Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO): an American society of clinical oncology-society for immunotherapy of cancer statement

Autoimmune Encephalitis following Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in a Patient with Metastatic Melanoma in Complete Remission

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer is increasing. Their side effects are mainly due to the triggering of autoimmunity, which are mild or moderate and include skin rash, colitis, hepatitis, endocrine disorders, myositis, interstitial lung disorder, etc., in most cases during the course of therapy. Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is rare in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Fifty patients with ICI-related encephalitis were identified in a recent review. Herein, we report a case of pembrolizumab associated with AE with a favorable short-term prognosis. A 68-year-old man with malignant metastatic melanoma achieved complete remission after pembrolizumab treatment. However, 10 months after pembrolizumab cessation due to grade 3 diarrhea, he developed confusion, an altered mental status, progressive memory loss, and gait disturbance. He was admitted to the neurologic department, and a comprehensive neurological workup, brain magnetic resonance imaging, cerebral fluid analysis, EEG, and blood test allowed the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. The patient was treated with plasmapheresis, a high dose of intravenous steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulins. The patient improved, and he is now well with a performance status of 1. This case is interesting since the AE developed approximately 10 months after the cessation of immunotherapy, the underlying cancer was in complete remission, and the AE showed a good response after the treatment was performed.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) consensus definitions for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) terminology

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may vary substantially in their clinical presentation, including natural history, outcomes to treatment, and patterns. The application of clinical guidelines for irAE management can be challenging for practitioners due to a lack of common or consistently applied terminology. Furthermore, given the growing body of clinical experience and published data on irAEs, there is a greater appreciation for the heterogeneous natural histories, responses to treatment, and patterns of these toxicities, which is not currently reflected in irAE guidelines. Furthermore, there are no prospective trial data to inform the management of the distinct presentations of irAEs. Recognizing a need for uniform terminology for the natural history, response to treatment, and patterns of irAEs, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a consensus panel composed of leading international experts from academic medicine, industry, and regulatory agencies. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, the expert panel developed clinical definitions for irAE terminology used in the literature, encompassing terms related to irAE natural history (ie, re-emergent, chronic active, chronic inactive, delayed/late onset), response to treatment (ie, steroid unresponsive, steroid dependent), and patterns (ie, multisystem irAEs). SITC developed these definitions to support the adoption of a standardized vocabulary for irAEs, which will have implications for the uniform application of irAE clinical practice guidelines and to enable future irAE clinical trials.

First-in-human, open-label, phase 1/2 study of the monoclonal antibody programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor cetrelimab (JNJ-63723283) in patients with advanced cancers

Purpose

To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of cetrelimab (JNJ-63723283), a monoclonal antibody programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, in patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors in the phase 1/2 LUC1001 study.

Methods

In phase 1, patients with advanced solid tumors received intravenous cetrelimab 80, 240, 460, or 800 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 480 mg Q4W. In phase 2, patients with melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H)/DNA mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer (CRC) received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Response was assessed Q8W until Week 24 and Q12W thereafter.

Results

In phase 1, 58 patients received cetrelimab. Two dose-limiting toxicities were reported and two recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were defined (240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W). After a first dose, mean maximum serum concentrations (C_max) ranged from 24.7 to 227.0 µg/mL; median time to C_max ranged from 2.0 to 3.2 h. Pharmacodynamic effect was maintained throughout the dosing period across doses. In phase 2, 146 patients received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 53.9% of patients. Immune-related AEs (any grade) occurred in 35.3% of patients (grade ≥ 3 in 6.9%). Overall response rate was 18.6% across tumor types, 34.3% in NSCLC, 52.6% in programmed death ligand 1–high (≥ 50% by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC, 28.0% in melanoma, and 23.8% in centrally confirmed MSI-H CRC.

Conclusions

The RP2D for cetrelimab was established. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, safety profile, and clinical activity of cetrelimab in immune-sensitive advanced cancers were consistent with known PD-1 inhibitors.

Trial registrations

NCT02908906 at ClinicalTrials.gov, September 21, 2016; EudraCT 2016–002,017-22 at clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Jan 11, 2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00280-022-04414-6.

Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer

Background

More and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.

Results

Of the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Immune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Cancer Clinical Trials: What Every Radiologist Wants to Know but Is Afraid to Ask

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to provide radiologists with a guide to the fundamental principles of oncology clinical trials. The review summarizes the evolution and structure of modern clinical trials with an emphasis on the relevance of clinical trials in the field of oncologic imaging. CONCLUSION. Understanding the structure and clinical relevance of modern clinical trials is beneficial for radiologists in the field of oncologic imaging.

Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors

LESSONS LEARNED

Advanced germ cell tumors are aggressive and associated with poor prognosis. Pembrolizumab was overall well tolerated in 12 heavily pretreated patients. Three patients had radiographic stable disease that lasted for 10.9 months, 5.5 months, and 4.5 months, respectively. Published data of immunotherapeutic agents in patients with advanced germ cell tumors are confirmed. The limited antitumor activity of immunotherapy in germ cell tumors is, at least partially, attributed to tumor biology (low tumor mutational burden; low PD-1 expression) and other poor-risk features. Tumor profiling to understand the mechanisms of resistance to pembrolizumab and innovative clinical trials that may include immunotherapy are warranted.

BACKGROUND

Advanced germ cell tumors are associated with poor prognosis. We investigated the role of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced germ cell tumors.

METHODS

We analyzed a prespecified cohort of an open-label, phase II clinical trial in which patients with advanced germ cell tumors were treated with pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously every 21 days. The endpoints of the study were the non-progression rate (NPR) at 27 weeks, safety, and tolerability. An NPR >20% was considered successful and worthy of further pursuit.

RESULTS

From August 2016 to February 2018, 12 patients (10 men, 2 women) were treated (median age, 35 years [range, 22-63 years]; median number of prior systemic therapies, 3.5 [range, 2-7]; median number of metastatic sites, 3 [range, 2-8]). Overall, pembrolizumab was well tolerated. One patient experienced both grade 1 immune-related skin rash and grade 3 immune-related pneumonitis. No patient died from toxicity. Three patients had radiographic stable disease that lasted for 10.9 months, 5.5 months, and 4.5 months, respectively. No objective response was noted. The median progression-free survival was 2.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-4.5 months), and the median overall survival was 10.6 months (95% CI, 4.6-27.1 months). The 27-week NPR was 9.0% (95% CI, 0.23-41.2%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, pembrolizumab was safe and had limited antitumor activity in these patients. In the advanced, metastatic setting, tumor profiling to understand the mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy and innovative clinical trials to identify efficacious combination regimens rather than off-label use of pembrolizumab are warranted.

Adverse events reporting in phase 3 oncology clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed at exploring adverse events (AEs) reporting in cancer trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHOD

A systematic review on how ICIs phase 3 trials follow TRIO and 2004 CONSORT harms extension recommendations referring to toxicity was performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Among 46 trials included, 74 % did not present separately grade 3 and grade 4 AEs. Timing of onset and duration were reported in 30 % and 28 %, respectively. AEs occurring in <10 % of patients were only reported in 35 % of studies. Patient-related outcomes (PROs) were analyzed in only 17 % of reports. Eight articles qualified the toxicity profile as "manageable", "tolerable", "well tolerated" or "favorable" despite reporting a rate of grade 3-4 greater than 33 %.

CONCLUSION

Reporting toxicity results is crucial. However, toxicity reporting is highly incomplete in clinical trials. Guidelines, new metrics and incorporation of PROs are needed for a comprehensive knowledge of toxicity profile.

Identification of an Immune-Related Prognostic Predictor in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC) is the most prevalent primary cancer of the liver, and immune-related genes (IRGs) regulate its development. So far, there is still no precise biomarker that predicts response to immunotherapy in LIHC. Therefore, this research seeks to identify immunogenic prognostic biomarkers and explore potential predictors for the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies in LIHC. The clinical data and gene expression profiles of patients diagnosed with LIHC were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. Moreover, IRGs were obtained from the ImmPort database. We discovered 35 IRGs that were differentially expressed between LIHC tissues and corresponding normal tissues. Through univariate Cox regression analysis, eight prognostic differentially expressed IRGs (PDEIRGs) were identified. Further, three optimal PDEIRGs (BIRC5, LPA, and ROBO1) were identified and used to construct a prognostic risk signature of LIHC patients via multivariate Cox regression analysis. The signature was validated by ROC curves. Subsequently, based on gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) analysis, two out of the three optimal PDEIRGs (BIRC5 and LPA) were significantly enriched in the mismatch repair (MMR) pathway. Moreover, the two PDEIRGs (BIRC5 and LPA) were significantly correlated with the expression of genes related to mismatch repair (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2). Furthermore, correlations between the two PDEIRGs (BIRC5 and LPA) and immune checkpoints of cancer treatment (such as CTLA4, PD-1, and PD-L1) were demonstrated. Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a novel pattern of tumor progression which has a close relationship with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) utilization. MDM2 family amplification might promote the HPD phenomenon. Finally, we found a positive regulatory relationship between HPD related gene (MDM2) and BIRC5. Notably, MDM2 can either interact directly with BIRC5 or indirectly via downstream transcription factors of BIRC5. Overall, our study uncovered a novel 3-immune-related prognostic genes in LIHC.

Randomized trials with checkpoint inhibitors in acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: What have we learned so far and where are we heading?

The treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) has seen dramatic advances with the approval of multiple novel agents in recent years. However, unlike solid malignancies, immune checkpoint inhibitors have yet to garner regulatory approval in AML and MDS with recent randomized clinical trials yielding only underwhelming results. Novel targets have been explored in early phase clinical trials with impressive results leading to ongoing subsequent controlled trials. However, major challenges in the field remain such as the validation of predictive genetic, molecular, and immunophenotypic biomarkers, optimization of clinical trial design, and the identification of novel synergistic combination therapies. Herein, we review recent clinical trial data focusing on randomized clinical trials and highlight limitations of the currently available evidence in an effort to suggest options for advancing the field.

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials is associated with improvingquality because inadequate reporting in randomized clinical trials may complicate the interpretation and the application of findings to clinical care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing (NLP), called CONSORT-NLP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study used published journal articles as training, testing, and validation sets to develop, refine, and evaluate the CONSORT-NLP tool. Articles reporting randomized clinical trials were selected from 25 high-impact-factor journals under the following categories: (1) general and internal medicine, (2) oncology, and (3) cardiac and cardiovascular systems.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For an evaluation of the performance of this tool, an accuracy metric defined as the number of correct assessments divided by all assessments was calculated.

RESULTS

The CONSORT-NLP tool uses the widely used Portable Document Format as an input file. Of the 37 CONSORT reporting items, 34 (92%) were included in the tool. Of these 34 reporting items, 30 were fully implemented; 28 (93%) of the fully implemented CONSORT reporting items had an accuracy of more than 90% for the validation set. The remaining 2 (7%) had an accuracy between 80% and 90% for the validation set. Two to 5 articles were selected from each of these journals for a total of 158 articles to establish a training set of 111 articles to train CONSORT-NLP for CONSORT reporting items, a testing set of 25 articles to refine CONSORT-NLP, and a validation set of 22 articles to assess the performance of CONSORT-NLP. The CONSORT-NLP tool used the Portable Document Format of the articles as input files. A CONSORT-NLP graphical user interface was built using Java in 2019. The time required to complete the CONSORT checklist manually vs using the CONSORT-NLP tool was compared for 30 articles. Two case studies for randomized clinical trials are provided as an illustration for the CONSORT-NLP tool. For the 30 articles investigated, CONSORT-NLP required a mean (SD) 23.0 (4.1) seconds, whereas the manual reviewer required a mean (SD) 11.9 (2.2), 22.6 (4.6), and 57.6 (7.1) minutes, for 3 reviewers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The CONSORT-NLP tool is designed to assist in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Potential users of CONSORT-NLP include clinicians, researchers, and scientists who plan to publish a randomized trial study in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of CONSORT-NLP may help them save substantial time when generating the CONSORT checklist. This tool may also be useful for manuscript reviewers and journal editors who review these articles.

Top 10 Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy is a validated and critically important approach for treating patients with cancer. Given the vast research and clinical investigation efforts dedicated to advancing both endogenous and synthetic immunotherapy approaches, there is a need to focus on crucial questions and define roadblocks to the basic understanding and clinical progress. Here, we define ten key challenges facing cancer immunotherapy, which range from lack of confidence in translating pre-clinical findings to identifying optimal combinations of immune-based therapies for any given patient. Addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of basic researchers and clinicians, and the focusing of resources to accelerate understanding of the complex interactions between cancer and the immune system and the development of improved treatment options for patients with cancer.

Checkpoint inhibition in advanced gastroesophageal cancer: clinical trial data, molecular subtyping, predictive biomarkers, and the potential of combination therapies

The development of checkpoint inhibitors has redefined the treatment paradigm for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. While recent developments have improved clinical outcomes, the prognosis for the disease remains meager. In this review, we discuss the rationale and detail the results from recent phase I-III trials supporting the activity of PD-1 inhibitors. Specifically, we highlight the seminal clinical trials leading to the FDA approval of pembrolizumab for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Finally, we review the current understanding and future considerations of molecular subtyping and predictive biomarkers to help guide therapy and the promise of combination therapy to further improve the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.

Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanoma

Background: Model structure, despite being a key source of uncertainty in economic evaluations, is often not treated as a priority for model development. In oncology, partitioned survival models (PSMs) and Markov models, both types of cohort model, are commonly used, but patient responses to newer immuno-oncology (I-O) agents suggest that more innovative model frameworks should be explored. Objective: A discussion of the theoretical pros and cons of cohort level vs patient level simulation (PLS) models provides the background for an illustrative comparison of I-O therapies, namely nivolumab/ipilimumab combination and ipilimumab alone using patient level data from the CheckMate 067 trial in metastatic melanoma. PSM, Markov, and PLS models were compared on the basis of coherence with short-term clinical trial endpoints and long-term cost per QALY outcomes reported. Methods: The PSM was based on Kaplan-Meier curves from CheckMate 067 with 3-year data on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The Markov model used time independent transition probabilities based on the average trajectory of PFS and OS over the trial period. The PLS model was developed based on baseline characteristics hypothesized to be associated with disease as well as significant mortality and disease progression risk factors identified through a proportional hazards model. Results: The short-term Markov model outputs matched the 1-3 year clinical trial results approximately as well as the PSMs for OS but not PFS. The fixed (average) cohort PLS results corresponded as well as the PSMs for OS in the combination therapy arm and PFS in the monotherapy arm. Over the lifetime horizon, the PLS produced an additional 5.95 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with combination therapy relative to ipilimumab alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6,474 per QALY, compared with £14,194 for the PSMs which gave an incremental benefit of between 2.2 and 2.4 QALYs. The Markov model was an outlier (∼ £49,000 per QALY in the base case). Conclusions: The 4- and 5-state versions of the PSM cohort model estimated in this study deviate from the standard 3-state approach to better capture I-O response patterns. Markov and PLS approaches, by modeling state transitions explicitly, could be more informative in understanding I-O immune response, the PLS particularly so by reflecting heterogeneity in treatment response. However, both require a number of assumptions to capture the immune response effectively. Better I-O representation with surrogate endpoints in future clinical trials could yield greater model validity across all models.