) in first-line metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% (LEAP-007): A phase III, randomized, double-blind study

Antiangiogenic-immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations: lessons from phase III clinical trials

Antiangiogenic agents, generally antibodies or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that target the VEGF-VEGFR pathway, are currently among the few combination partners clinically proven to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This benefit has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, numerous phase III trials have also had negative results. The rationale for using antiangiogenic drugs as partners for ICIs relies primarily on blocking the multiple immunosuppressive effects of VEGF and inducing several different vascular-modulating effects that can stimulate immunity, such as vascular normalization leading to increased intratumoural blood perfusion and flow, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic effects of endothelial cells on T cells, among others. Conversely, VEGF blockade can also cause changes that suppress antitumour immunity, such as increased tumour hypoxia, and reduced intratumoural ingress of co-administered ICIs. As a result, the net clinical benefits from antiangiogenic-ICI combinations will be determined by the balance between the opposing effects of VEGF signalling and its inhibition on the antitumour immune response. In this Perspective, we summarize the results from the currently completed phase III trials evaluating antiangiogenic agent-ICI combinations. We also discuss strategies to improve the efficacy of these combinations, focusing on aspects that include the deleterious functions of VEGF-VEGFR inhibition on antitumour immunity, vessel co-option as a driver of non-angiogenic tumour growth, clinical trial design, or the rationale for drug selection, dosing and scheduling.

Low-dose lenvatinib and anti-programmed cell death protein-1 combination therapy in patients with heavily pre-treated recurrent ovarian and endometrial cancer: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Treatment options for heavily pre-treated recurrent ovarian and endometrial cancer are limited. Lenvatinib plus anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) combination therapy has been efficacious in advanced endometrial cancer, but at the recommended dose level, high-grade adverse events occur and lead to drug discontinuation. This study evaluated the feasibility of low-dose lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with recurrent ovarian and endometrial cancer.

METHODS

This is a single-arm, protocol-based pilot study. Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer or endometrial cancer who had at least one line of previous therapy were included and given lenvatinib 8 or 12 mg daily (based on the patient's weight) and anti-PD-1 therapy. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were enrolled, including 15 with ovarian cancer and six with endometrial cancer. All patients were pre-treated, and the median number of lines of previous treatment of the ovarian and endometrial cancer cohorts was three and two, respectively. After a median follow-up of 11.0 months (range 6.8-23.9), the objective response rate for the ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer cohorts was 46.7% (95% CI 21.3% to 73.4%) and 66.7% (95% CI 22.3% to 95.7%), respectively. The median duration of response for the ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer cohorts was 5.3 (95% CI 0 to 11.7) and 6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 9.8) months, respectively. The median progression-free survival for the ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer cohorts was 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 5.6) and 6.6 (95% CI 1.7 to 11.5) months, respectively. No grade 4 or 5 adverse events occurred. Eight (38.1%) patients had a lenvatinib dose reduction. There was no discontinuation of lenvatinib alone, and only one patient discontinued both drugs due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose lenvatinib in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy showed promising efficacy and favorable tolerability in patients with heavily pre-treated ovarian and endometrial cancer.

Effectiveness of PD1/PD-L1 combined with anti-angiogenic drugs in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy have become an important treatment approach for patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but primary or secondary resistance remains a challenge for some patients. PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-angiogenic drugs (AAs) in NSCLC patients have potential synergistic effects, and the survival benefit may vary based on a treatment order. To investigate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 combined with AAs as the treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Materials and Methods

We comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases from January 2017 to September 2022. The Cochrane risk bias tool evaluated the quality of included randomized clinical trials. Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale score was used to evaluate the quality of retrospective studies. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot, Begg's test, and Egger's test.

Results

Seventeen articles were finally selected, involving 5182 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that PD1/PD-L1 combined with AAs therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.75, P < 0.00001), overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71-0.88, P < 0.00001), and objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, P = 0.004), with the statistically significant difference. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the PFS, ORR, and OS.

Conclusion

The combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with AAs in treating advanced patients has exhibited notable therapeutic advantages when contrasted with monotherapy. Specifically, the administration of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in conjunction with AAs, or sequential treatment involving PD-1/PD-L1 followed by AAs, has shown enhanced therapeutic efficacy in this patient population.

A phase Ib/II study of cadonilimab (PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody) plus anlotinib as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Cadonilimab is a bispecific antibody that simultaneously targets programmed cell death receptor-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of cadonilimab plus anlotinib for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without sensitizing EGFR/ALK/ROS1 mutations.

METHODS

Patients received cadonilimab 15 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every three weeks (Q3W) plus anlotinib at doses of 10 or 12 mg once daily for two weeks on a one-week-off schedule. The primary endpoints included safety and objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine treatment-naïve patients received cadonilimab 15 mg/kg Q3W combination (n = 49) and 10 mg/kg Q3W combination (n = 20). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 48 (98.0%) and 19 (95.0%) patients, with grade ≥3 TRAEs occurring in 29 (59.2%) and five (25.0%) patients, respectively. TRAEs leading to cadonilimab discontinuation occurred in eight (16.3%) and one (5.0%) patients in the cadonilimab 15 mg/kg Q3W and 10 mg/kg Q3W dosing groups. The confirmed ORRs were 51.0% (25/49) and 60.0% (12/20) accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

Cadonilimab 10 mg/kg Q3W plus anlotinib showed manageable safety and promising efficacy as a first-line chemo-free treatment for advanced NSCLC.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04646330.

Adverse events of immune checkpoint therapy alone versus when combined with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: a pooled meta-analysis of 1735 patients

Background

Combining immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi) may result in increased treatment-related and immune-related adverse events (TRAEs and irAEs) compared to ICT alone. This metanalysis was conducted to identify prospective phase II or III clinical studies that evaluated the toxicity profile of ICT + VEGFi compared to ICT alone.

Methods

A systematic search was performed across all cancer types and major databases until August 10, 2022, and screening was done by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria included phase 2 or 3 studies with at least one arm of patients treated with combination therapy and one arm treated with monotherapy. Adverse event data were pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood fixed effects model, and heterogeneity using Cochran's Q (chi-square) test.

Results

7 out of 9366 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 808 and 927 patients were treated with ICT monotherapy and a combination of ICT with VEGFi, respectively. Only one study reported irAEs, so the analysis was restricted to TRAEs. The total number of TRAEs was significantly higher in the ICT + VEGFi group (RR:1.49; 95% CI 1.37 -1.62; p=1.5×10-21), and more frequent treatment withdrawals were attributed to TRAEs (RR:3.10; 95% CI 1.12-8.59; p=0.029). The highest TRAE effect size increases noted for rash (RR 6.50; 95% CI 3.76 - 11.25; p=2.1×10-11), hypertension (RR:6.07; 95% CI 3.69-10.00; p=1.3×10-12), hypothyroidism (RR:5.02; 95% CI 3.08 - 8.19; p=8.9×10-11), and diarrhea (RR:4.94; 95% CI 3.21-7.62; p=3.8×10-13). Other significantly more frequent TRAEs included nausea, anemia, anorexia, and proteinuria.

Conclusion

Combination therapy with ICT and VEGFi carries a higher risk of certain TRAEs, such as rash, hypertension, hypothyroidism, diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, and proteinuria, compared to ICT monotherapy. More granular details on the cause of AEs, particularly irAEs, should be provided in future trials of such regimens.

Overcoming Resistance Mechanisms to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Leveraging the Anti-Tumor Immune Response

As far back as 3000 years ago, the immune system was observed to play a role in mediating tumor regression. Since then, many strategies have been developed to leverage the anti-tumor immune response. However, while many patients respond to ICIs up front some do not, and many of those that do eventually experience tumor progression. Currently, there are several predictive biomarkers of the immune checkpoint inhibitor response; however, no one test appears to be universally predictive and their application varies by disease site. There are many ways in which cancer cells develop primary or acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Efforts to reverse resistance include ways to combat T cell exhaustion, reprogram the tumor microenvironment, increase the availability of tumor neo-antigens, target alternative immune checkpoints, restore a normal/healthy patient gut microbiome, oncolytic viruses and tumor vaccines. The most studied and most promising methods include combining ICIs with therapies targeting alternative immune checkpoints and restoring a normal/healthy patient gut microbiome. This review will discuss T cell-mediated immunity, how this is leveraged by modern immunotherapy to treat cancer and mechanisms of immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance, while highlighting strategies to overcome primary and secondary resistance mechanisms.

Current immune therapeutic strategies in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

ABSTRACT

Immune escape mechanisms in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can disrupt every step of the anti-cancer immune response. In recent years, an increased understanding of the specific mechanisms fueling immune escape has allowed for the development of numerous immunotherapeutic treatments that have been introduced into the clinical practice. The advent of immunotherapy has dramatically changed the current treatment landscape of advanced or metastatic NSCLC because of its durable efficacy and manageable toxicity. In this review, we will first present a brief overview of recent evidence on immune escape mechanisms in NSCLC. We will then discuss the current promising immunotherapeutic strategies in advanced or metastatic NSCLC tumors.

Addressing resistance to PD-1/PD-(L)1 pathway inhibition: considerations for combinatorial clinical trial designs

With multiple PD-(L)1 inhibitors approved across dozens of indications by the US Food and Drug Administration, the number of patients exposed to these agents in adjuvant, first-line metastatic, second-line metastatic, and refractory treatment settings is increasing rapidly. Although some patients will experience durable benefit, many have either no clinical response or see their disease progress following an initial response to therapy. There is a significant need to identify therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance and confer clinical benefits for these patients. PD-1 pathway blockade has the longest history of use in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Therefore, these settings also have the most extensive clinical experience with resistance. In 2021, six non-profit organizations representing patients with these diseases undertook a year-long effort, culminating in a 2-day workshop (including academic, industry, and regulatory participants) to understand the challenges associated with developing effective therapies for patients previously exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 agents and outline recommendations for designing clinical trials in this setting. This manuscript presents key discussion themes and positions reached through this effort, with a specific focus on the topics of eligibility criteria, comparators, and endpoints, as well as tumor-specific trial design options for combination therapies designed to treat patients with melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC after prior PD-(L)1 pathway blockade.

Immunotherapy-based combinations in metastatic NSCLC

Immuno-oncology has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) since the approval of immunotherapy by the U.S. FDA in 2015. Despite the advancements, outcomes for patients have room for further improvement. Combination therapies have shown promise in overcoming resistance and improving outcomes. This review focuses on current immunotherapy-based combination approaches, reported and ongoing trials, as well as novel combination strategies, challenges, and future directions for mNSCLC treatment. We summarize approaches in combination with chemotherapy, novel immune checkpoints, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other strategies including vaccines, and radiation therapy. The promise of biomarker-driven studies to understand resistance and design multi-arm platform trials that evaluate novel therapies is becoming of increasing relevance with the ultimate goal of administering precision immunotherapy by identifying the right dose of the right combination for the right patient at the right time.

Emerging therapeutic strategies for enhancing sensitivity and countering resistance to programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer

The availability of agents targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint has transformed treatment of advanced and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, a substantial proportion of patients treated with these agents do not respond or experience only a brief period of clinical benefit. Even among those whose disease responds, many subsequently experience disease progression. Consequently, novel approaches are needed that enhance antitumor immunity and counter resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors, thereby improving and/or prolonging responses and patient outcomes, in both PD-(L)1 inhibitor-sensitive and inhibitor-resistant NSCLC. Mechanisms contributing to sensitivity and/or resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors in NSCLC include upregulation of other immune checkpoints and/or the presence of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which represent potential targets for new therapies. This review explores novel therapeutic regimens under investigation for enhancing responses to PD-(L)1 inhibitors and countering resistance, and summarizes the latest clinical evidence in NSCLC.

A Single-Arm Phase Ib/II Study of Lenvatinib plus Eribulin in Advanced Liposarcoma and Leiomyosarcoma

PURPOSE

Satisfactory treatment options for advanced leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma are limited. The LEADER study (NCT03526679) investigated the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib plus eribulin.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

LEADER is a multicenter phase Ib/II study for advanced leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma. The phase Ib part enrolled 6 patients to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) with the starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day and eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 D1, D8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint of the phase II part was objective response rate (ORR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, with phase Ib patients preplanned to be included in the efficacy analysis. Translational analyses were based on the transcriptomic data obtained from the NanoString nCounter platform.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled (leiomyosarcoma 21, liposarcoma 9); the median age was 59. One patient had to temporarily stop lenvatinib due to grade 2 arthritis in the first cycle, meeting DLT criteria. Four of 6 patients had to decrease the dose of lenvatinib to 14 mg between cycles two and three. RP2D was determined at lenvatinib 14 mg/day and eribulin 1.1 mg/m2. The confirmed ORR was 20%, and the ORR was not significantly different between phase Ib/II cohorts (P = 0.23). The median progression-free survival was 8.56 months (95% confidence interval, 4.40-not reached). Translational studies suggested increased dendritic cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME) after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib plus eribulin has a manageable safety profile and exhibits promising efficacy for treating advanced leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma.

Evolving therapeutic landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common solid malignancies worldwide. A large proportion of patients with HCC are diagnosed at advanced stages and are only amenable to systemic therapies. We have witnessed the evolution of systemic therapies from single-agent targeted therapy (sorafenib and lenvatinib) to the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy). Despite remarkable advances, only a small subset of patients can obtain durable clinical benefit, and therefore substantial therapeutic challenges remain. In the past few years, emerging systemic therapies, including new molecular-targeted monotherapies (for example, donafenib), new immuno-oncology monotherapies (for example, durvalumab) and new combination therapies (for example, durvalumab plus tremelimumab), have shown encouraging results in clinical trials. In addition, many novel therapeutic approaches with the potential to offer improved treatment effects in patients with advanced HCC, such as sequential combination targeted therapy and next-generation adoptive cell therapy, have also been proposed and developed. In this Review, we summarize the latest clinical advances in the treatment of advanced HCC and discuss future perspectives that might inform the development of more effective therapeutics for advanced HCC.

Efficacy and safety of combined immunotherapy and antiangiogenesis with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis from 23 prospective studies

Purpose: Immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic inhibitors have a potentially synergistic antitumor effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in combination with antiangiogenesis therapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. ClinicalTrials.gov and meeting abstracts were also searched for qualified clinical studies. The inclusion criteria were as follows: prospective studies (including single-arm studies) that evaluated efficacy and/or toxicity of immunotherapy combined with antiangiogenic agents (A + I) with or without chemotherapy (A + I + chemo) in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC; and primary outcome of each study reported at least one of these endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), or adverse events (AEs).

Results: Twenty three prospective studies comprising 1,856 patients with advanced NSCLC were included. The pooled ORR, median PFS and estimated overall survival were 39%, 6.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.53–8.13], and 18.6 months in the overall group. Similar ORR and median PFS with A + I + chemo versus A + I were observed in patients treated in first-line setting [59% and 9.47 months (95% CI, 6.45–12.49) versus 52% and 10.9 months (95% CI, 1.81–19.98), respectively]. We also observed improved ORR and mPFS with A + I + chemo versus A + I in subsequent-line setting [56% and 8.1 months (95% CI, 5.00–11.26) versus 22% and 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.01–6.15), respectively]. Efficacy of A + I + chemo therapy was evident across different PD-L1 subgroups, especially in patients with EGFR mutations [ORR: 59%; mPFS: 8.13 months (95% CI: 5.00–11.26)] or baseline liver metastases. The incidence of AEs with a major grade of ≥3 in the overall, A + I, and A + I + chemo groups were 4.1% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.4% for proteinuria, 13.7% vs. 16.2% vs. 9.7% for hypertension, and 1.9% vs. 1.2% vs. 2.8% for rash, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in this pooled analysis.

Conclusion: Immunotherapy combined with antiangiogenic agents with or without chemotherapy showed encouraging antitumor activity and an acceptable toxicity profile in treatment-naïve or pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC. Doublet treatment with immunotherapy and antiangiogenic agents might be a new option for patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those who are treatment-naive or cannot tolerate chemotherapy.

[An Overview and Interpretation of Important Clinical Studies on Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in 2021]

Though the coronavirus disease is still raging in 2021, clinical research on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not stop. However, benefiting from advances in lung cancer treatment modality, NSCLC patients have experienced significant improvements in overall survival and quality of life. Currently, research advances on targeted therapy and immunotherapy have together transformed the status of postoperative adjuvant therapy and established a new standard treatment modality for resectable NSCLC. There are equally important research advances in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, including new treatment modalities, new therapeutic agents, etc., all of which bringing more options for clinical treatment. These therapies will bring changes to NSCLC and will gradually lead to the chronicity of lung cancer in the foreseeable future. Therefore, this paper reviews important studies that will change clinical practice in NSCLC treatment and noteworthy research advances in 2021.
.

Current status and advances of immunotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

The general immune landscape of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) renders immunotherapy suitable for patients with NPC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) based on programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade have made a breakthrough with the approval of PD-1 inhibitor for refractory recurrence and/or metastatic (R/M NPC) and the approval of PD-1 inhibitor in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first line for R/M NPC in 2021 in China. The incorporation of ICIs into the treatment paradigms of NPC has become a clinical hot spot and many prospective clinical studies are ongoing. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the rationale for immunotherapy in NPC and current status, advances and challenges of immunotherapy in NPC based on published clinical data, and ongoing trials. We focus on the clinical application and advances of PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy and its combination with chemotherapy and summarize the clinical explorations of other immunotherapy approaches, for example, combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with antiangiogenic inhibitor with molecular targeted agents, cancer vaccines, adaptive immunotherapy, and new ICI agents beyond PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in R/M NPC. We also describe the clinical studies’ status and challenges of ICIs-based immunomodulatory strategies in local advanced NPC and pay attention to the biomarker application for personalized immunotherapy of NPC in the hope to provide insights for clinical practice and future clinical studies.