Category: Meeting Updates

Late Breaking Abstract – ASCO 2016 ROVA-T, First Targeted Treatment for Small Cell lung Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women and the American Cancer Society estimates that for 2016, about 224,390 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed and over 158,000 patients will die of the disease. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 13-15 percent of all lung cancers and is aggressive. The five year survival rate for extensive stage SCLC is less than 5% with a median survival of 9 to 10 months from the time of diagnosis. Patients are often treated with chemotherapy and radiation in the first and second line setting. The Overall Response Rate (ORR) in the third line setting is approximately 18% and the one year Overall Survival is approximately 12%. These patients typically have a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. Delta-like protein 3 also known as DLL3, is encoded by the DLL3 gene and is expressed on the surface of tumor cells but not in normal adult tissues. Patients with high-grade pulmonary NeuroEndocrine Tumors, Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) and Large Cell NeuroEndocrine Carcinoma (LCNEC) have increased expression of DLL3 protein (increased expression seen in approximately 80% of the tumors).

Rovalpituzumab Tesirine (Rova-T) is a first-in-class DLL3-targeted Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) comprised of a humanized anti-DLL3 monoclonal antibody, conjugated to a DNA-damaging PyrroloBenzoDiazepine (PBD) dimer toxin. Rova-T delivers the cytotoxin directly to the DLL3-expressing cancer cells while minimizing toxicity to healthy cells.

The authors in this open-label, Phase 1a/1b, multicenter study, included seventy four (N=74) patients with SCLC who had progressed after at least one previous systemic therapy. Previous therapies included Platinum/Etoposide (96%) and radiation therapy (82%). The majority of patients (76%) had extensive disease at presentation, with 28% having CNS metastases. Over 85% of patients had DLL3 expression on 1% or more of tumor cells and 67% of the patients had DLL3 expression on 50% or more of tumor cells (DLL3-high expression). Patients received Rova-T at doses ranging from 0.05 to 0.8 mg/kg every 3 or 6 weeks. The median age was 61 years. The primary endpoints of the study were Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Maximum Tolerated Dose and secondary endpoints included Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS).

Rova-T demonstrated an Overall Response Rate of 39% and Clinical Benefit Rate (stable disease or better) of 89%, in patients with recurrent or refractory Small Cell Lung Cancer identified with high expression of DLL3. The one year Overall Survival rate was 32% in the patient group identified with high expression of DLL3. The most common adverse events were rash, fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, pleural effusion, peripheral edema and thrombocytopenia.

The authors concluded that Rovalpituzumab Tesirine (Rova-T) has significant single-agent anti-tumor activity with manageable toxicity, in recurrent or refractory SCLC, and is the first biomarker-directed therapy to be defined, for the treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer. Safety and efficacy of single-agent rovalpituzumab tesirine (SC16LD6.5), a delta-like protein 3 (DLL3)-targeted antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) in recurrent or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Rudin CM, Pietanza MC, Bauer TM, et al. J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl; abstr LBA8505)

Late Breaking Abstract – ASH 2016 Dramatic Responses in Patients with Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) with anti-CD19 CAR T Cells

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2016, about 72,580 people will be diagnosed with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) in the United States and about 20,150 individuals will die of this disease. Patients with refractory DLBCL have poor outcomes with chemotherapy, and have a response rate of 20%-30% and median overall survival of approximately 6 months (J Clin Oncol 34, 2016, suppl; abstr. 7516), and thus represents a significant unmet medical need. Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a type of immunotherapy in which T cells are collected from the patient’s own blood and are genetically engineered to produce special receptors on their surface called Chimeric Antigen Receptors (CAR’s). The cytotoxic T cells with these chimeric antigen receptors on their surface are now able to recognize a specific antigen on tumor cells. These engineered CAR T-cells which are grown in the lab are then infused into the patient and they in turn proliferate in the patient’s body and the engineered receptor on their surface help recognize and kill cancer cells that expresses that specific antigen. CD19 antigen is expressed by majority of the B cell malignancies and therefore most studies using CAR T-cell therapy have focused on the treatment of advanced B-cell malignancies such as Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) and Non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), such as Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL).

The KTE-C19 (anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells) construct consists of an extracellular domain which recognizes and targets the CD19 antigen on the surface of tumor cells, and the intracellular domains to avoid activation of hidden signals to the T-cells. ZUMA-1 is a multicenter phase I/II trial of anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells (KTE-C19) in refractory, aggressive NHL and this study included patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), Primary Mediastinal B-Cell Lymphoma (PMBCL), and Transformed Follicular Lymphoma (TFL). In the phase I component of this study, 43% of the patients had ongoing Complete Responses at 12 months.

Phase II of ZUMA-1 included 2 patient cohorts based on the tumor type. Cohort 1 included DLBCL and patients in cohort 2 had PMBCL or TFL. Refractory disease was defined as progressive or stable disease as best response to last line of therapy, or disease progression 12 months or less after Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT). All included patients received a prior anti-CD20 antibody and an Anthracycline-containing regimen. The median age was 58 years, 78% were refractory to 2 or more lines of therapy, 20% relapsed less than 12 months after ASCT. Patients received a low-dose conditioning regimen of Cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 IV and Fludarabine 30 mg/m2 IV, daily for 3 days followed by a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg. The primary endpoint was Objective Response Rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints include Duration of Response, frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and serum cytokines. The authors presented the results of a pre-specified interim analysis from cohort 1 and 51 patients in cohort 1 were eligible for analysis.

The study met its primary endpoint and with a minimal follow up of three months, the ORR was 76% compared with ORR of 20% in historical controls (P<0.0001). Complete Responses were noted in 47% of the patients and Partial Response rate was 29%. Majority of the responses (92%) occurred within the first month, and the Complete Response Rate at 3 months was 33% and 39% of the patients had ongoing responses at 3 months. The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients. The most frequent more than grade 3 toxicities were cytopenias, encephalopathy and hypophosphatemia. Grade 3 or more Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 20-30% of the patients.

The authors concluded that this is the first reported multicenter trial of CAR T cell therapy in patients with refractory aggressive NHL and therapy with KTE-C19 induced a nearly six fold higher Complete Response Rate compared to historical outcomes and efficacy was strongly associated with peak CAR T levels. KTE-C19 (anti-CD19 CAR T Cells) Induces Complete Remissions in Patients with Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Results from the Pivotal Phase 2 ZUMA-1.Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Presented at: American Society of Hematology 58th Annual Meeting; December 3-6, 2016; San Diego, CA. Abstract LBA6.

Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Can Be Avoided in Some High Risk Breast Cancer Patients

RR

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. Approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2016 and 40,450 women will die of the disease. Axillary lymph node evaluation is an important part of breast cancer staging and the presence of axillary lymph metastases decreases the 5-year survival rate by 28-40%. Axillary lymph node status remains the most powerful predictor of breast cancer recurrence and survival. Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND) was first advocated in the 18th century as part of the treatment of invasive breast cancer and has been standard practice until 2 decades back. ALND can be associated with significant morbidities such as upper limb lymphedema, pain, and sensitivity disorders and this can have a major psychological impact on breast cancer patients. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) which was introduced into clinical practice in the mid 1990’s, however has now become a standard method of treatment for stage I and II breast cancer. This therapeutic surgical modality facilitates selective histopathological evaluation of the sentinel lymph nodes rather than routine lymphadenectomy, thereby sparing the patient from the morbidities associated with ALND. Several studies have shown no statistically significant difference in the axillary recurrence risk and survival rates, between these two therapeutic surgical modalities.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is considered standard practice in women with locally advanced breast cancer. This intervention increases the possibility of breast conserving surgery in women with locally advanced breast cancer and for tumors more than 3 cm in diameter, with good cosmetic outcomes. Close to half of the patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy have no axillary lymph node involvement at the time of surgery. GANEA 2 trial was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of SLNB, a less invasive procedure, for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The researchers enrolled 590 patients with large, operable breast tumors who had no cancer in the lymph nodes as determined by axillary sonography with fine needle cytology. All patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then underwent surgery and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy. Cancer cells were detected in the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy specimens of 139 patients and these patients underwent Axillary Lymph Node Dissection.

No cancer cells were detected in the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy samples from 432 patients. Follow-up data was available for 416 of these patients. The median follow-up was 35.8 months. The Disease Free Survival at 3 years in the patient group who had no cancer cells in the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy sample, and therefore did not receive Axillary Lymph Node Dissection, was 94.8%. The Overall Survival rate was 98.7%.

The authors concluded that Axillary Lymph Node Dissection could be avoided in patients who have no signs of cancer involvement in the axillary lymph nodes, based on sonographic axillary assessment, prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy findings after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this study, the Disease Free Survival and Overall Survival rates for the patients who underwent only a Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were comparable with the historical survival rates for patients in this situation who had Axillary Lymph Node Dissection rather than Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy. Classe JM, Loaec C, Alran S, et al. Sentinel node detection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patient without previous axillary node involvement (GANEA 2 trial): follow-up of a prospective multi-institutional cohort. Presented at: 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 6-10, 2016; San Antonio, TX. Abstract S2-07.

FDA Approves TECENTRIQ® for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on October 18, 2016, approved TECENTRIQ® (Atezolizumab) for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women and accounts for about 13% of all new cancers and 27% of all cancer deaths. The American Cancer Society estimates that for 2016 about 224,390 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed and over 158,000 patients will die of the disease. Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. The treatment paradigm for malignancies has been rapidly evolving, with a better understanding of the Immune checkpoints or gate keepers. Immune checkpoints are cell surface inhibitory proteins/receptors that are expressed on activated T cells. They harness the immune system and prevent uncontrolled immune reactions. Survival of cancer cells in the human body may be to a significant extent related to their ability to escape immune surveillance, by inhibiting T lymphocyte activation. The T cells of the immune system therefore play a very important role in modulating the immune system. Under normal circumstances, Immune checkpoints or gate keepers inhibit an intense immune response by switching off the T cells of the immune system. With the recognition of Immune checkpoint proteins and their role in suppressing antitumor immunity, antibodies are now available that target the membrane bound inhibitory Immune checkpoint proteins/receptors such as CTLA-4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4, also known as CD152), PD-1(Programmed cell Death 1), as well as Programmed cell Death Ligands (PD-L1), that are expressed by cells in the tumor micro environment. By targeting the Immune check point proteins or their ligands, T cells are unleashed, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response.

TECENTRIQ® (Atezolizumab) is an anti PD-L1 monoclonal antibody designed to directly bind to PD-L1 expressed on tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating Immune Cells, thereby blocking its interactions with PD-1 and B7.1 receptors and thus enabling the activation of T cells and restoring tumor-specific T-cell immunity. The approval of TECENTRIQ® was based two international, clinical trials (OAK and POPLAR trials). TECENTRIQ® demonstrated survival benefit compared to Docetaxel in a multicenter, randomized, phase II study (POPLAR trial). In this study, the median Overall Survival was 12.6 months and 9.7 months (HR=0.69) for the TECENTRIQ® and Docetaxel groups respectively.

OAK trial is a global, multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled Phase III study in which 1225 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, whose disease had progressed following previous treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy, were enrolled. Patients with both squamous and non-squamous histology were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TECENTRIQ® 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks or Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to PD-L1 status, number of prior chemotherapy regimens and histology. The median age was 64 years, 25% had 2 prior lines of therapy and 26% had squamous histology. The co-primary endpoints were Overall Survival (OS) in all randomized patients and in a PD-L1 selected subgroup in the primary analysis population. Secondary endpoints included Progression Free Survival, Objective Response Rate, Duration of Response and Safety.

The primary efficacy analysis was conducted and reported in the first 850 of 1225 total enrolled patients. The median Overall Survival was 13.8 months in the TECENTRIQ® group compared to 9.6 months in the Docetaxel group (HR=0.74; P=0.0004), with a 26% improvement in Overall Survival in the patient group who received TECENTRIQ®. This benefit was seen regardless of their PD-L1 expression levels, including patients whose tumors displayed PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Patients with high PD-L1 expression had more pronounced benefit with TECENTRIQ® with a 59% improvement in OS compared with Docetaxel (HR=0.41; P<0.0001). The OS benefit was similar in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. The most common adverse reactions in patients in patients treated with TECENTRIQ® were fatigue, decreased appetite, dyspnea, cough, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, and constipation.

The authors concluded that TECENTRIQ® offers a new second-line therapeutic strategy for patients with Non Small Cell Lung Cancer, with Overall Survival benefit, regardless of the PD-L1 status of the tumor. Primary analysis from OAK, a randomized phase III study comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in 2L/3L NSCLC. Barlesi F, Park K, Ciardiello F et al. Abstract LBA44_PR. Presented at: 2016 ESMO Congress; October 7–11 (2016) Copenhagen, Denmark.

Late Breaking Abstract – ASH 2016 Superior Efficacy Data with Pacritinib in Myelofibrosis

RR

SUMMARY: Myelofibrosis is a MyeloProliferative Neoplasm (MPN) characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, progressive fibrosis of the bone marrow and potential for leukemic transformation. This stem cell disorder is Philadelphia Chromosome negative and manifestations include anemia, splenomegaly and related symptoms such as abdominal distension and discomfort with early satiety. Cytokine driven debilitating symptoms such as fatigue, fever, night sweats, weight loss, pruritus and bone or muscle pain can further impact an individual’s quality of life. Myelofibrosis can be primary (PMF) or secondary to Polycythemia Vera (PV) or Essential Thrombocythemia (ET). The JAK-STAT signaling pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis of Myelofibrosis. This pathway normally is responsible for passing information from outside the cell through the cell membrane to the DNA in the nucleus, for gene transcription. Janus Kinase (JAK) family of tyrosine kinases are cytoplasmic proteins and include JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 and TYK2. JAK1 helps propagate the signaling of inflammatory cytokines whereas JAK2 is essential for growth and differentiation of hematopoietic stem cells. These tyrosine kinases mediate cell signaling by recruiting STAT’s (Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription), with resulting modulation of gene expression. In patients with MPN, the aberrant myeloproliferation is the result of dysregulated JAK2-STAT signaling as well as excess production of inflammatory cytokines associated with this abnormal signaling. These cytokines contribute to the symptoms often reported by patients with MF. JAK2 mutations such as JAK2 V617F are seen in approximately 60% of the patients with PMF and ET and 95% of patients with PV. Unlike CML where the BCR-ABL fusion gene triggers the disease, JAK2 mutations are not initiators of the disease and are not specific for MPN. Further, several other genetic events may contribute to the abnormal JAK2-STAT signaling.

Pacritinib is a potent JAK2 inhibitor, without significant JAK1 inhibition. It additionally targets FLT3, IRAK1, and CSF1R. Preliminary studies have shown minimal myelosuppression with Pacritinib. JAKAFI® (Ruxolitinib) is a potent JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor approved by the FDA in 2011 to treat intermediate or high-risk Myelofibrosis. It is however not indicated for patients with platelet counts under 50,000/μl, and this group represents approximately one third of Myelofibrosis patients and have limited or no treatment options. Previously published PERSIST-1 trial showed that Pacritinib significantly reduced Spleen Volume and Myelofibrosis associated symptoms, in patients with low platelet count, when compared to Best Available Therapy (excluding JAKAFI®).

PERSIST-2 is an open label, phase III study in which the safety and efficacy of Pacritinib was compared with currently available therapies, including JAKAFI®, thus expanding the definition of Best Available Therapy (BAT). A total of 311 patients with platelet counts 100,000/μl or less were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive Pacritinib 200 mg BID (N=107), 400 mg QD (N=104) or Best Available Therapy (N=100). The efficacy population in the Intent To Treat group included a total of 221 patients. Approximately half of the study population had platelet counts of less than 50,000/μl. Over 40% of the patients in both the treatment groups had prior therapy with JAKAFI®. About 60-70% of the patients had a diagnoses of Primary Myelofibrosis, and half of the patients fell in the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Intermediate-2 risk category. The two coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving 35% or greater reduction in Spleen Volume (SVR) as measured by MRI or CT scan and the proportion achieving a 50% or more improvement in symptoms such as fatigue, bone pain, itching, and abdominal pain after 24 weeks of follow up. The secondary objectives were to compare Pacritinib BID and Pacritinib QD, individually to BAT.

It was noted that 18% of patients who received Pacritinib achieved a 35% or greater reduction in Spleen Volume from baseline to week 24, compared to 3% of those in the BAT group (P=0.001). In the patient group who received Pacritinib twice daily, 32% reported a 50% or more reduction in symptoms compared with 14% in the BAT group (P=0.01). Further, patients treated with Pacritinib required fewer red blood cell transfusions and additionally, patients who received Pacritinib twice daily had substantially greater improvement in platelet count among those who had platelets counts 50,000/μl or less at enrollment. The most common adverse events related to Pacritinib included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anemia, and low platelets.

The authors concluded that this is the only randomized trial to date in patients with Myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia that enrolled patients who had prior therapy with a JAK2 inhibitor. Regardless, Pacritinib was more effective at Spleen Volume Reduction than BAT and Pacritinib given BID was even more effective than QD dosing. Results of the Persist-2 Phase 3 Study of Pacritinib (PAC) Versus Best Available Therapy (BAT), Including Ruxolitinib (RUX), in Patients (pts) with Myelofibrosis (MF) and Platelet Counts <100,000/µl. Hoffman R, Talpaz M, Gerds AT, et al. 58th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition; San Diego, California; December 2-6, 2016. Abstract LBA-5.

Late Breaking Abstract – ESMO 2016 FASLODEX® Superior to ARIMIDEX® as Initial Therapy in Advanced Breast Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the US and about 1 in 8 women (12%) will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. Approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2016 and 40,450 women will die of the disease. Estrogen Receptor (ER) positive breast cancer cells are driven by estrogens. Approximately 60-65% of breast tumors express Estrogen Receptors and/or Progesterone Receptors and this is a predictor of response to endocrine therapy. These patients are often treated with anti-estrogen therapy as first line treatment. In premenopausal woman, the ovary is the main source of estrogen production, whereas in postmenopausal women, the primary source of estrogen is the Aromatase enzyme mediated conversion of androstenedione and testosterone to estrone and estradiol, in extragonadal/peripheral tissues. NOLVADEX® (Tamoxifen) is a nonsteroidal Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM) and works mainly by binding to the Estrogen Receptor and thus blocks the proliferative actions of estrogen on the mammary tissue. ARIMIDEX® (Anastrozole), FEMARA® (Letrozole) and AROMASIN® (Exemestane) are Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs) that binds to the Aromatase enzyme and inhibit the conversion of androgens to estrogens in the extra-gonadal tissues. FASLODEX® (Fulvestrant) is an estrogen antagonist and like NOLVADEX®, binds to estrogen receptors (ERs) competitively, but unlike NOLVADEX® causes rapid degradation and loss of ER protein (ER downregulator), and is devoid of ER agonist activity.

The superiority of ARIMIDEX® over NOLVADEX® was first established in the year 2000 following the publication of the results of a North American Multicenter Randomized Trial. In this study, ARIMIDEX® as first-line treatment in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer resulted in a significant increase in Time To Progression and a lower incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding, compared to NOLVADEX®. In a previously reported phase II study (FIRST trial), first-line treatment with FASLODEX® significantly improved Time To disease Progression and Overall Survival compared with ARIMIDEX®, in patients with hormone receptor (HR) positive advanced breast cancer.

The FALCON trial is a phase III study conducted to confirm findings from the FIRST trial. This study included 462 postmenopausal women, with locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative, endocrine-therapy naive breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive FASLODEX® IM at 500 mg on days 0, 1, and 28 and then every 28 days (N=230) or ARIMIDEX® 1 mg PO daily (N=232). Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was Progression Free Survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included Overall Survival, Objective Response Rate, Clinical Benefit Rate, Duration of Response, health-related Quality of Life, and safety.

It was noted that FASLODEX® provided better disease control with a median PFS of 16.6 months compared to 13.8 months with ARIMIDEX® (P=0.048). Subgroup analysis showed that FASLODEX® was markedly superior to ARIMIDEX® in patients with non-visceral disease with a median Progression Free Survival of 22.3 months compared with 13.8 months for ARIMIDEX®. There was no significant improvement in the Overall Response Rate between the treatment groups. However, the median Duration of Response was 20.0 months with FASLODEX® compared to 13.2 months with ARIMIDEX®. Expected Duration of response and expected Duration of Clinical Benefit were in favor of FASLODEX® (11.4 vs 7.5 months; P=0.001) and (21.9 vs 17.5 months; P=0.001), respectively. There was no difference in Overall Survival at the time of this analysis. Rates of adverse events were similar in both treatment groups.

The authors concluded that FASLODEX® was superior to ARIMIDEX® as initial treatment of hormone receptor positive, endocrine therapy naive, advanced breast cancer. Patients with non-visceral and low volume disease, as well as elderly patients, may benefit the most with FASLODEX®, as this therapy is well tolerated with a low toxicity profile. FALCON: a phase III randomised trial of fulvestrant 500 mg vs. anastrozole for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Ellis MJ, Bondarenko I, Trishkina E, et al. Presented at: 2016 ESMO Congress; October 7-11, 2016; Copenhagen, Denmark. Abstract LBA14.

ASH – 2016 Discontinuing Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors is Feasible in Some Patients with CML

RR

SUMMARY: Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) constitutes a little over 10% of all new cases of leukemia. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 8,220 new CML cases will be diagnosed in the United States in 2016 and about 1,070 patients will die of the disease. The hallmark of CML, the Philadelphia Chromosome (Chromosome 22), is a result of a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22, wherein the ABL gene from chromosome 9 fuses with the BCR gene on chromosome 22. As a result, the auto inhibitory function of the ABL gene is lost and the BCR-ABL fusion gene is activated resulting in cell proliferation and leukemic transformation of hematopoietic stem cells. The presently available Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI’s) approved in the United States including GLEEVEC® (Imatinib), share the same therapeutic target, which is BCR-ABL kinase. Resistance to TKI’s can occur as a result of mutations in the BCR-ABL kinase domain or amplification of the BCR-ABL gene. With the availability of newer therapies for CML, monitoring response to treatment is important. This is best accomplished by measuring the amount of residual disease using Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). Molecular response in CML is expressed using the International Scale (IS) as BCR-ABL%, which is the ratio between BCR-ABL and a control gene. BCR-ABL kinase domain point mutations are detected, using the mutational analysis by Sanger sequencing. Majority of the patients receiving a TKI following diagnosis of CML achieve a Complete Cytogenetic Response (CCyR) within 12 months following commencement of therapy and these patients have a life expectancy similar to that of their healthy counterparts. Previously published studies have shown that Deep Molecular Response (BCR-ABL <0.01% on the International Scale – MR4) is a new molecular predictor of long term survival in CML patients and this was achieved in a majority of patients treated with optimized dose of GLEEVEC®. It has been hypothesized based on previous observations, that a subgroup of CML patients experiencing deeper responses (MR3, MR4, and MR4.5), may stay in unmaintained remission even after treatment discontinuation. Despite this observation, stopping CML therapy is currently not a clinical recommendation and should only be considered in the context of a clinical trial.

The European Stop TKI (EURO-SKI) trial was conducted to assess the safety of stopping Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor therapy in patients with CML, whose leukemia was in Deep Molecular Response (DMR). This trial enrolled 821 patients with chronic phase CML without prior TKI failure, in DMR (BCR-ABL <0.01% on the International Scale – MR4) for at least one year, following treatment with either Imatinib, Nilotinib or Dasatinib. Following cessation of treatment with TKIs, patients were followed up testing by RQ-PCR (Real-time Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction) every 4 weeks for the first 6 months followed by every 6 weeks, the first year and every 3 months thereafter. Molecular recurrence was defined by the loss of the Major Molecular Response (BCR-ABL <0.1% IS – MR3) at any one point.

It was noted that after stopping TKI therapy, 62% showed no evidence of molecular recurrence at 6 months, and 52% showed no recurrence at 24 months. Patients who had taken a TKI for more than 5.8 years before stopping, were significantly less likely to experience relapse within the first 6 months and had a Molecular Relapse Free Survival at 6 months of 65.5% compared with 42.6% for those on treatment for 5.8 years or less. Further, each additional year of TKI therapy increased a patient’s chances of maintaining Major Molecular Response successfully at 6 months by 16%, after TKI therapy was discontinued. Most of the patients who experienced molecular recurrence were able to regain their previous remission level, after resuming TKI therapy and none of the patients in the study had progression to advanced stage.

The authors concluded that stopping TKI therapy of CML patients appeared safe and feasible in over 50% of the patients and longer duration of therapy with TKIs (5.8 years or more) prior to stopping therapy with TKIs, was associated with a higher probability of Molecular Recurrence Free Survival. Cessation of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Treatment in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients with Deep Molecular Response: Results of the Euro-Ski Trial. Mahon F-X, Richter J, Guilhot J, et al. 58th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition; San Diego, California; December 2-6, 2016. Abstract 787.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer – ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that over 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States for 2016 and over 14,240 will die of the disease. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women, accounting for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. For the past 40 years, primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been the standard approach, for women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was recognized in the early 1990’s, especially when treating those with advanced age, stage and associated comorbidities. An Expert Panel from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology conducted a systematic review of the literature and the primary evidence for these recommendations is based on four phase III clinical trials. The following recommendations are meant to provide guidance to Health Care Providers regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreduction among women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer. The following clinical questions were addressed:

What clinical evaluations should be performed in all women with suspected or newly diagnosed stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer?

Recommendation 1.1. All women with suspected stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of therapy to determine whether they are candidates for primary cytoreductive surgery.

Recommendation 1.2. A primary clinical evaluation should include a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with Oral and IV contrast and chest imaging (CT preferred), to evaluate the extent of disease and feasibility of surgical resection. The use of other tools to refine this assessment may include laparoscopic evaluation or additional radiographic imaging such as PET scan or MRI.

Which patient and disease factors should be used as criteria for identifying patients who are not suitable for primary cytoreductive surgery?

Recommendation 2.1. Women who have a high perioperative risk profile, or a low likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to less than 1 cm, ideally to no visible disease, should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Recommendation 2.2. Decisions that women are not eligible for medical or surgical cancer treatment, should be made after consultation with a gynecologic oncologist and/or a medical oncologist with gynecologic expertise.

How do neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary cytoreductive surgery compare with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and perioperative morbidity and mortality in women who are fit for primary cytoreduction and have potentially resectable disease, and how should this information be used to select initial treatment?

Recommendation 3.1. For women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery, with potentially resectable disease, either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary cytoreductive surgery may be offered, based on data from phase III randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate neoadjuvant chemotherapy is noninferior to primary cytoreductive surgery with respect to Progression Free and Overall Survival. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalizations, but primary cytoreductive surgery may offer superior survival in selected patients.

Recommendation 3.2. For women with a high likelihood of achieving cytoreduction to less than 1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) and with acceptable morbidity, primary cytoreductive surgery is recommended over neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Recommendation 3.3. For women who are fit for primary cytoreductive surgery but are deemed unlikely to have cytoreduction to less than 1 cm (ideally to no visible disease) by a gynecologic oncologist, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended over primary cytoreductive surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less peri and postoperative morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalizations.

What additional clinical evaluations should be performed in women with suspected or newly diagnosed stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered?

Recommendation 4. Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered, all patients should have histologic confirmation (core biopsy preferred) of an invasive ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. In exceptional cases, when a biopsy cannot be performed, cytologic evaluation combined with a serum CA-125 to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ratio more than 25 is acceptable, to confirm the primary diagnosis and exclude a non-gynecologic cancer.

What is the preferred chemotherapy regimen for women with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Recommendation 5. For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a Platinum-Taxane doublet is recommended. However, alternative regimens, containing a Platinum agent, may be selected based on individual patient factors.

Among women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, does the timing of interval cytoreduction or the number of chemotherapy cycles after interval cytoreduction affect the safety or efficacy of treatment?

Recommendation 6. Randomized, controlled trials tested surgery following three or four cycles of chemotherapy in women who had a response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or stable disease. Interval cytoreductive surgery should be performed after up to four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women with a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. Alternative timing of surgery has not been prospectively evaluated but may be considered based on patient-centered factors.

What are the treatment options for patients with progressive disease on neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Recommendation 7. Patients with progressive disease on neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. Options include alternative chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials, and/or discontinuation of active cancer therapy and initiation of end-of-life care. In general, there is little role for surgery, and it is not typically advised, unless for palliation such as relief of bowel obstruction. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34:3460-3473

VYXEOS® – A Novel First Line Treatment for High Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2016, 19,950 new cases of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) will be diagnosed in the United States and 10,430 patients will die of the disease. Acute Myeloid Leukemia in general is a disease of the elderly and the average age of a patient with AML is about 66 years. AML can be considered as a group of heterogeneous diseases with different clinical behavior and outcomes. In general, only 40% of patients younger than 60 years of age survive more than 5 years and 5 year survival for those who relapse after achieving a complete remission (CR) is dismal. Treatment with conventional chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with secondary AML (sAML) have resulted in poor outcomes. Even though rapid development of new agents against genetic and epigenetic targets is underway, modifications and reformulations of conventional chemotherapy have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with AML.

CPX-351 (VYXEOS®) is a liposomal formulation of a fixed combination of Cytarabine and Daunorubicin in a 5:1 molar ratio, developed using a platform known as “CombiPlex”. In vitro studies have demonstrated that this ratio maximizes synergy with the lowest level of antagonism and results in preferential uptake of the drug into leukemic cells. In a randomized, open label phase II trial involving patients with or without secondary AML (sAML), CPX-351 improved the composite CR (CRc) rate (Complete Remission and CR with incomplete blood count recovery – CRi) when compared to conventional induction chemotherapy with Daunorubicin and Cytarabine. Those patients with a higher rate of CRc (CR + CRi) had a statistically significant 6 month survival benefit. In another study of AML patients in first relapse, CPX-351 improved median Overall Survival (OS) in poor-risk patients when compared to investigator’s choice of salvage regimens.

On the basis of these studies, the authors conducted a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of first-line CPX-351 in patients with high-risk sAML. Enrolled patients (N=309) were stratified based on AML type (therapy-related AML, AML with a history of MDS with and without prior Hypo Methylating Agent therapy, AML with a history of CMML, or de novo AML with MDS karyotype) and age (60-69 yrs or 70-75yrs). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CPX-351 (N=153) 100 units/m2, days 1, 3, 5 or the standard 7+3 (Cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day x 7 days, Daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 1, 2, 3) induction therapy (N=156). Both treatment groups were well balanced. The primary end point was Overall Survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included Event Free Survival (EFS), independent blinded assessment of CR+CRi, and 60-day mortality.

The final analysis began after a minimum follow up of 13.7 months. Patients in the CPX-351 group had a significant improvement in Overall Survival compared with standard treatment (HR=0.69; P=0.005; median OS, 9.56 versus 5.95 months). Additionally, there was a significant improvement in Event Free Survival for the CPX-351 group compared to standard therapy (HR=0.74; P=0.021), as well as CR+CRi response (47.7% versus 33.3%; P=0.016) and 60-day mortality (13.7% versus 21.2%). The Complete Remission rates alone were 37.3% and 25.6%, in favor of CPX-351 (P=0.04). Grade 3-5 Adverse Events were similar in frequency and severity in both arms (92% versus 91%) and similar numbers of patients underwent transplantation in both treatment groups.

The authors concluded that treatment with CPX-351 (VYXEOS®) significantly improved Overall Survival, Event Free Survival and Response Rates, without an increase in 60-day mortality or Adverse Events, in elderly patients with high risk secondary AML, when compared with standard induction therapy. CPX-351 reduced the risk of death by 31%. Final results of a phase III randomized trial of CPX-351 versus 7+3 in older patients with newly diagnosed high risk (secondary) AML. Lancet JE, Uy GL, Cortes JE, et al. J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl; abstr 7000).

Proton Beam Therapy May Improve Survival Compared to Conventional Radiation in Stage II and III NSCLC Patients

RR

SUMMARY: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women and the American Cancer Society estimates that for 2016 about 224,390 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed and over 158,000 patients will die of the disease. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Even though Photon-based external beam radiation plus concurrent chemotherapy is the current standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, Proton beam therapy is emerging as an alternative to conventional Photon beam therapy for many cancer types. Radiation Therapy involves the use of X-Rays, Gamma rays and charged particles for cancer treatment. External beam radiation therapy is most often delivered using a linear accelerator in the form of Photon beams (either X-rays or Gamma rays). Photons have no mass and are packets of energy of an electromagnetic wave. Electrons and Protons are charged particles and Electrons are considered light particles whereas Protons are considered heavy particles. Electron beams are used to irradiate skin and superficial tumors, as they are unable to penetrate deep into the tissues. The different types of external beam radiation treatments include 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D-CRT) meant to deliver radiation to very precisely shaped target areas, IMRT or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy which allows different areas of a tumor or nearby tissues to receive different doses of radiation, Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) which allows reduction in the planned volume of tissue to be treated as changes in a tumor size are noted during treatment, Stereotactic RadioSurgery (SRS) which can deliver one or more high doses of radiation to a small tumor, Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) or CYBERKNIFE® which is similar to SRS but also takes the normal motion of the body into account while treating malignancies involving the lung and liver and Proton beam therapy. Proton beams unlike Photons, enter the skin and travel through the tissues and deposit much of their energy at the end of their path (known as the Bragg peak) and deposit less energy along the way. This is unlike Photons which deposit energy all along the path through the tissues and the deposited dose decreases with increasing depth. As a result, with Proton beam therapy, normal tissues are exposed to less radiation compared with Photons. Despite this advantage, tissue heterogeneity such as organ motion, tumor volume changes during treatment can have a significant negative impact on target coverage for Proton beam therapy and can result in damage to the surrounding tissues and potential complications.

It has remained unclear whether Proton beam therapy improves Overall Survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC. To address this question, the authors conducted a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) and analyzed outcomes and predictors associated with Proton beam therapy for NSCLC. This analysis included 140,383 patients with stage I to stage IV NSCLC, treated with thoracic radiation from 2004-2012, of whom 59% had stage II and III disease. Of these patients, 140,035 were treated with Photon beam therapy and 348 with Proton beam therapy. The median age was 68 yrs, 57% were males, 85% were Caucasian, 27% were treated at academic centers and 78% in metropolitan areas. To reduce treatment selection bias, propensity score matching method was implemented.

It was noted that patients were less likely to receive Proton beam therapy in community or comprehensive community centers compared to academic centers (P< 0.001). Further, patients who received Proton beam therapy were more likely to have a higher education and income. On multivariate analysis, it was noted that the risk for death was greater with use of Photon beam therapy compared to Proton beam therapy (HR=1.46; P<0.001). Among patients with stage II and III disease, 5 year OS was superior with Proton beam therapy compared with Photon beam therapy (22.3% versus 15%; P=0.01). Patients with stage II and III disease who received Photon beam therapy had worse OS both in multivariate (HR=1.19; P=0.06) and univariate (HR=1.23; P=0.02) analyses, compared with Proton beam therapy. Proton beam therapy was associated with better 5 year OS compared to Photon beam therapy (23% vs. 14%; P=0.02), on propensity matched analysis. The median OS was 11 months with Photon therapy compared to 19 months with Proton therapy.

The authors concluded that in this retrospective database analysis, thoracic radiation with Proton beam therapy was associated with better survival rates for patients with stage II and III NSCLC. An ongoing randomized phase III trial (NRG Oncology 1308) involving stage III NSCLC patients is evaluating if chemotherapy and Proton beam therapy is superior to chemotherapy and Photon beam therapy. National Cancer Data Base analysis of proton versus photon radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Behera M, OConnell KA, Liu Y, et al. J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl; abstr 8501)