Regional Therapies for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Resection is the foundation for cure for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases; however, only 20% of patients are suitable for surgery. Those suitable would be considered for resection or local therapies before being considered for regional therapies. Noncurative treatment is usually systemic chemotherapy. For patients with liver-only or liver-predominant metastases that are unresectable, regional therapies [conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE)] may be considered. We review the current evidence for regional therapies for CRC liver metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Literature searches (January 2000 to March 2019 or January 2010 to March 2019 depending on the specific systematic review question) were conducted, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 4100 articles were identified; 15 studies were included in the review. There were no comparative data regarding the resectable population. There was either insufficient evidence (cTACE or DEB-TACE) or evidence against (TARE) the addition of regional therapies to systemic therapy in the first line in the unresectable population. There was either no evidence (cTACE) or weak evidence (DEB-TACE or TARE) for the addition of regional therapies with or without systemic therapy in the second line or later in the unresectable population.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence supports the delivery of percutaneous regional therapies in patients with unresectable CRC liver metastases. There are strong data demonstrating positive effects of TARE within the liver, but they do not translate to a benefit in patient-important outcomes. DEB-TACE appears to offer a survival benefit in the second-line setting, although the evidence is limited by small sample size and larger trials are needed.

PD-1 inhibition in malignant melanoma and lack of clinical response in chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the same patients: a case series

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. Unfortunately, affected patients are often immunosuppressed and at increased risk of infection and secondary malignancy. Previous meta-analysis has found that patients with cll have a risk of melanoma that is increased by a factor of 4 compared with the general population. Recent advances in the understanding of the PD receptor pathway have led to immunotherapies that target cancer cells. The use of PD-1 inhibitors is now considered first-line treatment for BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma. Interestingly, early preclinical data suggest that inhibition of that pathway could also be used in the treatment of cll; however, recent clinical data did not support the effectiveness of that approach. In this case series, we highlight 2 cases in which patients with cll and concurrent malignant melanoma underwent treatment with PD-1 inhibitors and were found to experience reductions in their white blood cell counts without improvement in their hemoglobin. Those cases further illustrate that treatment of cll with PD-1 inhibitors is ineffective.

SAT0104 MAINTENANCE OF SDAI REMISSION AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (PROS) FOLLOWING DOSE DE-ESCALATION OF ABATACEPT IN MTX-NAÏVE, ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+ PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA: RESULTS FROM AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

The Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) evaluated SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in ACPA+ patients (pts) with early, active RA.1Results from the 56-wk induction period (IP) showed a significantly greater proportion of pts treated with ABA + MTX (vs MTX alone) reported clinically meaningful improvements in HAQ-DI, global disease activity and pain, which were sustained at 52 wks.2

Objectives:

To report maintenance of SDAI remission and PROs from the AVERT-2 de-escalation (D-E) period.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. In this analysis, pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomised 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX, stepwise D-E (ABA every other wk + MTX for 24 wks then ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks in the D-E period. PROs included physical function (HAQ-DI [0–3; decrease=improvement] and Short-Form 36 [SF-36] v2.0 Physical Functioning Scale [PFS]; 0–100; increase=improvement), and fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F] score; 0–52; decrease=improvement). Endpoints included: proportion of pts in SDAI remission and pts with HAQ-DI response (decrease from IP Day [D]1 in HAQ-DI ≥0.30); adjusted mean change (adMC) from D-E D1 in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PFS or FACIT-F to D-E Wk 48. adMCs were estimated using a mixed effect model with repeated measures.

Results:

147 ABA + MTX-treated pts were re-randomised in the D-E period. Across re-randomised arms, the range of mean scores was 1.87–2.52 for SDAI and 0.18–0.30 for HAQ-DI at entry into D-E period (D-E D1). 74% of pts receiving ABA QW + MTX maintained SDAI remission at D-E Wk 48 (Fig 1); this proportion was higher than in the ABA withdrawal and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms. Pts continuing ABA QW + MTX maintained HAQ-DI response during D-E (Fig 1), but by D-E Wk 48 the proportion of pts with HAQ-DI response in the ABA withdrawal arm declined by 30%. At D-E Wk 48, a small numerical decrease (adMC –0.04) in HAQ-DI was observed in the ABA QW + MTX arm; increases were seen in the withdrawal (adMC 0.26) and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms (adMC 0.16). By D-E Wk 48, SF-36 PFS increased (adMC 1.68) in the ABA QW + MTX arm but decreased in the withdrawal (adMC –3.34) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC –1.45) arms. FACIT-F score increased during D-E in all arms, but the increase at D-E Wk 48 was lower in the ABA QW + MTX arm (adMC 0.79) vs the withdrawal (adMC 4.12) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC 2.41) arms. Similar trends were seen for other PROs including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-RA; while activity impairment remained stable in the ABA QW + MTX arm, there was a trend for worsening in the withdrawal arm.

Conclusion:

In the AVERT-2 D-E period, continued combination therapy (abatacept + MTX) resulted in maintenance of benefits on PROs, particularly physical functioning, in seropositive pts with early RA. D-E of abatacept followed by complete withdrawal was associated with the greatest loss of remission as well as worsening of PROs. The PRO results corresponded well to the maintenance of clinical (SDAI) remission.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

[2]Emery P, et al. ACR 2019; Atlanta, USA: Poster 1423.

Acknowledgments:

Joanna Wright (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lily, Pfizer, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (current); AbbVie, Lily, Pfizer (past), Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

FRI0090 MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL RESPONSE WITH ABATACEPT IN COMBINATION WITH MTX IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA WHO ARE MTX-NAÏVE AND ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+: RESULTS FROM THE INDUCTION PERIOD OF AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

In the 56-wk induction period (IP) of the Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268), more patients (pts) achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3) with abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX at IP Wk 52.1It is unknown whether each individual pt within a treatment (Tx) group achieves and sustains the same efficacy endpoints at all time points during the IP.

Objectives:

To investigate whether ABA effectiveness is sustained by individual pts who achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3), SDAI low disease activity (LDA; >3.3–11), DAS28 (CRP) <2.6, ACR50/70 response or Boolean remission at IP Wk 24 (AVERT-2 primary endpoint) and both Wks 40 and 52 (Wks 40/52).

Methods:

Pts were randomised 3:2 to blinded SC ABA (125 mg/wk) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction Tx for 56 wks. Key inclusion criteria: age ≥18 yrs; RA diagnosis (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria); RA duration ≤6 mos; SDAI >11; ACPA+; CRP >3 mg/L or ESR ≥28 mm/h; TJC ≥3 and SJC ≥3; DMARD naïve. Response rates were investigated by Tx arm in the cohort 1 analysis population (all randomised pts treated in the IP [intent-to-treat analysis]).

Results:

Of randomised cohort 1, 752 pts were treated during the IP: 451 with ABA + MTX and 301 with ABA PBO + MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar across Tx arms.1Stringent SDAI remission endpoint at IP Wk 24 was achieved by 22% of ABA + MTX-treated pts; of these, 56% sustained SDAI remission at IP Wks 40/52 (Table). A similar proportion of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved (17%) and sustained (58%) Boolean remission at IP Wks 24 and 40/52. At IP Wk 24, 42% of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 and 74% sustained DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 to IP Wks 40/52; a high proportion of patients sustained ACR50/70 responses at IP Wks 40/52 (83% and 79%, respectively). A lower proportion of pts sustained SDAI LDA to IP Wks 40/52 vs other endpoints (Table). Most efficacy endpoints were achieved by fewer pts who received ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX (Table); among responders in this Tx group, fewer sustained remission at Wks 40/52, which correlates with a higher proportion of pts sustaining SDAI LDA at Wks 40/52 with ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX.

Conclusion:

The majority of individual pts with RA who achieved clinically stringent endpoints such as SDAI remission, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 or Boolean remission, as well as clinically meaningful endpoints such as ACR50/70 at IP Wk 24 with weekly SC abatacept, sustained their responses to Wks 40/52. The high proportion of patients achieving early stringent remission and response to SC abatacept by individual pts may be indicative of sustained efficacy over time.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

Table .

Proportion of Pts With Response at IP Wk 24 Who Also Achieved Remission at Wks 40/52

EndpointResponders at IP Wk 24, n (%)Responders at IP Wk 24 and Wks 40/52, n/N (%)ABA + MTX(n=451)ABA PBO + MTX(n=301)ABA + MTX*ABA PBO + MTX*SDAI remission (≤3.3)100 (22)40 (13)56/100 (56)17/40 (43)SDAI low disease activity (>3.3–11)167 (37)82 (27)46/167 (28)32/82 (39)DAS28 (CRP) <2.6188 (42)78 (26)139/188 (74)43/78 (55)ACR50 response†260 (58)125 (42)215/260 (83)92/125 (74)ACR70 response†156 (35)66 (22)123/156 (79)42/66 (64)Boolean remission76 (17)29 (10)44/76 (58)8/29 (28)

*% based on number of pts within each Tx group who achieved response at IP Wk 24 (denominator);†Response at IP Wks 24 and 52

Acknowledgments:

Lola Parfitt (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

THU0497 MAINTENANCE OF MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY OR INACTIVE DISEASE STATUS AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN INDIVIDUAL PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS ABATACEPT

Background:

Maintenance of clinical response over time has been shown in individual patients (pts) with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) treated with SC abatacept (ABA).1It is unknown whether each individual pt with sustained efficacy also consistently maintains the previously reported shorter-term benefits on patient-reported outcomes (PROs)2,3over time.

Objectives:

Investigate whether combined efficacy and stringent, optimal PRO responses to ABA treatment are maintained by individual pts with pJIA over time.

Methods:

In this analysis of the intent-to-treat population, pts in two age cohorts (2–5 and 6–17 yrs) who achieved clinical response to weekly SC ABA (10–<25 kg [50 mg], 25–<50 kg [87.5 mg], ≥50 kg [125 mg]) at Mo 4 (time point of primary pharmacokinetic endpoint4) were followed for 2 yrs. Stringent efficacy outcomes (Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 27 [JADAS27] minimal disease activity [MDA; ≤3.8] and inactive disease [ID; ≤1] status) were combined with optimal PRO endpoints (childhood [C]HAQ-DI=0, Parental Global Assessment [PaGA] ≤1 and Pain visual analogue scale [VAS] <35). Combined efficacy and PRO responses were analysed at Mos 4, 13 and 21.

Results:

219 pts entered the study (46 [21.0%] 2–5 yrs; 173 [79.0%] 6–17 yrs); a subgroup of these pts achieved a clinical response at Mo 4 (Table 1). Many pts who achieved JADAS27 MDA or JADAS27 ID combined with optimal PROs at Mo 4 sustained their response at Mo 13, and at both Mo 13 and Mo 21 in the 2–5-yr and 6–17-yr cohorts (Table 1). Across the cohorts, 33–88% of pts maintained a combined JADAS27 MDA with optimal PRO responses through Mo 21. Where estimable, median times to combined efficacy and specific optimal PRO responses were consistent across the cohorts (Table 2; Figs 1, 2).

Table 1.

Proportion of pts with combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses at Mos 4, 13 and 21

EndpointResponders at Mo 4Responders at Mos 4 and 13*Responders at Mos 4, 13 and 21*2–5 yrs (n=46)6–17 yrs (n=173)2–5 yrs6–17 yrs2–5 yrs6–17 yrsJADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=09 (20)34 (20)5/9 (56)25/34 (74)3/9 (33)16/34 (47)JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤18 (17)14 (8)8/8 (100)7/14 (50)7/8 (88)5/14 (36)JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm28 (61)70 (41)25/28 (89)58/70 (83)21/28 (75)43/70 (61)JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=07 (15)20 (12)2/7 (29)13/20 (65)1/7 (14)9/20 (45)JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤16 (13)10 (6)4/6 (67)4/10 (40)4/6 (67)4/10 (40)JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm17 (37)31 (18)10/17 (59)22/31 (71)8/17 (47)17/31 (55)

Data are n (%) or n/N (%). *% based on n of pts who achieved response at Mo 4 (denominator)

Table 2.

Kaplan–Meier estimates for median (95% CI) times (mos) to achieving combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses

Endpoint2–5 yrs6–17 yrsJADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=021.5 (6.8, NE)21.5 (13.1, 24.4)JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤1NE (15.9, NE)24.6 (24.3, NE)JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm2.8 (1.9, 2.9)3.8 (3.7, 6.6)JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=0NE (18.4, NE)24.4 (18.7, NE)JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤1NE (21.3, NE)24.6 (24.3, NE)JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm3.8 (3.8, 10.3)13.2 (10.3, 15.9)

NE=not estimable

Conclusion:

Many individuals with pJIA who achieved stringent efficacy and PRO measures with weekly SC abatacept by Mo 4 sustained them over 2 years. Time to achieve combined efficacy and Pain VAS <35 response was shorter than that for PaGA ≤1 and CHAQ-DI=0.

References:

[1]Ruperto N, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78:99–100 (abstr OP0056)

[2]Brunner H, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71(suppl 10):abstr 2707

[3]Ruperto N, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:75 (abstr OP0058)

[4]Brunner HI, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70:1144–54

Acknowledgments:

Katerina Kumpan, PhD, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Disclosure of Interests: :

Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novartis, Nikolay Tzaribachev: None declared, Ingrid Louw Consultant of: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche (advisory boards), Inmaculada Calvo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clementia, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Francisco Zapata: None declared, Gerd Horneff Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Ivan Foeldvari Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daniel Kingsbury: None declared, Maria Gastanaga Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Carine Wouters Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Breedt: None declared, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Marleen Nys Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Margarita Askelson Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alberto Martini Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Daniel J Lovell Consultant of: Abbott (consulting and PI), AbbVie (PI), Amgen (consultant and DSMC Chairperson), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (PI), Celgene, Forest Research (DSMB Chairman), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen (co-PI), Novartis (consultant and PI), Pfizer (consultant and PI), Roche (PI), Takeda, UBC (consultant and PI), Wyeth, Employee of: Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Speakers bureau: Wyeth, Nicolino Ruperto Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi (paid to institution), Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda, Speakers bureau: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda

FRI0038 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ABATACEPT EXPOSURE AND EFFICACY MEASURES IN EARLY MTX-NAIVE ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY-POSITIVE PATIENTS WITH RA DURING THE DE-ESCALATION PERIOD OF A PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

Although EULAR/ACR guidelines suggest tapering biologic treatment for RA following sustained remission in patients (pts), specific de-escalation (DE) regimens are not defined. The Phase IIIb Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) is evaluating SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX versus ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody (ACPA)-positive pts with early (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria; disease duration ≤6 mths), active RA (SDAI >11). AVERT-2 was designed to investigate achievement of SDAI remission and a clinically meaningful dose DE strategy among pts in sustained remission who completed induction with ABA + MTX. In moderately to severely active RA and JIA patients, a relationship between ABA Cmin and efficacy was observed. Therefore, this analysis in very early RA patients, reports on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of ABA and the maintenance of remission during the DE period of AVERT-2.

Objectives:

To assess the relationship between changes in ABA exposure and the maintenance of remission and the effect of immunogenicity on exposure during the DE period of AVERT-2.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. Pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomized 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX for 48 wks (Arm C), ABA every other wk (EOW) + MTX for 24 wks followed by ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks (Arm D), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks (Arm E) in the DE period. ABA trough (Cmin) and anti-drug antibody (ADA) samples were collected in all subjects during the DE period. Serum ABA concentrations and ADA were measured using a validated enzyme immunoassay method and an electrochemiluminescence assay, respectively. Efficacy endpoints included change from DE Day 1 in SDAI score, HAQ-DI score, Physician’s Global Assessment (PhGA), and tender (TJC) and swollen (SJC) joint counts. The relationship between ABA Cmin and efficacy endpoints were assessed. Additionally, the impact of immunogenicity on ABA Cmin was explored.

Results:

Mean ABA Cmin values remained stable throughout the DE period for subjects in Arms C and E. ABA Cmin values decreased by ~50% in subjects in Arm D for the first 24 weeks from the start of DE and were ~0 for weeks 24-48 consistent with the change in the frequency of ABA dosing from EOW to ABA withdrawal (Figure 1 top).

Figure 1:

Mean (SD) ABA Cmin values (top) and Mean Change From Baseline in SDAI (bottom) in Subjects in DE Arm C (ABA QW + MTX), D (ABA EOW + MTX followed by ABA placebo + MTX), and E (ABA QW + MTX placebo)

The incidence of immunogenicity appeared to increase upon withdrawal of ABA in Arm D. ADA formation did not appear to affect ABA Cmin, as ABA Cmin remained consistent between pts with and without ADA.

Upon withdrawal of ABA in Arm D, there appeared to be an increase in the mean change from baseline (Day 1 of DE) in SDAI over time, which followed a similar time course as the washout of ABA (Figure 1 bottom). Similar results were observed for other efficacy endpoints such as HAQ-DI, PhGA, TJC, and SJC.

Conclusion:

The PK data in these early onset, MTX-naive, ACPA+ RA pts correlated well with the maintenance of remission in Arms A and E. Tapering of ABA from EOW to MTX only in Arm D results in a corresponding decrease in ABA Cmin, an increase in positive antibody response, and loss of remission.

References:

[1]Emery et. al. ACR [Abstract L11]. Nov. 2019. Atlanta GA USA

[2]Li et. al. J Clin Pharmacol. Vol 59(2). Feb 2019.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yash Gandhi Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Shannon Chilewski Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bindu Murthy Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb

A New Hope

Immuno-oncology uses the body’s inherent immune system to combat malignancy. […]

What is a clinically meaningful survival benefit in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer?

Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer treatments can be highly subjective, influenced by both perspective and context. Such assessments are required in regulatory and policy decision-making, but consistency between jurisdictions is often lacking. Clear and consistent standards for determining when a treatment offers a meaningful benefit, relative to the current standard of care, can help to address issues of equity and transparency in health technology assessment. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc), no standardized Canadian definition of clinically meaningful benefit has yet been proposed. Colorectal Cancer Canada therefore convened a group of medical oncologists expert in colorectal cancer to review the literature about clinical significance. The resulting consensus is intended to apply to any therapeutic agent being considered in the setting of chemotherapy-refractory mcrc. It was agreed that overall survival is the appropriate measure of clinical efficacy in chemorefractory mcrc. As quantitative targets for efficacy, an improvement of 2 months or more in median overall survival or a hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 or lower (or both) are proposed as the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit. That threshold could be influenced by a treatment's effect on quality of life. Treatment toxicity is also relevant to the assessment of clinical benefit in this setting, specifically when significant differences in treatment tolerability are evident.

Hypertension as a predictor of advanced colorectal cancer outcome and cetuximab treatment response

Background

Adrenergic receptor stimulation is involved in the development of hypertension (htn) and has been implicated in cancer progression and dissemination of metastases in various tumours, including colon cancer. Adrenergic antagonists such as beta-blockers (bbs) demonstrate inhibition of invasion and migration in colon cancer cell lines and have been associated with decreased mortality in colorectal cancer (crc). We examined the association of baseline htn and bb use with overall (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) in patients with pretreated, chemotherapy refractory, metastatic crc (mcrc). We also examined baseline htn as a predictor of cetuximab efficacy.

Methods

Using data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group co.17 study [cetuximab vs. best supportive care (bsc)], we coded baseline htn and use of anti-htn medications, including bbs, for 572 patients. The chi-square test was used to assess the associations between those variables and baseline characteristics. Cox regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analyses of os and pfs by htn diagnosis and bb use.

Results

Baseline htn, bb use, and anti-htn medication use were not found to be prognostic for improved os. Baseline htn and bb use were not significant predictors of cetuximab benefit.

Conclusions

In chemorefractory mcrc, neither baseline htn nor bb use is a significant prognostic factor. Baseline htn and bb use are not predictive of cetuximab benefit. Further investigation to determine whether baseline htn or bb use have a similarly insignificant impact on prognosis in patients receiving earlier lines of treatment remains warranted.

Outcomes by treatment modality in elderly patients with localized gastric and esophageal cancer

Background

We aimed to assess current treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly patients with localized gastric and esophageal (ge) cancers.

Methods

This retrospective analysis considered patients 75 years of age or older with ge cancers treated during 2012-2014. Patient demographics and tumour characteristics were collected. Overall survival (os) and disease-free survival were assessed by univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for demographics. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine factors affecting treatment choices.

Results

The 110 patients in the study cohort had a median age of 81 years (range: 75-99 years). Primary disease sites were esophageal (55%) and gastric (45%). Treatment received included radiation therapy alone (29%), surgery alone (26%), surgery plus perioperative therapy (14%), chemoradiation alone (10%), and supportive care alone (14%). In multivariable analyses, surgery (hazard ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.26 to 0.90; p = 0.02) was the only independent predictor for improved os. Patients with a good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p = 0.008), gastric disease site (p = 0.02), and adenocarcinoma histology (p = 0.01) were more likely to undergo surgery.

Conclusions

At our institution, few patients 75 years of age and older received multimodality therapy for localized ge cancers. Outcomes were better for patients who underwent surgery than for those who did not. To ensure optimal treatment selection, comprehensive geriatric assessment should be considered for patients 75 years of age and older with localized ge cancers.

Health utility scores from EQ-5D and health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer: a real-world cross-sectional study

Esophageal cancer and its treatment can cause serious morbidity/toxicity. These effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can be measured using disease-specific scales such as FACT-E, generic scales such as EQ-5D-3L, or through symptoms. In a two-year cross-sectional study, we compared HRQOL across esophageal cancer patients treated in an ambulatory clinic and across multiple disease states, among patients with all stages of esophageal cancer. Consenting patients completed FACT-E, EQ-5D, a visual analog scale, and patient reported (PR)-ECOG. Symptom complexes were constructed from FACT-E domains. Responses were categorized by disease state: pre-, during, and post-treatment, surveillance, progression, and palliative chemotherapy. Spearman correlation and multivariable linear regression characterized these associations. In total, 199 patients completed 317 questionnaires. Mean FACT-E and subscale scores dropped from baseline through treatment and recovered during post-treatment surveillance (P < 0.001); EQ-5D health utility scores (HUS) displayed a similar pattern but with smaller differences (P = 0.07), and with evidence of ceiling effect. Among patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer, mean EQ-5D HUS varied across disease states (P < 0.001), along with FACT-E and subscales (P < 0.001). Among patients with advanced disease, there was no significant difference between baseline and on-treatment total scores, but improved esophageal cancer-specific scales were noted (P = 0.003). Strong correlation was observed between EQ-5D and FACT-E (R = 0.73), along with physical and functional subscales. In addition, the association between FACT-E and EQ-5D HUS was maintained in a multivariable model (P < 0.001). We interpret these results to suggest that in a real-world clinic setting, FACT-E, EQ-5D HUS, and symptoms were strongly correlated. Most HRQOL and symptom parameters suggested that patients had worse HRQOL and symptoms during curative therapy, but recovered well afterwards. In contrast, palliative chemotherapy had a neutral to positive impact on HRQOL/symptoms when compared to their baseline pre-treatment state.