A phase 2 study of AZD4635 in combination with durvalumab or oleclumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Inhibition of the adenosine 2A receptor (A2AR) diminishes the immunosuppressive effects of adenosine and may complement immune-targeting drugs. This phase 2 study evaluated the A2AR antagonist AZD4635 in combination with durvalumab or oleclumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed disease progressing within 6 months on ≥ 2 therapy lines were randomly assigned to either Module 1 (AZD4635 + durvalumab) or Module 2 (AZD4635 + oleclumab). Primary endpoints were objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Secondary endpoints included radiological progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were treated (Module 1, n = 29; Module 2, n = 30). Median number of prior therapies was 4. One confirmed complete response by RECIST (Module 1) and 2 confirmed PSA responses (1 per module) were observed. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) possibly related to AZD4635 were nausea (37.9%), fatigue (20.7%), and decreased appetite (17.2%) in Module 1; nausea (50%), fatigue (30%), and vomiting (23.3%) in Module 2. No dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related serious AEs were observed. In Module 1, AZD4635 geometric mean trough concentration was 124.9 ng/mL (geometric CV% 69.84; n = 22); exposures were similar in Module 2. In Modules 1 and 2, median (95% CI) rPFS was 2.3 (1.6 -3.8) and 1.5 (1.3- 4.0) months, respectively. Median PFS was 1.7 versus 2.3 months for patients with high versus low blood-based adenosine signature.

CONCLUSION

In this heavily pretreated population, AZD4635 with durvalumab or oleclumab demonstrated minimal antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL

gov identifier: NCT04089553.

Clinical Value of Timely Targeted Therapy for Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Driver Oncogenes

BACKGROUND

A recent real-world study observed that 24% of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with actionable driver oncogenes (ADOs) initiated nontargeted therapies before biomarker test results became available. This study assessed the clinical impact of the timing of first-line (1L) targeted therapies (TTs) in aNSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis of a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database included patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with aNSCLC with ADOs (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, RET, MET, ROS-1, and NTRK) from January 1, 2015, to October 18, 2022, by biomarker testing within 90 days after advanced diagnosis and received 1L treatment. Cohorts were defined by treatment patterns ≤42 days after test results: "Upfront TT" received 1L TT ≤42 days; "Switchers" initiated 1L non-TT before or after testing but switched to TT ≤42 days; and "Non-switchers" initiated non-TT before or after testing and did not switch at any time. Adjusted multivariate Cox regression evaluated real-world progression-free survival, real-world time to next treatment or death, and real-world overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 3540 patients met the study criteria; 78% were treated in a community setting, and 50% underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). There was no significant difference in outcomes between Switchers and Upfront TT; inferior outcomes were observed in Non-switchers versus Upfront TT.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated improved outcomes with upfront 1L TT versus non-TT in patients with aNSCLC with ADOs and observed timely switching to TT after biomarker test result had similar outcomes to Upfront TT. Opportunities remain to improve the use of NGS for early ADO identification and determination of 1L TT.

Belzutifan plus cabozantinib for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma previously treated with immunotherapy: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Few treatment options are available for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received previous anti-PD-1-based or anti-PD-L1-based immunotherapy. Combining belzutifan, an HIF-2α inhibitor, with cabozantinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of VEGFR, c-MET, and AXL, might provide more antitumoural effects than either agent alone. We aimed to investigate the antitumour activity and safety of belzutifan plus cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with immunotherapy.

METHODS

This open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted at ten hospitals and cancer centres in the USA. Patients were enrolled into two cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 had treatment-naive disease (results will be reported separately). In cohort 2, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had previously received immunotherapy and up to two systemic treatment regimens. Patients were given belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response assessed by the investigator. Antitumour activity and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03634540, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 27, 2018, and July 14, 2020, 117 patients were screened for eligibility, 52 (44%) of whom were enrolled in cohort 2 and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median age was 63·0 years (IQR 57·5-68·5), 38 (73%) of 52 patients were male, 14 (27%) were female, 48 (92%) were White, two (4%) were Black or African American, and two were Asian (4%). As of data cutoff (Feb 1, 2022), median follow-up was 24·6 months (IQR 22·1-32·2). 16 (30·8% [95% CI 18·7-45·1]) of 52 patients had a confirmed objective response, including one (2%) who had a complete response and 15 (29%) who had partial responses. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (14 [27%] of 52 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 (29%) patients. One death was considered treatment related by the investigator (respiratory failure).

INTERPRETATION

Belzutifan plus cabozantinib has promising antitumour activity in patients with pretreated clear cell renal cell carcinoma and our findings provide rationale for further randomised trials with belzutifan in combination with a VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co) and the National Cancer Institute.

Avelumab Plus Talazoparib in Patients With BRCA1/2- or ATM-Altered Advanced Solid Tumors: Results From JAVELIN BRCA/ATM, an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase 2b, Tumor-Agnostic Trial

Importance

Nonclinical studies suggest that the combination of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 inhibitors has enhanced antitumor activity; however, the patient populations that may benefit from this combination have not been identified.

Objective

To evaluate whether the combination of avelumab and talazoparib is effective in patients with pathogenic BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, regardless of tumor type.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this pan-cancer tumor-agnostic phase 2b nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced BRCA1/2-altered or ATM-altered solid tumors were enrolled into 2 respective parallel cohorts. The study was conducted from July 2, 2018, to April 12, 2020, at 42 institutions in 9 countries.

Interventions

Patients received 800 mg of avelumab every 2 weeks and 1 mg of talazoparib once daily.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was confirmed objective response (OR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review.

Results

A total of 200 patients (median [range] age, 59.0 [26.0-89.0] years; 132 [66.0%] women; 15 [7.5%] Asian, 11 [5.5%] African American, and 154 [77.0%] White participants) were enrolled: 159 (79.5%) in the BRCA1/2 cohort and 41 (20.5%) in the ATM cohort. The confirmed OR rate was 26.4% (42 patients, including 9 complete responses [5.7%]) in the BRCA1/2 cohort and 4.9% (2 patients) in the ATM cohort. In the BRCA1/2 cohort, responses were more frequent (OR rate, 30.3%; 95% CI, 22.2%-39.3%, including 8 complete responses [6.7%]) and more durable (median duration of response: 10.9 months [95% CI, 6.2 months to not estimable]) in tumor types associated with increased heritable cancer risk (ie, BRCA1/2-associated cancer types, such as ovarian, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancers) and in uterine leiomyosarcoma (objective response in 3 of 3 patients and with ongoing responses greater than 24 months) compared with non-BRCA-associated cancer types. Responses in the BRCA1/2 cohort were numerically higher for patients with tumor mutational burden of 10 or more mutations per megabase (mut/Mb) vs less than 10 mut/Mb. The combination was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this phase 2b nonrandomized controlled trial, neither the BRCA1/2 nor ATM cohort met the prespecified OR rate of 40%. Antitumor activity for the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in patients with BRCA1/2 alterations was observed in some patients with BRCA1/2-associated tumor types and uterine leiomyosarcoma; benefit was minimal in non-BRCA-associated cancer types.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03565991.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial

BACKGROUND

CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a multicohort, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment in predominantly US community-based patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clinical features mostly excluded from phase 3 trials. We report safety and efficacy results from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 920.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk received up to four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS; both investigator-assessed), time to response (TTR), and duration of response (DOR), all using RECIST V.1.1. Overall survival (OS) was exploratory.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with nccRCC (unclassified histology, 42.3%; papillary, 34.6%; chromophobe, 13.5%; translocation-associated, 3.8%; collecting duct, 3.8%; renal medullary, 1.9%) received treatment. With 24.1 months minimum study follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 (0.0-25.8) months for nivolumab and 2.1 (0.0-3.9) months for ipilimumab. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1-28) for nivolumab and 4.0 (1-4) for ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. ORR (n=46) was 19.6% (95% CI 9.4 to 33.9). Two patients achieved complete response (papillary, n=1; unclassified, n=1), seven achieved partial response (papillary, n=4; unclassified, n=3), and 17 had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 (range 2.1-14.8) months. Median DOR was not reached (range 0.0+-27.8+); eight of nine responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n=52) was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.6) months. Median OS (n=52) was 21.2 (95% CI 16.6 to not estimable) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced nccRCC showed no new safety signals and encouraging antitumor activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02982954.

Ezabenlimab (BI 754091), an anti-PD-1 antibody, in combination with BI 836880, a VEGF/Ang2-blocking nanobody, in patients (pts) with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC)

98

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies may have synergistic effects with other immunomodulatory or targeted agents. This open-label, Phase II platform trial is investigating ezabenlimab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, combined with other agents. Module C of the platform is assessing ezabenlimab plus BI 836880, a humanized bispecific nanobody targeting VEGF/Ang2. Pts are being enrolled into 5 advanced solid tumor cohorts: gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma; solid tumors (except non-squamous NSCLC or melanoma) with secondary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 treatment (progression after at least SD for ≥4 months); solid tumors with primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 treatment; microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC; mismatch repair-proficient/MSS endometrial carcinoma. Here, we report data from the CRC cohort which has completed recruitment. Methods: Pts with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic, MSS CRC were enrolled. Patients had received ≥1 line of prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease but were anti-PD-(L)-1 therapy-naïve. Prior anti-angiogenic therapy was permitted. Pts received BI 836880 720 mg plus ezabenlimab 240 mg iv q3w for 1 year or until disease progression, consent withdrawal or undue toxicity. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed OR (CR or PR per RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints: duration of response, disease control, and PFS; safety is also being assessed. Results: 30 pts have been treated: 57% male; median age 61.5 years. All pts had received prior chemotherapy; most pts (23 [77%]) had received prior bevacizumab. At data cut-off (Sep 2021), median duration (range) of treatment was 115.5 (28–295) days; 6 pts remain on treatment. 1 (3%) pt (who had not received prior bevacizumab) achieved a confirmed PR; 16 (53%) pts had SD. Median duration (range) of SD was 128.5 (42–242) days. 29/17/2 (97/57/7%) pts had an AE (any/G3/G4). The most frequent AEs (any/G3) were nausea (40/10%), fatigue (30/3%), peripheral edema (30/0%), vomiting (27/7%), and hypertension (27/17%). There were two G4 AEs (hypertension; platelet count decreased) and no G5 AEs. 24/10/2 (80/33/7%) pts had a drug-related AE (any/G3/G4); most commonly (any/G3) nausea (33/7%), fatigue (27/3%) and hypertension (27/17%). 3 (10%) pts had an infusion-related reaction (G1, n = 1; G2, n = 2). 2 (7%) pts had an AE leading to discontinuation (G3 bile duct stone and G2 peripheral edema). Immune-related AEs were reported in 6 (20%) pts and serious AEs occurred in 13 (43%) pts. Conclusions: BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile in pts with advanced MSS CRC; however, anti-tumor activity was limited in these pts, the majority of whom had received prior bevacizumab. Clinical trial information: NCT03697304.

Platform trial of ezabenlimab (BI 754091), an anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients (pts) with previously treated advanced solid tumors: Combination with BI 836880, a VEGF/Ang2-blocking nanobody

2582

Background: The combination of anti-PD-1 antibodies with other immunomodulatory or targeted therapies has the potential for synergistic effects. This open-label, Phase II platform trial is assessing ezabenlimab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in combination with other agents. Here, we report preliminary data from Module C, which assesses ezabenlimab in combination with BI 836880, a humanized bispecific nanobody that targets vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang2). VEGF and Ang2 play key roles in tumor angiogenesis and have an immunosuppressive effect in the tumor microenvironment. Combining anti-VEGF/Ang2 with an anti-PD-1 therapy promotes an immunopermissive state supportive of T-cell-mediated tumor cell death. Methods: Pts are being enrolled into 5 cohorts: locally advanced/metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma with ≥1 prior treatment (anti-PD-[L]1 naïve; Cohort 1); any advanced/metastatic solid tumor (excluding non-squamous NSCLC or melanoma) with prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, which progressed after achieving at least stable disease (SD) for ≥4 months (Cohort 2); advanced/metastatic solid tumors with no benefit from prior anti-PD-(L)1 treatment (SD or progressive disease [PD] in < 4 months; Cohort 3); locally advanced/metastatic microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer with ≥1 prior treatment (anti-PD-[L]1 naïve; Cohort 4); advanced MSS and mismatch repair-proficient endometrial carcinoma, which progressed after 1 line of chemotherapy (anti-PD-[L]1 naïve; Cohort 5). Pts will receive BI 836880 720 mg and ezabenlimab 240 mg IV every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed objective response (complete response [CR] or partial response per RECIST v1.1). Safety is also being assessed. Results: As of Jan 2021, 29 pts have received ezabenlimab plus BI 836880; 26 pts remain on treatment. Cohorts 1/2/3/4/5 included 0/6/3/19/1 pts; median age 63 yrs; 20 (69%) pts were male . Overall, 22 (76%) pts experienced an adverse event (AE; any-cause), most commonly (all%/G3%) nausea (31/3), hypertension (28/7) and fatigue (21/0). No G4/5 AEs were reported; 5 (17%) pts experienced serious AEs. One pt had an immune-related AE (G1 rash). Eighteen (62%) pts had a drug-related AE, most commonly nausea (24%), vomiting, fatigue, and hypertension (all 14%). Three pts had infusion-related reactions (G1, n = 2; G2, n = 1) and 1 pt had an AE that led to treatment discontinuation (non-related G3 bile duct stone). Of 7 pts evaluable for response prior to cycle 3, 5 have SD (Cohort 2, n = 2; Cohort 4, n = 3), and 2 have PD (Cohorts 3 and 4, n = 1 each). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that ezabenlimab in combination with BI 836880 has a manageable safety profile. Cohorts are continuing to recruit (approximately 30 pts per cohort). Clinical trial information: NCT03697304.

Impact of clinical trial enrollment on episode costs in the Oncology Care Model (OCM)

6513

Background: Clinical trials are critical for improving outcomes for patients with cancer. However, there is some concern from health insurers that clinical trial participation can increase total cost of care for cancer patients. We investigated the impact of clinical trial participation on total costs paid by Medicare during the OCM program in a large community-based practice. Methods: Tennessee Oncology (TO) is a community oncology practice comprising over 90 oncologists across 30 sites of care. We linked TO trial data and electronic medical record data with OCM data for episodes of care from 2016-2018. To assess the impact of trial participation on total cost relative to routine care, we created matched comparator groups for each OCM episode based on cancer type, metastatic status, number of comorbidities, performance status, and age. Patients with breast cancer receiving hormone therapy only were excluded. Absolute and percent cost differences between groups were calculated for episodes that had a comparator group size of five or greater. Differences in total cost for trial episodes were compared to non-trial episodes, and significance was assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test. We also studied the impact of trial participation on receipt of active treatment in the last 14 days of life (TxEOL), hospice use, and hospitalizations. Results: During the study period, 8,026 completed OCM episodes met study criteria. Patients were enrolled in a clinical trial for 459 of these episodes. On average, episodes during which patients were on trial cost $5,973 less than matched non-trial episodes (Table), independent of early versus late-phase trial. Most savings resulted from decreased drug costs. There were no differences in rates of TxEOL (15% vs. 14% p=1.0), rates of hospitalizations (31% vs. 30% p=0.54), or hospice use (52% vs. 62% p=0.08) between trial and non-trial episodes. Median difference from comparator group average cost was significantly lower for clinical trial episodes (-18% vs. -6%, p<0.01). Conclusions: In the community setting, total costs paid by Medicare for patients participating in clinical trials during OCM episodes were lower than costs for similar patients receiving routine care. Clinical trial participation did not adversely impact end-of-life care or likelihood of hospitalization. These findings suggest that patient participation in clinical trials does not increase total cost of care nor enhance financial risk to payers.[Table: see text]

Safety and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and brain metastases: results from the CheckMate 920 trial

4515

Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Previous phase 3 clinical trials of patients with advanced or metastatic cancers have mostly excluded patients with brain metastases. CheckMate 920 is an ongoing, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in patients with aRCC with a high unmet medical need. We present updated safety and efficacy results for the cohort of patients with aRCC of any histology and brain metastases from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic aRCC of any histology, with asymptomatic brain metastases (not currently receiving corticosteroids or radiation), and Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70% were assigned to treatment with NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 28 treated patients with brain metastases, 85.7% were men; median (range) age was 60 (38–87) years, and 14.3% had sarcomatoid features. With 24.5 months minimum follow-up of the 28 patients enrolled, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.4 (0.0–23.3) months for NIVO and 2.1 (0.0–3.3) months for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.1%), hypophysitis (3.6%), rash (3.6%), hepatitis (3.6%), and diabetes mellitus (3.6%). Of the 25 patients who were evaluable for ORR, the ORR was 32.0% (95% CI, 14.9–53.5). No patients achieved complete response, 8 achieved partial response, and 10 patients had stable disease. Median time to response (range) was 2.8 (2.4–3.0) months. Median duration (range) of response was 24.0 (3.9–not estimable [NE]) months; 4 of 8 responders remain without reported progression. Of 28 patients, 7 (25%) had intracranial progression. Median PFS (n = 28) was 9.0 (95% CI, 2.9–12.0) months. Median OS (n = 28) was still not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months–NE). Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases, a population with high unmet medical need that is often underrepresented in clinical trials, the approved treatment regimen of NIVO+IPI followed by NIVO for aRCC showed no new safety signals and continues to show encouraging antitumor activity with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC): Safety and efficacy from CheckMate 920

309

Background: The long-term efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab (NIVO) 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab (IPI) 1 mg/kg Q3W × 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W for previously untreated advanced RCC (aRCC) demonstrated in the registrational CheckMate 214 clinical trial was based on patients (pts) with a predominantly clear cell component. CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a US community-based, multi-arm, phase IIIb/IV clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in pts with previously untreated aRCC and clinical features mostly excluded from phase III trials. Here, we present the safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pts with nccRCC from CheckMate 920, a patient population with a poor prognosis and without a definitive effective treatment. Methods: Pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium risk received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) Q3W × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg Q4W for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of any-causality grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator), duration of response (DOR), and time to response (TTR). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 52 treated pts with nccRCC, 69.2% were men; median age was 64 years (range, 23–86), and 28.8% had sarcomatoid features. Histological subtypes were papillary (34.6%), chromophobe (13.5%), translocation associated (3.8%), collecting duct (3.8%), renal medullary (1.9%), or unclassified (42.3%). With 24.1 months minimum follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 months (0.0–25.8) for NIVO and 2.1 months (0.0–3.9) for IPI. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1–28) for NIVO and 4.0 (1–4) for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs (n = 52) by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). ORR (n = 46) was 19.6% (95% CI, 9.4–33.9). Two pts achieved complete response (papillary, n = 1; unclassified pathology, n = 1), 7 achieved partial response (papillary, n = 4; unclassified pathology, n = 3), and 17 pts had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 months (range, 2.1–4.8). Median DOR was not reached (range, 0.03+–27.8+); 8 of 9 responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n = 52) was 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.6). Median OS (n = 52) was 21.2 months (95% CI, 16.6–not reached). Conclusions: In pts with previously untreated nccRCC, a population with high unmet medical need, treatment with NIVO3+IPI1 Q3W followed by NIVO 480 mg Q4W showed no new safety signals, and encouraging antitumor activity. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954 .

Phase 2 study of the oral hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) inhibitor MK-6482 in combination with cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)

272

Background: Belzutifan (MK-6482) inhibits HIF-2α and demonstrated antitumor activity and favorable safety as monotherapy in a phase 1 study of patients (pts) with metastatic ccRCC. Current study (NCT03634540) investigates belzutifan plus cabozantinib for pts with advanced ccRCC who were either treatment naive (cohort 1) or previously treated, including immunotherapy and TKIs (cohort 2). This preliminary analysis presents data from cohort 2. Methods: Pts had metastatic ccRCC and received no more than 2 prior systemic treatment regimens. Initially, 6 pts in either cohort 1 or 2 were treated with belzutifan 120 mg and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily for 21 days and a safety review committee performed an initial evaluation. For purpose of this preliminary analysis, efficacy was evaluated in pts who received ≥1 dose of treatment and had an opportunity of ≥6 mo of follow-up. Primary end point: objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1 by investigator review). Secondary end points: progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR). Safety was evaluated for all cohort participants. Results: Evaluation of safety and tolerability of belzutifan 120 mg plus cabozantinib 60 mg was performed in the first 6 pts. Only 1 participant experienced a dose-limiting toxicity of hand-foot syndrome, therefore belzutifan 120 mg plus cabozantinib 60 mg was determined to be the recommended phase 2 dose. 53 pts were included in the safety analysis population. Median age was 64 yrs, 73.6% were male, 54.7% had ECOG PS 1. Twenty-eight (52.8%) received prior first-line and 24 (45.2%) prior second-line therapies. Median (range) time from enrollment to data cutoff was 11.3 mo (5.6-24.0) for pts with ≥6 mo of follow-up (n=41). The confirmed ORR was 22.0% (9 PRs) and 90.2% had any tumor shrinkage. Disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) was 92.7%. Median (range) DOR was not reached (3.7+ to 14.8+ mo); all responses were ongoing. Median (95% CI) PFS was 16.8 mo (9.2-not reached); PFS rate at 6 mo was 78.3%. OS rate at 6 mo was 95.0%. While 52 of 53 (98.1%) pts experienced a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), 92% of events were grade 1 and 2. Most common (≥30%) TRAEs were anemia (75.5%), fatigue (67.9%), hand-foot syndrome (52.8%), diarrhea (45.3%), hypertension (43.4%), nausea (35.8%), and ALT/AST increase (32-34%). Incidence of grade 3 TRAEs >5% were hypertension (22.4%), anemia (11.3%), fatigue (11.3%), and ALT increase (5.7%). 2 pts experienced grade 3 hypoxia (3.8%). There were no grade 4 TRAEs or deaths. Discontinuations due to TRAEs occurred in 6 pts (11.3%) for belzutifan and 8 pts (15.1%) for cabozantinib. Conclusions: In this preliminary analysis, belzutifan in combination with cabozantinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity in previously treated pts with metastatic ccRCC. Safety was consistent with individual profiles of each agent. Clinical trial information: NCT03634540 .

Phase 1 Expansion Cohort of Ramucirumab Plus Pembrolizumab in Advanced Treatment-Naive NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Data of first-line ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab treatment of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC (cohort E) are reported (NCT02443324).

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label phase 1a/b trial, patients received ramucirumab 10 mg/kg and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 21 days for up to 35 cycles. PD-L1 positivity was defined as tumor proportion score (TPS) greater than or equal to 1%. Exploratory NanoString biomarker analyses included three T-cell signatures (T-cell-inflamed, Gajewski, and effector T cells) and CD274 gene expression.

RESULTS

Cohort E included 26 patients. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (84.6%). Treatment-related adverse events of grade greater than or equal to 3 were reported in 11 patients (42.3%); the most frequent was hypertension (n = 4, 15.4%). Objective response rate was 42.3% in the treated population and 56.3% and 22.2% for patients with high (TPS ≥ 50%) and lower levels (TPS 1%-49%) of PD-L1 expression, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the treated population was 9.3 months, and 12-month and 18-month PFS rates were 45% each. Median PFS was not reached in patients with PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 50% and was 4.2 months in patients with PD-L1 TPS 1% to 49%. Median overall survival was not reached in the treated population, and 12-month and 18-month overall survival rates were 73% and 64%, respectively. Biomarker data suggested a positive association among clinical response, three T-cell signatures, CD274 gene expression, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line therapy with ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab has a manageable safety profile in patients with NSCLC, and the efficacy signal seems to be strongest in tumors with high PD-L1 expression.

Providing uninterrupted oral oncolytic therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic

226

Background: Uninterrupted utilization of oral oncolytics is critical to maximizing safety and efficacy of cancer treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic presented numerous challenges to delivering a continuous and safe supply of oral oncolytics to patients with cancer including potential loss of insurance coverage, patient lost income making copays more difficult, remote pharmacy staffing difficulties, and logistical challenges in safely distributing drug to cancer patients. Tennessee Oncology has an in-house Specialty Pharmacy that utilizes home delivery of oral oncolytics while coordinating care with providers during changing patient situations. Methods: We analyzed patients who received an oral oncolytic from our pharmacy in two periods: January-May 2019 and January-May 2020. We compared the aggregate patient copay amounts during these periods, the number of patients who utilized copay assistance or foundational financial support. For insights on continuation we also assessed the medication possession ratios (MPR, the sum of the day’s supply for all fills of a given drug in a particular period divided by the number of days in that period) during these time periods for five of our most commonly dispensed drugs. Results: The aggregate patient copay was similar between the two time periods. A 22% increase in the utilization of copay cards indicated patient’s insurance coverage was sustained. We also observed a 12% increase in the number of patients utilizing foundation support for prescriptions filled. MPRs for five commonly dispensed oral oncolytics were unchanged during COVID-19. Conclusions: Our in-house specialty pharmacy maintained delivery of oral oncolytics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient cost share was contained by our pharmacy staff proactively utilizing copay cards for all eligible patients and diligently securing foundational grant support. The pharmacy interventions allowed for affordability, uninterrupted pharmacy operations, and consistent medication supply. This led to continued medication adherence. MPR for the 5 top dispensed medications was consistent in a year-on-year comparison. [Table: see text]

Use of antiemetic prophylaxis and oral breakthrough medication for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in a large community oncology network

253

Background: Prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is well established in clinical guidelines, but real-world treatment patterns are unclear. Today, consistent use of prophylaxis is more easily accomplished due to the incorporation of ordering premeds into the workflow prior to administration of intravenous chemotherapy. However, prescription of oral agents for treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is less consistent and standardized and has a scant evidence base. In an effort to standardize utilization, we evaluated the use of prophylaxis and oral breakthrough medications in a large national community oncology network. Methods: Data from electronic medical records at five practices comprising over 100 clinic sites was analyzed to examine the frequency of guideline-recommended triplet 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and corticosteroid use for prophylaxis prior to the administration of HEC agents. Oral breakthrough medication use and preference was also analyzed. Data was collected and analyzed at the practice level. Results: We identified 2645 patients that received HEC between 1/1/2019 and 5/8/2020. We found consistently high utilization of guideline-concordant triplet prophylaxis regimens for patients receiving HEC, ranging from 90-100% at each of the five practices. In addition, most patients (mean 83%, range 67% - 94%) received a prescription for at least one oral breakthrough medication, but the agent(s) utilized varied widely across practices (Table). Ondansetron was the most commonly prescribed oral breakthrough medication (mean 68%, range 53% - 88%), while olanzapine use for either prophylaxis or breakthrough CINV across practices ranged from 1% - 4%. Conclusions: In this national community oncology network, standard recommended triplet agent prophylaxis for HEC was delivered successfully. However, opportunity exists to increase appropriate use of olanzapine and reduce variation of oral breakthrough antiemetic medications in order to optimize clinical care. [Table: see text]

Real-world patterns of chemotherapy and immunotherapy utilization at end of life in a large community oncology network

22

Background: End-of-life anti-neoplastic treatment does not improve quality of life nor prolong survival of advanced cancer patients. It is also not cost-effective. To-date, there has been little data examining real-world patterns of chemotherapy and immunotherapy treatment at end of life. We investigated use of chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy in the last 14 days of life across a community oncology network of 5 practices, 100 sites of care, and 160 oncology providers. Methods: Using a real-time, network-wide database, we identified patients with solid tumor malignancies who died during an episode of active treatment, defined as having received intravenous (IV) chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy within 90 days of death. We then identified patients in this cohort who received IV chemotherapy and/or IV immunotherapy within 14 days of death (TxEoL). We studied TxEoL patterns by cancer type, treatment type, line of therapy, patient age, patient race, and oncology provider years in practice. Statistical significance was assessed using Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Results: 2,858 qualifying solid tumor cancer patients with dates of death between 1/1/2019 and 5/31/2020 were identified. Observed rates of TxEoL were 16.7% for immunotherapy alone vs. 19.6% for chemotherapy +/- immunotherapy (p = 0.09). We found high variation in TxEoL across 132 oncologists that had 5 or more deceased patients (range: 0% to 50%, mean: 19.2%, median: 19.6%). We found no association of TxEOL with physician years in practice, patient age or race. Rates of TxEoL in the first-line setting were significantly higher than in second-line setting or later (23.3% versus 16.4%, p < 0.01). Patients with head and neck, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary malignancies were the most likely to receive TxEoL, while patients with prostate, brain, and ovarian malignancies were the least likely to receive TxEoL. Conclusions: Our data and method identified wide variation in TxEoL patterns across a large community oncology network, suggesting room for provider-level interventions to improve treatment decisions in patients at high risk of death. Studies within our group, such as examining the impact of palliative care referrals on IV anti-cancer treatment in patients potentially facing end of life, are ongoing.

Feasibility of and associated cost savings from transitioning to therapeutic biosimilar use in a large community oncology network

9

Background: The use of biosimilar drugs in the treatment of cancer offer an opportunity for oncology providers to decrease total cost of care while preserving quality. However, it remains unclear whether providers and patients may resist biosimilar use due to concerns over safety and efficacy. Our national network of 5 practices with over 100 clinics committed to a conversion to therapeutic biosimilars for trastuzumab and bevacizumab after their introduction in July 2019. Methods: Common steps to foster therapeutic biosimilar conversion included frequent communication from medical directors to providers and staff, incorporation of biosimilars into default treatment regimen orders, providing clinical teams lists identifying candidates for conversion, and tracking reasons why biosimilar switch did not occur. Most practices prioritized converting patients initiating new treatments, then later transitioning patients receiving maintenance therapy. This phased approach was taken to ensure that prior authorization and patient consent could be obtained prior to conversion. Rates of biosimilar use were calculated by comparing the number of administrations for which a biosimilar was given to the total number of administrations for which a biosimilar could have been given. Cost savings were calculated by comparing the difference in Medicare allowed rates for each originator and biosimilar drug pair at the time of administration. Results: Biosimilar use increased over time at all practices, from 0% to an average of 67% for trastuzumab and 78% for bevacizumab. The decrease in cost attributed to the use of biosimilars in the study period totaled over $4.4 million. Challenges to biosimilar use included physician preference for the originator drug, difference in preferred agents across payers, and challenges with biosimilar drug storage. Patients rarely had concerns over efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Therapeutic biosimilar adoption in a large oncology network is feasible and can lead to significant cost savings. [Table: see text]

The effects of COVID-19 on new oral oncolytic treatments

102

Background: Dependable and timely dispensing and delivery of oral oncolytics to patients with a new indication for therapy is a central part of modern cancer care. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous impediments and challenges to patients receiving oral therapy from many specialty pharmacies in a timely due to remote pharmacy staffing and drug shipment. Tennessee Oncology has an integrated URAC and ACHC accredited Specialty Pharmacy to ensure the seamless care for our patients prescribed oral oncolytics. We investigated the effect of COVID-19 on the number of patients initiating care with an oral oncolytic and the time to fill during the pandemic. Methods: We analyzed the number of overall new patients to the practice and new patients receiving oral oncolytics in two year-to-year comparisons: (1) January-March 2019 vs. January-March 2020 and (2) April-May 2019 vs. April-May 2020. We then compared the average pharmacy turnaround time (defined as the time of entry of a regimen in the electronic medical record that contained an oral oncolytic until the time that prescription was ready for shipment) and the average time from regimen entry until the patient received that medication. Prescriptions received and filled on the day of order entry were recorded as a one-day turnaround time. Results: A year to year increase of 7% in practice new-patient volume was associated with a 13% increase in new oral oncolytic patients from January-March 2020. Year to year April and May comparisons, noted a 33% decrease in new-patient volume to our practice with an associated 10% decrease in new oral oncolytic patients. Time to fill remained consistent in March and April 2020 at 1.84 days vs. 1.78 for 2019. The time from regimen entry to patient shipment receipt was also stable year to year (3.10 vs. 3.06 days). Conclusions: Our in-house Specialty Pharmacy was able to continue delivery of new prescriptions for oral oncolytics during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a fall in the number of new patient dispensing in April-May 2020 that we attribute to a decrease in cancer diagnoses related to COVID-19 as reflected by a fall in total practice new patients. New patient on-boarding activities including prior authorizations, co-pay assistance, patient education were maintained and the measured time to fill from regimen entry to patient receipt were unchanged.

Impact of a built-in electronic medical record prompt on guideline-recommended prophylactic antiviral usage in patients with multiple myeloma receiving proteasome inhibitors

248

Background: Guidelines support the use of prophylactic antivirals to prevent reactivation of herpes varicella in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) on proteasome inhibitors (PI). In our network of five oncology practices spanning over 100 clinic sites, one practice has a built-in prompt for acyclovir use in patients receiving a PI, while the other four practices do not. We used this natural experiment to determine the impact of this prompt on appropriate prophylactic antiviral usage in this patient population. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients in our network with MM beginning a regimen containing a PI between 1/1/19 and 5/28/20. Of these patients, we identified those with documentation of a prescription for acyclovir or valacyclovir before or within 2 days of the first PI dose. We compared prophylactic usage across five practices. Practice 1 had built a prompt for the prescription of acyclovir in regimens containing bortezomib or carfilzomib within the electronic medical record (EMR) which both reminded physicians and nurses and simplified the prescribing process. No other practices had similar EMR prompts. Results: We identified 583 patients with MM who received a PI during the study period. Wide variation in rates of prophylactic antiviral usage existed across the five practices (range 21%-94%). The highest rate of prophylactic antiviral usage was practice 1 (94%). This was the only practice with a built-in EMR prompt for acyclovir usage in PI regimens. We found no association between use of prophylactic antivirals and individual provider-level volume of patients with MM. Conclusions: Use of prophylactic therapy is heterogeneous across practices. A comprehensive treatment plan containing a prompt in the EMR can markedly increase appropriate utilization. We plan to add an EMR prompt and analytics-driven reminders across our network to improve utilization of all guideline-recommend, orally administered prophylactic medications. [Table: see text]

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study

BACKGROUND

The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable).

CONCLUSIONS

This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Safety of BI 754111, an anti-LAG-3 monoclonal antibody (mAb), in combination with BI 754091, an anti-PD-1 mAb, in patients with advanced solid tumors

3063

Background: LAG-3, an immune checkpoint receptor involved in T-cell regulation, is frequently co-expressed with PD-1. LAG-3 and PD-1 signaling contributes to immune cell exhaustion and reduces the immune response to tumor cells. Dual inhibition of PD-1 and LAG-3 may reactivate the T-cell response better than blockade of either individual pathway. Here, we report combined safety data from 4 trials investigating BI 754111, an anti-LAG-3 mAb, in combination with BI 754091, an anti-PD-1 mAb, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Data from 2 phase I dose-escalation/expansion trials, 1 phase I imaging trial, and 1 phase II trial were included. Eligible patients had advanced and/or metastatic solid tumors with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients received BI 754111 (intravenously [iv], 4–800 mg) in combination with BI 754091 (iv, 240 mg fixed dose) every 3 weeks (q3w). Patients remained on treatment until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. In each trial, safety was assessed by incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs), and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for AEs, version 5. Results: Overall, 321 patients were treated with BI 754111 in combination with BI 754091 (200 [62%] male; median age, 63 years [range 18–88]). Median treatment exposure was 85 days (range 9–625). Of these patients, 282 (87.9%) had any AE (G≥3 in 99 [30.8%]). 285 patients received the 600 mg recommended phase II dose of BI 754111 plus BI 754091 240 mg q3w. Median treatment exposure in these patients was 74 days (range, 8–590). The table shows the 3 most common AEs and 4 most common immune-related AEs, and their frequency. 21 (7.4%) patients had AEs leading to study drug discontinuation, most commonly infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in 6 (2.1%) patients. Serious AEs (all-cause) occurred in 77 patients (27.0%), most commonly pleural effusion in 6 (2.1%) and deep vein thrombosis in 4 (1.4%) patients. 2 patients (0.7%) experienced an AE resulting in death (cardiac tamponade and acute kidney injury, both related to underlying diseases). Conclusions: The combination of BI 754111 and BI 754091 had a manageable safety profile, similar to other checkpoint inhibitors. Clinical trial information: NCT03156114, NCT03433898, NCT03697304, NCT03780725 . [Table: see text]

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study

BACKGROUND

The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374.

METHODS

Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need.

Phase II study of the oral hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2 α) inhibitor MK-6482 in combination with cabozantinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)

TPS766

Background: Although targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway is a valuable therapeutic option for treating advanced ccRCC, response rates are modest and patients eventually progress. The HIF-2α transcription factor is a key oncogenic driver for ccRCC. HIF-2α heterodimerizes with HIF-1β and activates the transcription of genes associated with tumor progression, including VEGFA. Targeting HIF-2α and VEGF may inhibit multiple oncogenic signaling pathways in ccRCC and improve response. MK-6482 is a potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of HIF-2α that has been found to have activity in heavily pretreated patients with ccRCC. An open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03634540) will evaluate efficacy and safety of MK-6482 in combination with the VEGF receptor inhibitor cabozantinib in patients with ccRCC. Methods: Approximately 118 patients will be enrolled to receive MK-6482 120 mg orally once daily and cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Dose evaluation will be performed to find a tolerable dose. Once a recommended phase 2 dose is established, patients will be enrolled in 1 of 2 cohorts (~50 patients each): cohort 1 will comprise patients who have not received prior systemic therapy for locally advanced/metastatic RCC; cohort 2 will comprise patients who have received prior immunotherapy and no more than 2 prior regimens for locally advanced/metastatic RCC. Patients must be ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of ccRCC, have measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and have an ECOG PS of 0/1. Patients who stop 1 of the 2 study drugs for reasons other disease progression can continue on single-agent treatment with the other drug. Antitumor activity will be assessed by CT/MRI at baseline, week 9, every 8 weeks until year 1, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Adverse event severity will be graded per CTCAE v5.0. The primary end point is ORR per RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points are DOR, PFS, OS, and safety. Clinical trial information: NCT03634540.

Reducing ED visits by “closing the loop” for symptomatic patients

100

Background: Improving the value provided to patients and payers in our system of cancer care relies on reduction of avoidable hospital and emergency department (ED) utilization. Furthermore, recent payer pressures on community oncology practices (COPs) have resulted in an increased focus on improving care coordination (CC) under strict resource constraints. As part of the ASCO Quality Training Program, we tested several low-cost CC interventions, leveraging workflow redesign, already employed care team members, and technology already implemented, to reduce ED visits (EDV) in a single large COP clinic where more than 3,200 cancer patients were treated during 2016. Methods: Baseline EDV rates were obtained through nurse chart review during Jan.-Jun. 2016. The following CC interventions were implemented: Initiated after hours call process with access to EMR and patient access to bidirectional real-time messaging with care team members; Implemented new in-office process to “close the loop” on patient evaluations by creating follow up guidelines for symptomatic telephone triage and in-clinic patient evaluations; Implemented a standard 48 hour follow up process for all EDV and hospital admissions; Increased patient awareness of telephone triage services during and after clinic hours by: augmenting new patient education by staff, developing a magnetic reminder to call the office for non-emergent and emergency situations, and instructions for use of afterhours call system. Nurse chart reviews were conducted throughout implementation to observe effects of new CC processes on EDV. Results: We observed a 30% reduction in EDV from baseline measurement. No new FTEs added and no new technology licenses acquired for this initiative. Conclusions: Low-cost CC interventions can be implemented in COPs to avoid ED utilization. Limitations of this analysis included manual chart abstraction that could not account for EDV outside the partnering health system, illustrating data access for hospital utilization remains a major challenge for quality improvement efforts for COPs. Additional challenges have been experienced in expanding these process improvements from a single large clinic to the broader Tennessee Oncology network of more than 30 clinics.

Care coordination for oral oncolytics through pharmacy integration and cycle 1-day 1 documentation

260

Background: The growing number of oral oncolytic therapies (OOTs) necessitates a standardized EMR workflow that integrates pharmacy activities for dispense and patient management and standardizes cycle-1/day-1 (C1D1) documentation. Our practice’s treatment plans contain appropriately timed OOT follow-up activities including labs, physician follow-up visits, and pharmacy calls for toxicity and adherence checks, however complications in prescription fulfillment such as prior authorization, co-pay assistance, or inability of in-practice pharmacy to dispense limit the predictability of C1D1 dates of OOTs. Methods: An EMR query identified patients at a single clinic location of 5-medical oncologists (MDs) for whom oral oncolytic treatment plans were entered from January 1 to June 30, 2018. C1D1 date entered by the MD in the EMR was compared to the pharmacy processing system dispense date. Ten patients were identified, and 10% (1/10) had an accurate C1D1 documented within the EMR. As part of the ASCO Quality Training Program, to improve the accuracy of C1D1 documentation, a new workflow was implemented whereby: (1) a “hold” activity was added to new EMR treatment plans so that C1D1 remained pending until patients had received medication; (2) clinic checkout staff provided patients with information on the in-practice pharmacy and expectations for next steps; (3) pharmacists utilized existing reporting tools to identify newly entered treatment plans and transcribed orders into e-prescriptions sent to our practice pharmacy; (4) the pharmacy workflow ensued with pharmacy staff leading patient engagement, drug counseling; (5) pharmacists confirm C1D1, document within EMR (6) subsequent treatment plan activities were scheduled. Results: Following education and process changes within the clinic and pharmacy, accurate C1D1 documentation occurred in 90% (9/10) of patients initiating OOTs. Conclusions: Including pharmacy fulfillment time in EMR workflow can improve C1D1 documentation accuracy and associated management of OOTs. Education regarding roles and processes of prescribing MDs, pharmacy staff and clinic staff will be required to scale this process improvement throughout the organization.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Results from the phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study

562

Background: Initial safety results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 374 study showed that flat-dose nivolumab (NIVO) at 240 mg every 2 wk (Q2W) had a consistent safety profile across patients (pts) with clear cell and non-clear cell advanced RCC. We report updated safety and first disclosure of efficacy for pts with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) in CheckMate 374. Methods: Eligible pts in this cohort were adults with advanced or metastatic nccRCC who received 0–3 prior systemic therapies. Pts received NIVO 240 mg IV Q2W for ≤24 mo or until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Pts who benefited after 24 mo continued treatment according to the standard of care. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). Results: In CheckMate 374, 44 pts had nccRCC. Histological subtypes included papillary (n = 24), chromophobe (n = 7), unclassified (n = 8), and other (n = 5). Most pts with nccRCC (66%) were treatment-naïve. After a median follow-up of 11.1 mo, median OS was 16.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2–not estimable [NE]). OS was similar regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression. ORR was 13.6% (95% CI 5.2–27.4). One pt had complete response (chromophobe histology) and 5 pts had partial response (2 pts with papillary and 1 pt each with chromophobe, collecting duct, and unclassified histology). Median DOR was 10.2 mo (95% CI 5.6–NE). Median PFS was 2.2 mo (95% CI 1.8–5.4). The 1-year PFS rate was 14% (95% CI 5–27). No new safety concerns were identified. No treatment-related grade 5 AEs or grade 3–4 IMAEs were reported. Conclusions: Clinically meaningful antitumor activity was observed in the first prospective study of NIVO monotherapy in nccRCC. Responses were observed in several histological subtypes. The safety profile of flat-dose NIVO at 240 IV Q2W is consistent with the initial outcomes reported from this study and across the NIVO program. Clinical trial information: NCT02596035.

Phase II study of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone (BBD) in the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high dose chemotherapy

The combination of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone (BBD) was evaluated as a first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. The original treatment regimen of bendamustine 80 mg/m² , days 1, 4; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² , days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 2, 3, 4 on a 28-day cycle (up to 8 cycles) was efficacious but determined relatively toxic in an interim analysis. The regimen was amended to bendamustine 80 mg/m² , days 1, 2; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² , days 1, 8, 15; dexamethasone 20 mg, days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 every 28 days (up to 8 cycles), then maintenance 1·3 mg/m² IV bortezomib every 2 weeks. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate. The original schema was given for a median of 7 cycles (range 1-8); modified schema was given for a median of 8 cycles (range 1-8) plus maintenance. Overall response was 91%, CR was 9%. Median follow-up was 19·1 months; median progression-free survival was 11·1 months and 18·9 months on the original and modified regimens, respectively. The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue and neuropathy. The combination of BBD is tolerable and efficacious in this patient population. Modifications to decrease intensity but increase duration translated to better outcomes.

Ramucirumab combined with FOLFOX as front-line therapy for advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, or gastric adenocarcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase II trial

BACKGROUND

We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure-response analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure-response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS.

CONCLUSION

The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01246960.

Phase 2, multicenter, open-label study of tigatuzumab (CS-1008), a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting death receptor 5, in combination with gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer

Tigatuzumab is the humanized version of the agonistic murine monoclonal antibody TRA-8 that binds to the death receptor 5 and induces apoptosis of human cancer cell lines via the caspase cascade. The combination of tigatuzumab and gemcitabine inhibits tumor growth in murine pancreatic xenografts. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy of tigatuzumab combined with gemcitabine in 62 chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients received intravenous tigatuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose followed by 3 mg/kg weekly) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² once weekly for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest) until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) (complete responses plus partial responses), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). Safety of the combination was also evaluated. Mean duration of treatment was 18.48 weeks for tigatuzumab and 17.73 weeks for gemcitabine. The PFS rate at 16 weeks was 52.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.3–64.1%). The ORR was 13.1%; 28 (45.9%) patients had stable disease and 14 (23%) patients had PD. Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.2–5.4 months). Median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.1–9.6 months). The most common adverse events related to tigatuzumab were nausea (35.5%), fatigue (32.3%), and peripheral edema (19.4%). Tigatuzumab combined with gemcitabine was well tolerated and may be clinically active for the treatment of chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Everolimus in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced melanoma: A phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI)

8556

Background: The PI3k/AKT pathway is activated in most metastatic melanomas; mTOR is a critical component of this pathway. Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with advanced melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of everolimus in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods: Eligible patients had stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma, unselected for braf status, previously untreated with chemotherapy or targeted agents. Previous immunotherapy was allowed. Additional eligibility criteria: ECOG PS 0 or 1; measurable disease; no active brain metastases; adequate bone marrow, kidney, and liver function; informed consent. All patients received paclitaxel 175mg/m2, 1-3 hour IV infusion, and carboplatin AUC 6.0 IV on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Everolimus 5mg PO was given daily. Patients were evaluated for response every 6 weeks; treatment continued until progression or undue toxicity. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for paclitaxel/carboplatin treatment is 4 months; we looked for a median PFS of 6 months with this novel combination. Results: Seventy patients were treated between 2/2010 and 2/2011; median age 63, 90% had stage IV melanoma. 91% of patients received at least 2 cycles of therapy; median cycles received: 4 (range: 1-25+). Twelve patients (17%) had partial responses; an additional 42 patients (60%) had stable disease at first reevaluation. After a median 13 months of followup, the median PFS for the entire group was 4 months (95% CI: 2.8 – 5.0 months); 96% had progressed during the first 12 months. Median survival was 10 months (95% CI: 7.3 – 10.9 months). Toxicity was as previously described with these agents; neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (27%). Only 3 patients stopped treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: The addition of everolimus to paclitaxel/carboplatin was feasible and well-tolerated; however, efficacy results were similar to those reported with paclitaxel/carboplatin alone. Further development of this combination regimen for treatment of metastatic melanoma is not recommended.

Efficacy results from a multicenter phase II noncomparative two-arm pilot trial of bevacizumab with anastrozole or fulvestrant as first-line endocrine therapy for metastatic breast cancer

1091

Background: Estrogen modulates angiogenesis via effects on endothelial cells with subsequent induction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF promotes tumor growth and is associated with poor response to antiestrogen therapy. This trial was designed to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) of bevacizumab (B) in combination with anastrozole (A) or fulvestrant (F) as first-line endocrine therapy (ET) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: Eligibility criteria: no prior hormonal or chemotherapy for MBC, measurable or evaluable disease, normal LVEF, post-menopausal. Treatment: Arm A: anastrozole 1 mg po QD in pts who were a) ET naïve, b) ≥ 12 months from adjuvant ET, and c) intolerant of or progressed on prior tamoxifen. Arm B: fulvestrant 500 mg D1 and 250 mg D15 IM loading dose followed by 250 mg q28 days in pts who were a) < 12 months from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs), b) intolerant of or progressed on AIs, and c) MD's discretion. Bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV D1 q2 weeks was given in both arms. Trastuzumab permitted in HER-2+ pts only. Response assessments were q8 weeks; pts were treated until disease progression or toxicity. Results: 79 pts were enrolled fromNovember 2006 to November 2008. 42 pts are evaluable for response and toxicity, Arm A - 25 pts and Arm B - 17 pts. Median age was 64, ECOG PS 0 - 55%, 1- 43 %, adjuvant chemo 27%, adjuvant hormonal -38%, hormone receptor status: ER+/PR+ 80%, ER+/PR- 14%, ER-/PR+ 2 %. HER-2+ 5 pts, 31% had ≥ 2 metastatic disease sites predominately lung and bone only disease - 40%. Median # cycles - 4. 24% achieved a partial response and 57% stable disease; 7 pts progressed. G3 hypertension (12%) was the most common toxicity. Median PFS for Arm A was 16.3 months and has not yet been reached for Arm B. Conclusions: Bevacizumab in combination with anastrozole or fulvestrant is feasible and well tolerated with no unanticipated toxicities. The addition of bevacizumab resulted in prolongation of the median PFS to16.3 months with anastrozole as compared to the 7–9 month historical control PFS reported for first-line AI monotherapy in MBC. Further evaluation of bevacizumab endocrine combinations is warranted.

[Table: see text]

Age and cytogenetics as predictors of event free survival in patients with acute non-lymphocytic leukemia receiving high dose cytosine arabinoside and daunorubicin as consolidation chemotherapy

Between 1991 and 1999, 67 patients with acute non-lymphocytic leukemia (ANLL) in complete remission received high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) 3 gm/m2 q12h x 12 doses followed by daunorubicin 45 mg/m2/day x 3 days as consolidation therapy. Five year actuarial event free survival (EFS) was 34% +/- 6%. Age was significantly associated with EFS. EFS was 60% +/- 15% in patients age 20 to 29, 48% +/- 16% in patients age 30 to 39, 23% +/- 10% in patients age 40 to 49, 31% +/- 11% in patients age 50 to 59, and 0% in patients age > or = 60. Contrary to other reports which have used different HiDAC regimens, we found no relationship between cytogenetics and EFS. Cytogenetics were defined as favorable risk: t(8;21), inv (16), and del (16); neutral risk: normal or t(15;17); and unfavorable risk: any abnormality not included in favorable risk or neutral risk. EFS was 29% +/- 17% in patients with favorable cytogenetics, 37% +/- 14% in patients with neutral cytogenetics, and 31% +/- 12% in patients with unfavorable cytogenetics. These differences were not statistically significant. Because of the successful use of allogeneic transplantation at relapse in patients with matched related donors, five year actuarial survival (S) in this series was 40% +/- 6%. Five year actuarial survival was 57% +/- 9% for patients age < or = 44 and 25% +/- 8% for patients age > or = 45. This difference is statistically significant, p < .025. Clinicians should be cautious about making clinical decisions regarding consolidation therapy of ANLL on the basis of the presence or absence of cytogenetic abnormalities as the importance of cytogenetics may depend on the specific therapy which is employed.