Cost Savings and Increased Access With Ultra-Low-Dose Immunotherapy

EBCC-14 manifesto: Addressing disparities in access to innovation for patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide.

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

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.

Case report: Is severe toxicity the price to pay for high sensitivity to checkpoint inhibitors immunotherapy in desmoplastic melanoma?

Background

Desmoplastic melanoma (DM) is a rare subtype of melanoma characterized by high immunogenicity which makes it particularly suitable for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 53-year-old man with metastatic DM successfully treated with the combination of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies, who developed serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The primary tumor was characterized by absent PD-L1 expression and no-brisk lymphocytes infiltration. NGS showed absence of BRAF mutation, a high tumor mutational burden, and an UV-induced DNA damage signature. Metastatic lesions regressed rapidly after few cycles of ICIs until complete response, however the patient developed serious irAEs including hypothyroidism, adrenal deficiency, and acute interstitial nephritis which led to the definitive suspension of treatment. Currently, the patient has normal renal functionality and no disease relapse after 26 months from starting immunotherapy, and after 9 months from its definitive suspension.

Conclusion

Efficacy and toxicity are two sides of the same coin of high sensitivity to ICIs in DM. For this reason, these patients should be closely monitored during ICIs therapy to promptly identify serious side effects and to correctly manage them.

Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia following immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in two patients with metastatic melanoma: a case report

Introduction

Over the past decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors such as antibodies against cytotoxicity T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) have become an important armamentarium against a broad spectrum of malignancies. However, these specific inhibitors can cause adverse autoimmune reactions by impairing self-tolerance. Hematologic side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, including autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), are rare but can be life-threatening.

Case report

Herein, we report two patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma who developed AIHA with symptoms of dyspnea and fatigue. In the first patient, symptoms alleviated after discontinuation of combined anti CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy, initiation of corticosteroids and application of a single red blood cell transfusion. Due to subsequent progress of melanoma, combinational anti-PD-1 and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy was initiated based on multidisciplinary tumor board decision. After two months, she again developed the described hematological and clinical signs of AIHA leading to cessation of anti-PD-1 therapy and initiation of corticosteroids, which again resulted in an alleviation of her symptoms. Due to further progression, the patient received dacarbazine for several months before she decided to stop any therapy other than palliative supportive care. In the second patient, discontinuation of anti-PD-1 therapy and initiation of corticosteroids entailed a complete alleviation of his symptoms. After refusing chemotherapy due to subsequent melanoma progression, he received radiotherapy of bone metastases and is currently enrolled in a clinical trial. The patient did not develop AIHA ever since.

Conclusion

Hematologic immune-related adverse events due to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors are rare but can have life-threatening consequences. If dyspnea and other clinical symptoms are present, AIHA should be considered as a potential cause and treated promptly in a multidisciplinary setting. An expanded comprehension of risk factors and pathogenesis of AIHA is needed to identify high-risk patients beforehand, leading to more effective predictive and reactive treatment approaches.

An Ailment with Which I Will Contend: A Narrative Review of 5000 Years of Esophagogastric Cancers and Their Treatments, with Special Emphasis on Recent Advances in Immunotherapeutics

Esophagogastric cancers are among the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. This review traces their chronology from 3000 BCE to the present. The first several thousand years were devoted to palliation, before advances in operative technique and technology led to the first curative surgery in 1913. Systemic therapies were introduced in 1910, and radiotherapy shortly thereafter. Operative technique improved massively over the 20th century, with operative mortality rates reducing from over 50% in 1933 to less than 5% by 1981. In addition to important roles in palliation, endoscopy became a key nonsurgical curative option for patients with limited-stage disease by the 1990s. The first nonrandomized studies on combination therapies (chemotherapy ± radiation ± surgery) were reported in the early 1980s, with survival benefit only for subsets of patients. Randomized trials over the next decades had similar overall results, with increasing nuance. Disparate conclusions led to regional variation in global practice. Starting with the first FDA approval in 2017, multiple immunotherapies now encompass more indications and earlier lines of therapy. As standards of care incorporate these effective yet expensive therapies, care must be given to disparities and methods for increasing access.

State of cancer care in India and opportunities for innovation

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Despite recent medical and technological advances, the cancer burden in India remains high and continues to rise. Moreover, substantial regional disparities in cancer incidence and access to essential medical resources exist throughout the country. While innovative and effective cancer therapies hold promise for improving patient outcomes, several barriers hinder their development and utilization in India. Here we provide an overview of these barriers, including challenges related to patient awareness, inadequate infrastructure, scarcity of trained oncology professionals, and the high cost of cancer care. Furthermore, we discuss the limited availability of cancer clinical trials in the country, along with an examination of potential avenues to enhance cancer care in India. By confronting these hurdles head-on and implementing innovative, pragmatic solutions, we take an indispensable step toward a future where every cancer patient in the country can access quality care.

A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study.

METHOD/DESIGN

This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3.

DISCUSSION

Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient's QOL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05078047.

Low-Dose Immunotherapy: Is It Just an Illusion?

The development and use of immunotherapy in the last decade have led to a drastic improvement in results in the onco-haematological field. This has implied, on the one hand, the need for clinicians to manage a new type of adverse event and, on the other hand, a significant increase in costs. However, emerging scientific evidence suggests that, as with other drugs in the recent past, the registry dosage can be drastically reduced for immunotherapies without penalizing their effectiveness. This would also lead to an important reduction in costs, expanding the audience of cancer patients who could access immunotherapy-based treatments. In this “Commentary”, we analyze the available evidence of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and the most recent literature in favor of low-dose immunotherapy.