VB-111 (ofranergene obadenovec) in combination with nivolumab in patients with microsatellite stable colorectal liver metastases: a single center, single arm, phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Microsatellite stable colorectal liver metastases (MSS CLM) maintain an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Historically, immune-based approaches have been ineffective. VB-111 (ofranergene obadenovec) is a genetically-modified adenoviral vector targeting the TME; its unique dual mechanism induces an immune response and disrupts neovascularization. Checkpoint inhibition may synergize the immune response induced by viral-mediated anti-angiogenic gene therapy. We aimed to examine the safety and antitumor activity of VB-111 and nivolumab in patients with refractory MSS CLM and to characterize immunological treatment-response.

METHODS

This was a phase II study of adult patients with histologically-confirmed MSS CLM who progressed on prior therapy. A priming dose of VB-111 1×1013 viral particles was given intravenously 2 weeks prior to starting biweekly nivolumab 240 mg and continued every 6 weeks. The combination continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objectives were overall response rate and safety/tolerability. Secondary objectives included median overall survival and progression-free survival. Correlative studies were performed on paired tumor biopsies and blood.

RESULTS

Between August 2020 and December 2021, 14 patients were enrolled with median age 50.5 years (40-75), and 14% were women. Median follow-up was 5.5 months. Of the 10 evaluable patients, the combination of VB-111 and nivolumab failed to demonstrate radiographic responses; at best, 2 patients had stable disease. Median overall survival was 5.5 months (95% CI: 2.3 to 10.8), and median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.9). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were fever/chills, influenza-like symptoms, and lymphopenia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Qualitative analysis of immunohistochemical staining of paired tumor biopsies did not demonstrate significant immune infiltration after treatment, except for one patient who had exceptional survival (26.0 months). Immune analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells showed an increase of PD-1highKi67highCD8+ T cells and HLA-DRhigh T cells after VB-111 priming dose. Plasma cytokines interleukin-10 and tumor necrosis factor-α increased after treatment with both drugs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with MSS CLM, VB-111 and nivolumab did not improve overall response rate or survival but were tolerated with minimal toxicities. While challenging to distinguish between antiviral or antitumor, correlative studies demonstrated an immune response with activation and proliferation of CD8+ T cells systemically that was poorly sustained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04166383.

Phase I/II study of PexaVec in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncolytic immunotherapy represents a unique therapeutic platform for the treatment of cancer. Here, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the combination of pexastimogene devacirepvec (PexaVec) plus durvalumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1) with and without tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4) in patients with standard chemotherapy refractory mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase I/II trial.

METHODS

Adult patients with histologically confirmed advanced pMMR mCRC, who had progressed on at least two prior lines of systemic chemotherapy were studied in four cohorts. Patients received four doses of PexaVec IV at a dose of 3×10⁸ plaque forming units (pfu) (dose level 1) or 1×10⁹ pfu (dose level 2) every 2 weeks. Twelve days after the first PexaVec administration, patients received either 1500 mg of durvalumab every 28 days alone or an additional single dose of 300 mg tremelimumab on day 1. Responses were assessed every 8 weeks by CT or MRI. AEs were recorded. The primary endpoints were safety and feasibility. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Paired tumor samples and peripheral blood were collected to perform immune monitoring.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients with mCRC enrolled on to the study: 16 patients in the PexaVec/durvalumab cohorts and 18 patients in the PexaVec/durvalumab/tremelimumab cohorts. Overall, the combination of PexaVec plus immune checkpoint inhibitors did not result in any unexpected toxicities. Most common toxicities observed were fever and chills after PexaVec infusion. Two cases of grade 3 colitis, one case of a grade 2 myositis and one case of grade 3 hypotension resulted in discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitor and PexaVec treatment, respectively. The median PFS in the PexaVec/durvalumab/tremelimumab cohorts was 2.3 months (95% CI: 2.2 to 3.2 months) vs 2.1 months (95% CI: 1.7 to 2.8 months; p=0.57) in the PexaVec/durvalumab cohorts. Flow cytometry analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells revealed an increase in Ki67⁺CD8⁺ T cells on treatment.

CONCLUSION

PexaVec in combination with durvalumab and tremelimumab is safe and tolerable. No unexpected toxicities were observed. The combination of PexaVec/durvalumab/tremelimumab demonstrated potential clinical activity in patients with pMMR mCRC, but further studies are needed to identify the predictive biomarkers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03206073.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have historically had few options and faced extremely poor prognoses if their disease progressed after standard-of-care tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Recently, the standard of care for HCC has been transformed as a combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacizumab was shown to offer improved overall survival in the first-line setting. Immunotherapy has demonstrated safety and efficacy in later lines of therapy as well, and ongoing trials are investigating novel combinations of ICIs and TKIs, in addition to interventions earlier in the course of disease or in combination with liver-directed therapies. Because HCC usually develops against a background of cirrhosis, immunotherapy for liver tumors is complex and oncologists need to account for both immunological and hepatological considerations when developing a treatment plan for their patients. To provide guidance to the oncology community on important concerns for the immunotherapeutic care of HCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for HCC, including diagnosis and staging, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with HCC.