Master protocols in immuno-oncology: do novel drugs deserve novel designs?

Maximizing the value of phase III trials in immuno-oncology: A checklist from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC)

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity-for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Advances in immune therapies in hematological malignancies

Immunotherapy in cancer takes advantage of the exquisite specificity, potency, and flexibility of the immune system to eliminate alien tumor cells. It involves strategies to activate the entire immune defense, by unlocking mechanisms developed by tumor cells to escape from surrounding immune cells, as well as engineered antibody and cellular therapies. What is important to note is that these are therapeutics with curative potential. The earliest example of immune therapy is allogeneic stem cell transplantation, introduced in 1957, which is still an important modality in hematology, most notably in myeloid malignancies. In this review, we discuss developmental trends of immunotherapy in hematological malignancies, focusing on some of the strategies that we believe will have the most impact on future clinical practice in this field. In particular, we delineate novel developments for therapies that have already been introduced into the clinic, such as immune checkpoint inhibition and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies. Finally, we discuss the therapeutic potential of emerging strategies based on T-cell receptors and adoptive transfer of allogeneic natural killer cells.

Improvement of the anticancer efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade via combination therapy and PD-L1 regulation

Immune checkpoint molecules are promising anticancer targets, among which therapeutic antibodies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have been widely applied to cancer treatment in clinical practice and have great potential. However, this treatment is greatly limited by its low response rates in certain cancers, lack of known biomarkers, immune-related toxicity, innate and acquired drug resistance, etc. Overcoming these limitations would significantly expand the anticancer applications of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and improve the response rate and survival time of cancer patients. In the present review, we first illustrate the biological mechanisms of the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints and their role in the healthy immune system as well as in the tumor microenvironment (TME). The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway inhibits the anticancer effect of T cells in the TME, which in turn regulates the expression levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 through multiple mechanisms. Several strategies have been proposed to solve the limitations of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment, including combination therapy with other standard treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, anti-angiogenic therapy, other immunotherapies and even diet control. Downregulation of PD-L1 expression in the TME via pharmacological or gene regulation methods improves the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. Surprisingly, recent preclinical studies have shown that upregulation of PD-L1 in the TME also improves the response and efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade. Immunotherapy is a promising anticancer strategy that provides novel insight into clinical applications. This review aims to guide the development of more effective and less toxic anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapies.

Current Landscape of Immunotherapy Trials Involving the Programmed Cell Death Protein 1/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Axis in Intrathoracic Tumors

Introduction

The clinical successes seen with anti–programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (anti–PD-[L]1) agents have galvanized the field of immuno-oncology. We evaluated the landscape and trends in immunotherapy trials involving the PD-(L)1 axis in intrathoracic tumors.

Methods

We identified clinical trials involving anti–PD-(L)1 agents on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry through November 13, 2020 for NSCLC, SCLC, mesothelioma, and thymic epithelial tumor. Clinical trials were indexed according to monotherapy versus combination approaches, PD-(L)1 agents under investigation, clinical settings, trial start date, and partner drug(s). We assessed redundancy among the clinical trials.

Results

We found 686 clinical trials investigating anti–PD-(L)1 agents for intrathoracic tumors (540 trials in NSCLC, 96 in SCLC, 38 in mesothelioma, and 12 in thymic epithelial tumor). A total of 23 PD-(L)1 inhibitors are undergoing clinical development. A total of 81% of trials assess combination treatment. The number of clinical trials has been growing exponentially in the past decade. PD-(L)1 blockade was frequently combined with chemotherapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Various strategies are in development to overcome resistance to PD-(L)1 blockade in metastatic NSCLC. PD-(L)1 blockade is also increasingly evaluated in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an anti–PD-(L)1 agent for a specific indication, 14 trials were launched thereafter, which continued to randomize patients to treatments that were inferior to the best available therapy.

Conclusions

The number of clinical trials investigating anti–PD-(L)1 agents in intrathoracic tumors has experienced a steep increase over the past decade with a notable upward trend for combination trials. To reduce duplicative research efforts and accelerate the development of effective immunotherapeutics, improved coordination among key stakeholders and the adoption of innovative trial designs will be vital.

Highly Multiplexed Phenotyping of Immunoregulatory Proteins in the Tumor Microenvironment by CODEX Tissue Imaging

Immunotherapies are revolutionizing cancer treatment by boosting the natural ability of the immune system. In addition to antibodies against traditional checkpoint molecules or their ligands (i.e., CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1), therapies targeting molecules such as ICOS, IDO-1, LAG-3, OX40, TIM-3, and VISTA are currently in clinical trials. To better inform clinical care and the design of therapeutic combination strategies, the co-expression of immunoregulatory proteins on individual immune cells within the tumor microenvironment must be robustly characterized. Highly multiplexed tissue imaging platforms, such as CO-Detection by indEXing (CODEX), are primed to meet this need by enabling >50 markers to be simultaneously analyzed in single-cells on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. Assembly and validation of antibody panels is particularly challenging, with respect to the specificity of antigen detection and robustness of signal over background. Herein, we report the design, development, optimization, and application of a 56-marker CODEX antibody panel to eight cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) patient samples. This panel is comprised of structural, tumor, and immune cell markers, including eight immunoregulatory proteins that are approved or currently undergoing clinical trials as immunotherapy targets. Here we provide a resource to enable extensive high-dimensional, spatially resolved characterization of the tissue microenvironment across tumor types and imaging modalities. This framework provides researchers with a readily applicable blueprint to study tumor immunology, tissue architecture, and enable mechanistic insights into immunotherapeutic targets.

Lights and Shadows in Immuno-Oncology Drug Development

The rapidly evolving landscape of immuno-oncology (IO) is redefining the treatment of a number of cancer types. IO treatments are becoming increasingly complex, with different types of drugs emerging beyond checkpoint inhibitors. However, many of the new drugs either do not progress from phase I-II clinical trials or even fail in late-phase trials. We have identified at least five areas in the development of promising IO treatments that should be redefined for more efficient designs and accelerated approvals. Here we review those critical aspects of IO drug development that could be optimized for more successful outcome rates in all cancer types. It is important to focus our efforts on the mechanisms of action, types of response and adverse events of these novel agents. The use of appropriate clinical trial designs with robust biomarkers of response and surrogate endpoints will undoubtedly facilitate the development and subsequent approval of these drugs. Further research is also needed to establish biomarker-driven strategies to select which patients may benefit from immunotherapy and identify potential mechanisms of resistance.

Semantic and Geographical Analysis of COVID-19 Trials Reveals a Fragmented Clinical Research Landscape Likely to Impair Informativeness

Background: The unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on modern society has ignited a "gold rush" for effective treatment and diagnostic strategies, with a significant diversion of economic, scientific, and human resources toward dedicated clinical research. We aimed to describe trends in this rapidly changing landscape to inform adequate resource allocation. Methods: We developed an online repository (COVID Trial Monitor) to analyze in real time the growth rate, geographical distribution, and characteristics of COVID-19 related trials. We defined structured semantic ontologies with controlled vocabularies to categorize trial interventions, study endpoints, and study designs. Analyses are publicly available at https://bioinfo.ieo.it/shiny/app/CovidCT. Results: We observe a clear prevalence of monocentric trials with highly heterogeneous endpoints and a significant disconnect between geographic distribution and disease prevalence, implying that most countries would need to recruit unrealistic percentages of their total prevalent cases to fulfill enrolment. Conclusions: This geographically and methodologically incoherent growth casts doubts on the actual feasibility of locally reaching target sample sizes and the probability of most of these trials providing reliable and transferable results. We call for the harmonization of clinical trial design criteria for COVID-19 and the increased use of larger master protocols incorporating elements of adaptive designs. COVID Trial Monitor identifies critical issues in current COVID-19-related clinical research and represents a useful resource with which researchers and policymakers can improve the quality and efficiency of related trials.