The evolving posology and administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors: subcutaneous formulations

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer care. Recently, atezolizumab gained its first global approval in a subcutaneous (SC) formulation by the UK medicines regulator, being notable as the first time an FDA- and/or European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved ICI has been licensed via this administration route. Here, we discuss this approval, other SC ICIs in development, and the benefits and challenges of this administration route, including potential implications for patient care.

Gene of the month: cancer testis antigen gene 1b (NY-ESO-1)

Cancer testis antigen gene 1B (CTAG1B) and its associated gene product; New York oesophageal squamous carcinoma 1 (NY-ESO-1), represent a unique and promising target for cancer immunotherapy. As a member of the cancer testis antigen family (CTA), the protein's restricted expression pattern and ability to elicit spontaneous humoural and cellular immune responses has resulted in a plethora of novel modalities and approaches attempting to harness its immunotherapeutic anti-cancer potential. Here, we discuss the structure and function of CTAG1B/NY-ESO-1 in both health and disease, immunohistochemical detection, as well as the most promising advances in the development of associated anti-cancer therapies. From cancer vaccines to engineered cellular therapy approaches, a multitude of immunotherapies targeting CTA's are coming to the forefront of oncology. Although the efficacy of such approaches have yet to provide convincing evidence of durable response, early phase clinical trial data has resulted in some exciting findings which will have significant potential to act as a platform for future practice changing technologies.

Hormonal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer: a population-based study from the California cancer registry

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate how often men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) receive standard of care treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

Men aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed mPC (stage IV) between 2010 and 2018 were identified using California Cancer Registry data. Receipt of hormonal therapy as initial cancer treatment was examined by patient/tumor characteristics at time of diagnosis. Chi-square tests and logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, were performed to assess association between receipt of hormonal therapy and patient/tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 13,680 men with newly diagnosed mPC, of which 3637 had local metastasis (N1) only while 9596 had distant metastasis (M1) with or without N1 disease. 21.8 % (n = 2980) of men did not receive ADT. The highest rate of receiving ADT was among men between ages 75-84 (81.6%) and the lowest rate was in men over 85 (76.0%). Asian men had the largest proportion receiving ADT (n = 962, 81.5%) with remaining subgroups having similar proportion of men receiving ADT (76.8% to 77.2%). Once adjusted for covariates, regression results showed men with a higher Gleason score (8-10) were more likely to receive ADT (OR 2.04, 1.82-2.27, p = < 0.001) as well as men with distant sites of metastatic disease (OR 4.02, 3.62-4.46, p = < 0.001). Men residing in neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status were least likely to receive ADT (OR 0.79, 0.68-0.93, p = 0.0032). No differences in receipt of ADT were observed by race/ethnicity.

DISCUSSION

Despite significant advancements in the treatment of mPC in recent years, over one-fifth of patients did not receive ADT, which is the backbone for all new systemic therapies. This dataset might help address some of the prostate cancer care disparities in California.

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

From the European Medicines Agency to Project Orbis: new activities and challenges to facilitate UK oncology drug approval following Brexit

The departure of the UK from the European Union (EU) and affiliated European regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency, on Dec 31, 2020, has resulted in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency becoming an independent national regulator. This change has required a fundamental transformation of the UK drug regulatory landscape, creating both opportunities and challenges for future development of oncology drugs. New UK pharmaceutical policies have sought to make the UK an attractive market for drug development and regulatory review, by offering expedited review pathways coupled to strong collaborative relations with other leading international medicines regulators, outside of Europe. Oncology is a key global therapy area for both drug development and regulatory approval, and the UK Government has been keen to show regulatory innovation and international collaboration through approval of new cancer medicines. In this Policy Review, we examine the new UK regulatory frameworks, policies, and global collaborations affecting new oncology drug approvals after departure from the EU. We explore some of the challenges that might lie ahead as the UK creates new and independent regulatory review and approval processes for the next generation of cancer medicines.

Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective

In our 2020 consensus paper, we devised ten recommendations for conducting Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials to evaluate cancer drugs. Within weeks of its publication, the UK was hit by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Large CID trials were prioritised to compare the efficacy of new and repurposed COVID-19 treatments and inform regulatory decisions. The unusual circumstances of the pandemic meant studies such as RECOVERY were opened almost immediately and recruited record numbers of participants. However, trial teams were required to make concessions and adaptations to these studies to ensure recruitment was rapid and broad. As these are relevant to cancer trials that enrol patients with similar risk factors, we have added three new recommendations to our original ten: employing pragmatism such as using focused information sheets and collection of only the most relevant data; minimising negative environmental impacts with paperless systems; and using direct-to-patient communication methods to improve uptake. These recommendations can be applied to all oncology CID trials to improve their inclusivity, uptake and efficiency. Above all, the success of CID studies during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores their efficacy as tools for rapid treatment evaluation.

Racial Diversity and Reporting in United States Food and Drug Administration Registration Trials for Thoracic Malignancies from 2006 to 2020

There is significant racial disparity in thoracic malignancies in terms of epidemiology and outcomes. We analyzed race reporting and racial diversity in the registration trials of drugs approved by the FDA for thoracic malignancies from 2006 to 2020. We found a significant under-representation of non-white participants in FDA drug registration trials in thoracic malignancies. Furthermore, though almost all trials report some race information, FDA guidelines are not universally followed. There is a disproportionate disease burden of lung cancer in under-represented race communities, and clinical trials should prioritize racial diversity and inclusion efforts.

Polymorphic microbes: a new emerging hallmark of cancer

Recognition of the microbiome (and 'polymorphic microbes' within them) as a new emerging hallmark of cancer reflects a wide body of rapidly evolving research. Microbes may be directly carcinogenic, impact host immune responses to promote malignancy, and may be key effectors in determining the efficacy of anticancer therapy. Manipulation of the microbiome is showing promise as an opportunity to influence cancer outcomes.

Association of prior local therapy and outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

We included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately.

CONCLUSION

Prior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

Polymeric Carriers for Delivery of RNA Cancer Therapeutics

As research uncovers the underpinnings of cancer biology, new targeted therapies have been developed. Many of these therapies are small molecules, such as kinase inhibitors, that target specific proteins; however, only 1% of the genome encodes for proteins and only a subset of these proteins has ‘druggable’ active binding sites. In recent decades, RNA therapeutics have gained popularity due to their ability to affect targets that small molecules cannot. Additionally, they can be manufactured more rapidly and cost-effectively than small molecules or recombinant proteins. RNA therapeutics can be synthesised chemically and altered quickly, which can enable a more personalised approach to cancer treatment. Even though a wide range of RNA therapeutics are being developed for various indications in the oncology setting, none has reached the clinic to date. One of the main reasons for this is attributed to the lack of safe and effective delivery systems for this type of therapeutic. This review focuses on current strategies to overcome these challenges and enable the clinical utility of these novel therapeutic agents in the cancer clinic.

Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019

IMPORTANCE

Ensuring patients have access to safe and efficacious medicines in a timely manner is an essential goal for regulatory agencies, one which has particular importance in oncology because of the substantial unmet need for new therapies. The 2 largest regulatory agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), have pivotal global roles, and their recommendations and approvals are frequently followed by other national regulators.

OBJECTIVE

To compare market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe over the past decade and to examine and contrast the regulatory activities of the FDA and EMA in the approval of new cancer medicines.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study reviewed the FDA and EMA regulatory databases to identify new oncology therapies approved in both the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019, and characterization of the timings of regulatory activities. Statistical analysis was performed from January to April 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Regulatory approval date, review time, submission of market authorization application, accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization status and proportion of approvals prior to peer-reviewed publication of pivotal trial results.

RESULTS

In total, 89 new concomitant oncology therapies were approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019. The FDA approved 85 oncology therapies (95%) before European authorization and 4 therapies (5%) after. The median (IQR) delay in market authorization for new oncology therapies in Europe was 241 (150-370) days compared with the US. The median (IQR) review time was 200 (155-277) days for the FDA and 426 (358-480) days for the EMA. Sixty-four new licensing applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA. Thirty-five oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA prior to pivotal study publication, whereas only 8 (9%) by the EMA.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, new oncology therapies were approved earlier in the US than Europe. The FDA received licensing applications sooner and had shorter review times. However, more therapies were approved prior to licensing study publication, leaving uncertainty for practitioners regarding clinical utility and safety of newly approved therapies.

Response and Outcomes to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Urothelial Cancer Based on Prior Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but response rates can be modest. We compared outcomes between patients with and without prior intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), who received ICI for aUC, hypothesizing that prior intravesical BCG would be associated with worse outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study across 25 institutions in US and Europe. We compared observed response rate (ORR) using logistic regression; progression-free survival (PFS) and OS using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. Analyses were stratified by treatment line (first line/salvage) and included multivariable models adjusting for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

A total of 1026 patients with aUC were identified; 614, 617, and 638 were included in ORR, OS, PFS analyses, respectively. Overall, 150 pts had history of prior intravesical BCG treatment. ORR to ICI was similar between those with and without prior intravesical BCG exposure in both first line and salvage settings (adjusted odds radios 0.55 [P= .08] and 1.65 [P= .12]). OS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.05 [P= .79] and 1.13 [P= .49]) and PFS (adjusted hazard ratios 1.12 [P= .55] and 0.87 [P= .39]) were similar between those with and without intravesical BCG exposure in first line and salvage settings.

CONCLUSION

Prior intravesical BCG was not associated with differences in response and survival in patients with aUC treated with ICI. Limitations include retrospective nature, lack of randomization, presence of selection and confounding biases. This study provides important preliminary data that prior intravesical BCG exposure may not impact ICI efficacy in aUC.

Cancer Drug Approvals That Displaced Existing Standard-of-Care Therapies, 2016-2021

IMPORTANCE

Although several cancer drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval each month, it is unclear how many of these cancer drugs transform the treatment landscape significantly by tumor group. Specifically, it remains unclear how many of these newly approved cancer drugs displace the existing standard-of-care therapies for their indication vs being added to existing therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how many cancer drugs displace the standard-of-care therapies vs being added to existing therapy or filling breaks in systemic treatments in the metastatic setting, adjuvant setting, or maintenance setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cross-sectional study using landmark trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. The study evaluated all FDA approvals for cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, using the FDA Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications website. All clinical trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs during this period were examined.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A drug was determined to have displaced the prior standard-of-care therapy by evaluating the comparator arm (or lack thereof) in the clinical trial leading to the drug's approval and also by reviewing National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. Cancer drug approvals were categorized as first-line displacing if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting and displaced the prior standard-of-care drug for an indication, first-line drug alternatives/new if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting but did not displace the standard of care at the time of approval or was a new drug that was first of its class for an approved indication, add on if a drug was approved in combination with a previously approved therapy for a disease or if a drug was approved for use in the adjuvant or maintenance settings, and later line if a drug was approved for use in the second-, third-, or later-line settings.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, there were 207 FDA cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology. Of these 207 approvals, 28 drugs (14%) were first-line displacing therapies. A total of 32 drugs (15%) were first-line drug alternatives/new drugs. A total of 61 drugs (29%) were add-on therapies. Finally, 86 drugs (42%) were approved as later-line therapies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, most cancer drug approvals between 2016 and 2021 were in the later-line settings as opposed to displacing the current standard-of-care therapy for the approved indication. These later-line drugs may benefit patients with few alternatives but add to the cost of care because competition in the drug markets is a key factor in leading to lower drug prices.

The iceberg plot, improving the visualisation of therapy response in oncology in the era of sequence-directed therapy

Modern clinical cancer research increasingly relies on the visual communication of complex response and treatment sequencing data. Graphical representations used in oncology currently fail to provide adequate information on any prior treatment(s) responses, focussing on current treatment effects in isolation. We have developed a new graphical illustration, the 'iceberg plot,' to allow improved comparison of prior treatment response with current therapy. To demonstrate the potential clinical utility of this new graphical representation, we have performed an independent reanalysis of a clinical study trialling sequence-directed therapy. In this example, prior therapy responses are contrasted with current treatment response, with further validation using the 'Von Hoff' criteria to assess for exceptional response. This example demonstrates the versatility and clinical utility of the 'iceberg plot,' showing what was previously hidden and provides improved visualisation of prior and current treatment responses together.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020

IMPORTANCE

Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020.

EXPOSURES

Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective.

RESULTS

There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

The potential of fecal microbiota transplantation in oncology

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) are efficacious treatments for several cancers. However, most patients fail to demonstrate durable complete responses. The gut microbiome composition influences the ICPI response. Two recent proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the utility of fecal microbiota transplantation to transform ICPI responsiveness in refractory patients, providing intriguing evidence for the future of microbiota modulation within oncology.

Clinical outcomes in COVID-19 and cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 continues to pose a significant healthcare challenge throughout the world. Comorbidities including diabetes and hypertension are associated with a significantly higher mortality risk. However, the effect of cirrhosis on COVID-19 outcomes has yet to be systematically assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reported clinical outcomes of patients with cirrhosis who develop COVID-19 infection.

DESIGN/METHOD

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies included up to 3 February 2021. All English language primary research articles that reported clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and COVID-19 were included. The study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognostic Score (QUIPS) risk-of-bias assessment instrument for prognostic factor studies template. Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane RevMan V.5.4 software using a random effects model.

RESULTS

63 studies were identified reporting clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and concomitant COVID-19. Meta-analysis of cohort studies which report a non-cirrhotic comparator yielded a pooled mortality OR of 2.48 (95% CI: 2.02 to 3.04). Analysis of a subgroup of studies reporting OR for mortality in hospitalised patients adjusted for significant confounders found a pooled adjusted OR 1.81 (CI: 1.36 to 2.42).

CONCLUSION

Cirrhosis is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 infection compared to non-cirrhotic patients. Patients with cirrhosis should be considered for targeted public health interventions to prevent COVID-19 infection, such as shielding and prioritisation of vaccination.

Exploring the Epigenome in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasias

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasias are a diverse group of neoplasms with different characteristics in terms of site, biological behaviour and metastatic potential. In comparison to other cancers, they are genetically quiet, harbouring relatively few somatic mutations. It is increasingly becoming evident that epigenetic changes are as relevant, if not more so, as somatic mutations in promoting oncogenesis. Despite significant tumour heterogeneity, it is obvious that DNA methylation, histone and chromatin modifications and microRNA expression profiles are distinctive for GEP-NEN subtypes and may correlate with clinical outcome. This review summarises existing knowledge on epigenetic changes, identifying potential contributions to pathogenesis and oncogenesis. In particular, we focus on epigenetic changes pertaining to well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours, which make up the bulk of NENs. We also highlight both similarities and differences within the subtypes of GEP-NETs and how these relate and compare to other types of cancers. We relate epigenetic understanding to existing treatments and explore how this knowledge may be exploited in the development of novel treatment approaches, such as in theranostics and combining conventional treatment modalities. We consider potential barriers to epigenetic research in GEP-NENs and discuss strategies to optimise research and development of new therapies.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced upper and lower tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison of outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line).

RESULTS

Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed-histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively).

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed-histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy.

Gene of the month: lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3)

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) is a coreceptor found on activated T-lymphocytes activated B-lymphocytes and natural killer (NK) cells. It is closely related to CD4 where it shares multiple common and divergent features. It contains specific binding sites with high affinity to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) Class II and functions as an inhibitor of T-cell signalling. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes with high LAG-3 expression have been found in many solid tumours including ovarian cancer, melanoma, colorectal cancer and haematological malignancies including Hodgkin and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. LAG-3 antagonism has been demonstrated to restore the anti-tumourigenic function of T-cells in vivo, however, mechanistic knowledge remains relatively poorly defined. As other immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the management of difficult to treat cancers, such as melanoma, it is hoped that LAG-3 might have the same potential. This review will explore LAG-3 modulation as an anticancer therapy, highlighting recent clinical developments.

Comparison of COVID-19 Vaccine Approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada

This qualitative improvement study investigates COVID-19 vaccine approvals at 3 medicine regulatory agencies in the US, EU, and Canada, characterizing and contrasting regulatory review times, and analyzing the clinical evidence supporting authorization.

A New Prognostic Model in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in the first-line (1L) setting for cisplatin-unfit patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high tumors or for platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-unfit patients, response rates remain modest and outcomes vary with no clinically useful biomarkers (except for PD-L1).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving 1L ICIs for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) in a multicenter cohort study.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients treated with 1L ICIs for aUC across 24 institutions and five countries (in the USA and Europe) outside clinical trials were included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used a stepwise, hypothesis-driven approach using clinician-selected covariates to develop a new risk score for patients receiving ICIs in the 1L setting. Demographics, clinicopathologic data, treatment patterns, and OS were collected uniformly. Univariate Cox regression was performed on 18 covariates hypothesized to be associated with OS based on published data. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis (MVA) if they correlated with OS (p < 0.2) and were included in the final model if p < 0.05 on MVA. Retained covariates were assigned points based on the beta coefficient to create a risk score. Stratified median OS and C-statistic were calculated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 984 patients, 357 with a mean age of 71 yr were included in the analysis, 27% were female, 68% had pure UC, and 13% had upper tract UC. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases were significant prognostic factors on MVA and were included in the risk score. C index for new 1L risk score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.71). Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a new 1L ICI risk score for OS based on data from patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the USA and Europe outside of clinical trials. The score components highlight readily available factors related to tumor biology and treatment response. External validation is being pursued.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With multiple new treatments under development and approved for advanced urothelial carcinoma, it can be difficult to identify the best treatment sequence for each patient. The risk score may help inform treatment discussions and estimate outcomes in patients treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, while it can also impact clinical trial design and endpoints. TAKE  HOME MESSAGE: A new risk score was developed for advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. The score assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases each one point, with a higher score being associated with worse overall survival.

P96 Project Consent: Introducing EIDO leaflets to improve patient experience

Introduction

With increased litigation and media attention around the consent process it is vital we ensure patients understand what their operation entails prior to surgery. North Bristol Trust has recently started using EIDO consent leaflets; currently used in 50% of NHS hospitals . Our aim was to calculate how many patients received EIDO healthcare consent leaflets and whether this affected their experience of the consent process.

Method

Questionnaires made up of Likert scale and open ended questions were distributed to patients undergoing Upper GI surgery on the day of their operation. The questionnaire explored whether patients received an EIDO leaflet pre-operatively, their understanding of the risks and benefits and their satisfaction with the consent process. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare responses from the included patients.

Results

12 patients received EIDO leaflets during their pre-operative consultation, six did not. Compared with those that did not, patients who received a leaflet had a better understanding of the risks (p = 0.002), benefits (p = 0.008) and details of the operation (p = 0.005) and were happier with the consent process (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Including EIDO leaflets in the consent process helps ensure patients making an informed decision and improves the smooth running of theatre lists. We are currently introducing EIDO consent leaflets throughout general surgery for emergency operations and when sending out dates of elective operations. We aim to review the use of these leaflets as the consent process becomes increasingly difficult due to COVID 19 and the lack of face to face interaction.

V6 PRIMROSE: A national trainee collaborative-led, multicentre prospective audit on the care of breast cancer patients with central nervous system disease in the UK

PRIMROSE

A national trainee collaborative-led, multicentre prospective audit on the care of breast cancer patients with central nervous system disease in the UK

Mark P Lythgoe1, Vinton WT Cheng2, Hayley S McKenzie3, Amy Kwan4, Apostolos Konstantis5, Ruichong Ma6, Pei J Teo7, Amanda Fitzpatrick8, Laura Woodhouse9 & Carlo Palmieri10 on behalf of the BNTRC† and PRIMROSE study group

1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, 2Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, 3University of Southampton, Southampton, 4University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 5The Princess Alexandra NHS Trust, Harlow 6Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, 7Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, 8Institute of Cancer Research, London, 9The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, 10University of Liverpool, Liverpool, †British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative

Introduction

Breast cancer is the commonest cancer in the UK and the 4th leading cause of cancer-related death. Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) are a poor prognostic indicator and associated with very poor survival and only a minority of patients survive >1 year despite oncological treatment. The rising prevalence of patients with BCBM represent an increasing unmet healthcare need. However, in the UK there is a paucity of data about prevalence, survival and management. Guidance on managing brain metastases is improving, however it is unclear how this has been applied in the context of BCBM and whether recommended standards are uniformly applied across the UK

Methods

PRIMROSE is a trainee collaborative-led initiative to estimate BCBM prevalence, assess current practice (comparing national/international standards) and determine long term outcomes/sequalae. Anonymised data is being pooled via secure REDCap database collating demographics, clinico-pathological information, prior treatment, BCBM treatment and other key variables. All UK hospitals can register, with recruitment driven by trainees via the UK Breast Cancer Trainees Research Collaborative Group and British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative. Senior oversight will be provided by a local consultant oncologist or neurosurgeon.

Results

Opened in Jan 2020, 180 datasets have been entered, despite significant disrupted due to COVID-19 from Feburary to May). Over 25 sites are open/in the process of joining. Trainee networks have been established in all regions of the UK with the exception of Yorkshire and The Humber, East of England and North East England. Promotion of the network has occurred at significant oncology conferences (e.g. San Antonio Breast Meeting, and National Cancer Research Institute). We plan to expand to all major UK neurosurgical and oncology centres by December 2020, with data collection completed by December 2021.

Conclusions

PRIMROSE demonstrates the utility of trainee collaborative networks in rapidly organising large-scale multicentre data collection to understand care of patients at a national level. Such information will be important for identifying current pactice and act as a benchmark for improving local service delivery for patients with BCBM.

Development and economic trends in anticancer drugs licensed in the UK from 2015 to 2019

Analysis of new anticancer drugs licensed in the UK found that 44 new therapies were approved from 2015 to 2019. No other 5-year period has produced as many new therapies. Most new drugs are kinase inhibitors (KIs, N=18) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs, N=16) with only one classical cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) licensed. The average median treatment duration has risen by 55 days to 318 days (263 days in 2010-2014). Drug costs have escalated; an average treatment course now costs £62 343, compared to £35 383 in 2010-2014. New drugs are delivering significant clinical benefits with longer treatment durations. However, the financial burden is greater, heralding economic challenges for healthcare providers.

Safe administration of chemotherapy in mast cell activation syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) is an immunogenic disorder typically presenting with episodic multi-organ symptoms, caused by the inappropriate and aberrant release of mast cell mediators. Symptoms may be severe, including anaphylaxis and often occur in response to specific triggers which include many drugs and potentially chemotherapeutic agents. The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in endometrial cancer significantly reduces the risk of reoccurrence in patients with high risk disease. Currently there is no evidence or case reports to guide the safe administration of chemotherapy in MCAS patients.

CASE REPORT

We present the case of a 59-year-old lady with stage 3 A grade 2 endometroid endometrial cancer who underwent successful surgical management. She then received 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy in the form of carboplatin and paclitaxel. This case describes a staged approach to chemotherapy administration and the utilisation of a carboplatin desensitization regimen to reduce the risk of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity sequalae.Management & outcome: Utilising an enhanced pre-medication strategy and a staged approach to chemotherapy administration, she was able to complete adjuvant treatment without any serious complications. At the date of censoring (May 2020) she has not shown any evidence of disease re-occurrence.Discussion & conclusion: Administering chemotherapy to patients with any mast cell disorder remains challenging. We hope that this case may provide the framework for safer chemotherapy administration for any patients at high risk of serious hypersensitivity sequalae in endometrial cancer and beyond.

Advances in cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors for the treatment of melanoma

Introduction: Despite the recent advances in the treatment of malignant melanoma with immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK targeted agents, advanced disease still beholds a poor prognosis for a significant proportion of patients. Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors have been investigated as novel melanoma therapeutics throughout a range of phase 1 and 2 trials, as single agents and in combination with established treatments. Areas covered: This article summarizes the rationale for, and development of CDK inhibitors in melanoma, with their evolution from pan-CDK inhibitors to highly specific agents, throughout clinical trials and finally their potential future use. Expert opinion: Whilst CDK inhibitors have been practice changing in breast cancer management, their efficacy is yet to be proven in melanoma. Combination with BRAF/MEK inhibitors has been hindered by dose-limiting toxicities, but their role may yet to be found within the spectrum of biomarker-derived personalized melanoma management. The effect that CDK inhibitors can have as an adjunct to immunotherapy also remains to be seen.

The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.