Author: RR

Late Breaking Abstract – ESMO 2022: Apalutamide Plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in American men with the exclusion of skin cancer, and 1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. It is estimated that in the United States, about 268,490 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 2022, and 34,500 men will die of the disease. The development and progression of prostate cancer is driven by androgens. Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) or testosterone suppression has therefore been the cornerstone of treatment of advanced prostate cancer and is the first treatment intervention.

The major source of PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) is the prostate gland, and the PSA levels are therefore undetectable within 6 weeks after Radical Prostatectomy. Similarly, following Radiation Therapy there is a gradual decline in PSA, before reaching a post treatment nadir. A detectable PSA level after Radical Prostatectomy, or a rising PSA level following Radiation Therapy, is considered PSA failure or biochemical recurrence. Approximately 35% of the patients with prostate cancer will experience PSA only relapse within 10 years of their primary treatment and a third of these patients will develop documented metastatic disease within 8 years following PSA only relapse. Rising PSA is therefore a sign of recurrent disease. Patient’s with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer following local therapy, and a short PSA doubling time, are at risk for distant metastases.

ERLEADA® (Apalutamide) is an orally administered Androgen Receptor (AR) inhibitor that binds directly to the ligand-binding domain of the AR. Apalutamide inhibits AR nuclear translocation, inhibits DNA binding, and impedes AR-mediated transcription. Apalutamide is presently approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic Castration Sensitive Prostate Cancer and non-metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer. ZYTIGA® (Abiraterone) is a selective, irreversible inhibitor of CYP 17A1 enzyme and decreases androgen biosynthesis in the testes, adrenal glands, and prostate-tumor tissue. Both Apalutamide and Abiraterone plus prednisone have been shown to prolong Overall Survival in the metastatic prostate cancer.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if intensification of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) prolongs biochemical Progression Free Survival (PFS), in patients with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer. PRESTO is a randomized, open-label Phase III trial, in which 504 prostate cancer patients who had radical prostatectomy were included. Study patients had biochemical recurrence (PSA more than 0.05 ng/mL), a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less, and without distant metastases on conventional imaging (CT and Bone scan). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT alone (N=167), ADT plus Apalutamide (N=168), or ADT plus Apalutamide plus Abiraterone/Prednisone (N=169). Patients were stratified by PSA doubling time (less than 3 months versus 3-9 months) and patients were followed up following treatment completion with mostly lab assessment until PSA progression, at which point, treatment was per investigator discretion. Patient and disease characteristics at baseline were well balanced among the 3 study groups. The median age was 67 years and 84% of patients were white. The median PSA at baseline was 1.77 ng/mL. The PSA doubling time was less than 3 months for 26% of patients and between 3 and 9 months for 74% of patients. The median time between radical prostatectomy and baseline was 4.4 years. Overall, 85% of patients had prior radiation and 42% of patients had prior ADT. The Primary endpoint of the study was to compare biochemical Progression Free Survival (defined as increase in serum PSA of more than 0.2 ng/mL following treatment) in each experimental group with ADT alone. Secondary endpoints included safety, patient-reported Quality of Life (QOL), time to testosterone recovery (more than 50 ng/dL following treatment completion), Metastasis-Free Survival, and time to castration resistance.

The first planned interim analysis at a median follow-up of 21.5 months showed that both study groups significantly prolonged biochemical PFS compared to the control group. The median biochemical (PSA) PFS was 24.9 months with Apalutamide plus ADT versus 20.3 months with ADT alone (HR=0.52; P=0.00047). The median biochemical PFS was 26.0 months with ADT plus Apalutamide plus Abiraterone/Prednisone versus 20.0 months with ADT alone (HR=0.48; P=0.00008). A preplanned subgroup analysis based on stratification by PSA doubling time showed a consistent benefit in both study groups, compared to the control group, regardless of the length of PSA doubling time. The median time to testosterone recovery following treatment completion was 3.9 months with ADT alone, 3.8 months with Apalutamide plus ADT and 4.7 months with ADT plus Apalutamide plus Abiraterone/Prednisone. There was an increase in the incidence of adverse events with the addition of Abiraterone.

It was concluded that intensifying Androgen Receptor blockade with Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy prolongs biochemical PFS with a manageable safety profile and without impacting time to testosterone recovery, following a finite duration of treatment. The authors added that intensification of Androgen Receptor blockade should be considered in high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer.

LBA63 – PRESTO: A phase III, open-label study of androgen annihilation in patients (pts) with high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (AFT-19). Aggarwal R, Heller G, Hillman D, et al. Annals of Oncology (2022) 33 (suppl_7): S808-S869. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1089

FDA Grants Regular Approval to TABRECTA® for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on August 10, 2022, granted regular approval to TABRECTA® (Capmatinib), for adult patients with metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have a mutation leading to Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition (MET) exon 14 skipping, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The American Cancer Society estimates that for 2022, about 236,740 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed and 135,360 patients will die of the disease. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Of the three main subtypes of NSCLC, 30% are Squamous Cell Carcinomas (SCC), 40% are Adenocarcinomas and 10% are Large Cell Carcinomas. With changes in the cigarette composition and decline in tobacco consumption over the past several decades, Adenocarcinoma now is the most frequent histologic subtype of lung cancer.

MET is a widely expressed Receptor Tyrosine Kinase and plays a pivotal role in cell growth, proliferation, and survival. The MET gene encodes for a protein known as the Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF) Receptor. Upon binding by Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), the HGF Receptor is activated, with resulting activation of the downstream RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathways, thereby serving different important biological functions. Alterations in the MET gene leading to abnormal MET signaling, has been identified in different types of cancers including thyroid, lung, breast, liver, colon, kidney, ovary, and gastric carcinoma.

Two key MET alterations include MET exon 14 skipping mutations and MET amplification. MET exon 14 skipping mutations occur in approximately 5% of NSCLC patients with enrichment in sarcomatoid lung cancers (22%). MET exon 14 skipping mutation is a recognized oncogenic driver and is a molecular genetic abnormality indicating the presence of a splice site mutation that results in a loss of transcription of exon 14 of the MET gene. Most exon 14 mutations occur in never-smokers and is seen in both squamous and adenocarcinoma histology. Patients whose cancers have MET exon 14 skipping generally have very high response rates to MET inhibitors and molecular testing for MET exon 14 skipping should therefore be performed on all lung cancers, because this is a targetable alteration. MET amplification has been more commonly seen in smokers, and responses in patients with MET-amplified tumors might be more variable and dependent on level of amplification, with higher responses noted in tumors with more than 5-6- fold amplification. Tumors with MET exon 14 skipping mutations usually do not harbor activating mutations in EGFR, KRAS, or BRAF or concurrent ALK, ROS1 or RET translocations. However, it appears that cMET exon 14 skipping is not mutually exclusive with cMET amplification.

TABRECTA® is a highly potent and selective, reversible inhibitor of MET tyrosine kinase. The FDA in May 2020 granted accelerated approval for the same indication based on the primary findings from the GEOMETRY mono-1 trial, which is a non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort, Phase II study, conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent TABRECTA® in adult patients with EGFR wild-type, ALK-negative, metastatic NSCLC, whose tumors have a mutation that leads to MET exon 14 skipping (METex14), as detected by an RNA-based RT-PCR. The conversion to regular approval was based on data from an additional 63 patients (Total N=160), as well as an additional 22 months of follow- up time, to assess durability of response and verify clinical benefit.

In this updated analysis, a total of 160 patients (N=160) with metastatic NSCLC and confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutations were included, of whom 60 patients were treatment naïve and 100 patients were previously treated. The patients received TABRECTA® at 400 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median patient age was 71 years and all NSCLC histologies including sarcomatoid/carcinosarcoma were included. Majority of the patients (77%) were white and 23% were Asian, 61% never smoked, 83% had adenocarcinoma, and 16% had CNS metastases. Among previously treated patients, 81% received one, 16% received two, and 3% received three prior lines of systemic therapy. Amongst previously treated patients, 86% received prior platinum-based chemotherapy. The Primary efficacy outcome was Overall Response Rate (ORR), and additional efficacy outcomes included Duration of Response, Time to Response, Disease Control Rate, Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Safety, as determined by a Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC).

Among the treatment-naïve patients (N=60), the ORR was 68% with a median Duration of Response of 12.6 months. Among the previously treated patients (N=100), the ORR was 44%, with a median Duration of Response of 9.7 months. The most common adverse events (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were peripheral edema, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, dyspnea, and decreased appetite. TABRECTA® can also cause Interstitial Lung Disease, hepatotoxicity and photosensitivity.

It was concluded that TABRECTA® is a new treatment option for patients with MET exon 14 skipping- mutated advanced NSCLC, regardless of the line of therapy, with deep and durable responses, and with manageable toxicity profile.

Capmatinib in MET exon 14-mutated, advanced NSCLC: Updated results from the GEOMETRY mono-1 study. Wolf J, Garon EB, Groen HJM, et al. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.9020 Journal of Clinical Oncology – published online before print May 28, 2021.

FDA Approves IMFINZI® in Combination with Chemotherapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on September 2, 2022, approved IMFINZI® (Durvalumab) in combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic Biliary Tract cancer. Bile Tract cancer (Cholangiocarcinoma) is a rare, heterogenous cancer, and comprises about 30% of all primary liver tumors and includes both intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cancers. Klatskin tumor is a type of Cholangiocarcinoma that begins in the hilum, at the junction of the left and right bile ducts. It is the most common type of Cholangiocarcinoma, accounting for more than half of all cases. About 8,000 people in the US are diagnosed with Cholangiocarcinoma each year and approximately 20% of the cases are suitable for surgical resection. The 5-year survival among those with advanced stage disease is less than 10%, with limited progress made over the past two decades. There is therefore an unmet need for new effective therapies.

Patients with advanced Biliary Tract cancers often receive chemotherapy in the first and second line settings, with limited benefit. Gemcitabine and Cisplatin combination is currently the first line standard-of-care treatment. With the recognition of immunogenic features displayed by Biliary Tract cancers, the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors for improving disease control and prolonging survival, has been increasingly explored.

IMFINZI® (Durvalumab) is a human monoclonal antibody that binds to the PD-L1 protein and blocks the interaction of PD-L1 with the PD-1 and CD80 proteins, countering the tumor’s immune-evading tactics and unleashes the T cells. IMFINZI® in combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin showed encouraging antitumor activity in a Phase II study, among patients with advanced Biliary Tract cancers.

TOPAZ-1 is a double-blind, multicenter, global, Phase III trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy of first line immunotherapy given along with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in patients with advanced metastatic Biliary Tract cancer. In this study, a total of 685 previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic Biliary Tract cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive IMFINZI® (Durvalumab) 1500 mg IV every 3 weeks (N=341) or placebo (N=344), along with Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 IV and Cisplatin 25 mg/m2 IV given on Days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for up to 8 cycles, followed by IMFINZI® 1500 mg IV every 4 weeks or placebo, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients with recurrent disease more than 6 months following curative surgery or adjuvant therapy were also included. The median patient age was 64 years and approximately 50% of patients had an ECOG Performance Status of 0. Randomization was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable, recurrent) and primary tumor location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma versus extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma versus gallbladder cancer). Approximately 56% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, followed by gallbladder cancer (25%) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (19%). Tumor assessments were conducted every 6 weeks for the first 24 weeks, and then every 8 weeks until confirmed objective disease progression. The Primary endpoint was Overall Survival (OS) and Secondary endpoints included Progression Free Survival (PFS), Objective Response Rate (ORR), and Safety.

IMFINZI® plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin significantly improved Overall Survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, with a 20% reduction in the risk of death. The median OS was 12.8 months and 11.5 months in the IMFINZI® and placebo groups, respectively (HR=0.80; P=0.021). The median PFS was 7.2 months and 5.7 months in the IMFINZI® and placebo arms, respectively (HR=0.75; P=0.001). The Objective Response Rate was 26.7% in the IMFINZI® plus chemotherapy group and 18.7% in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were almost similar in both treatment groups (62.7% versus 64.9%), and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.9% in the IMFINZI® plus chemotherapy group and 11.4% in the placebo plus chemotherapy group.

It was concluded that in patients with advanced Biliary Tract cancers, IMFINZI® in combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin significantly improved Overall Survival and Progression Free Survival with manageable safety, when compared to chemotherapy alone, and should therefore be considered first line standard-of- care for this patient group.

A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (gemcis) in patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC): TOPAZ-1. Oh D-Y, He AR, Qin S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(suppl 4):378. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.4_suppl.378.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,850 new cases of rectal cancer will be diagnosed in the US in 2022. Based on the information from the SEER database, the 5-year relative survival rates for rectal cancer, all SEER stages combined is 67%.
Patients with high-risk clinical T1 and T2N0 rectal tumors undergo surgical resection along with total mesorectal excision, combined with preoperative chemoradiation for patients with T3 or N1 tumors. Even though locoregional relapse rates with neoadjuvant therapy are low with excellent survival rates, total mesorectal excision can result in bowel and sexual function issues, as well as bowel incontinence. Up to 60% of patients can experience these symptoms with the addition of perioperative radiation.

Transanal excision surgery is increasingly used for treatment of select T1N0 or T2N0 rectal tumors. There is however an increased rate of local relapse with local excision compared with surgical resection, as a significant proportion of clinical T1-2N0 tumors are pathologically node-positive. Pelvic chemoradiation followed by transanal excision surgery in patients with clinical T1-3 rectal cancer is associated with an organ preservation rate of 50%-68%. However, preoperative radiation can significantly effect wound-healing and adversely affect sphincter and sexual function. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical excision can potentially reduce locoregional recurrence as well as distal relapse in Stage II/III rectal cancer. There are no prospective studies with regards to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and transanal excision surgery for Stage I rectal tumors.

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) CO.28 NEO is a Phase II trial, designed to determine the outcomes and organ preservation rate among patients with early stage rectal tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by transanal excision surgery, and to further explore the prognostic value of tumor biomarkers for the outcomes. A total of 58 eligible patients were enrolled in Canada and the United States. Enrolled patients had clinical T1-T3ab, N0 (node negative) low or mid-rectal invasive, well/moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, deemed eligible for endoscopic resection by the study surgeon. All patients were required to have a pelvic MRI and CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be either six cycles of mFOLFOX6 or four cycles of CAPOX, at the discretion of the investigator. mFOLFOX6 consisted of Leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 in one 2-hour IV infusion, Fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 IV bolus on day 1, and 46-hour IV infusion of Fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, given every 14 days. CAPOX consisted of Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days, and Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 IV on day 1, given every 21 days. Patients with a history of external-beam pelvic radiation, prior therapy for rectal cancer, or metastatic disease were excluded. The median age was 67 years, 95% had preserved mismatch repair status and in 5% was unknown, two thirds of the patients had clinical T2 lesion by MRI, median tumor distance from the anal verge was 6 cm, and 60% of the tumors were RAS mutated.

Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients underwent pelvic MRI imaging and proctoscopy, 2-3 weeks after the last dose of chemotherapy. Tumors with protocol-defined evidence of response proceeded to have transanal excision surgery and those with progression or no response to chemotherapy were recommended total mesorectal excision surgery and preoperative pelvic radiation if the MRI revealed clinical T3ab disease, Node positive or involved or threatened circumferential radial margin. Transanal excision surgery was performed between 2-6 weeks after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tumor excision included a minimum of 1 cm gross margin. Patients with yp Stage T0/N0 or T1N0 with no poor prognostic features were recommended observation, whereas ypT1 tumors with poor prognostic features, ypT2/3, or any N+ were recommended radical total mesorectal excision surgery. Poor prognostic features included poorly differentiated histology, lymphovascular invasion, and/or positive margin less than 1 mm. Patients assigned to observation were followed for 36 months from the time of transanal excision surgery, with proctoscopy every 6 months, pelvic MRI every 6 months or pelvic CT at months 12, 24, and 36, CEA every 6 months, and annual contrast CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis for 3 years. The Primary end point was organ preservation rate, defined as the proportion of patients with tumor downstaging to ypT0/T1 N0/X, and who avoided radical surgery.

Neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy followed by transanal excision surgery was well tolerated and resulted in downstaging to ypT0/T1 clinical N0 tumors in 57% of the enrolled patients and the protocol-specified organ preservation rate was 79%. The median follow up was 15.4 months. The 1-year and 2-year locoregional Relapse Free Survival was 98% and 90% respectively, and there were no distant recurrences or deaths. There was no significant change noted in Quality of Life and rectal function scores, compared to baseline scores.

It was concluded that three months of neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy may successfully downstage a significant proportion of patients with early stage rectal cancer, allowing a much-desired organ-sparing surgical treatment option.

Kennecke HF, O’Callaghan CJ, Loree JM, et al. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00184 Journal of Clinical Oncology. Published online August 18, 2022.

Opdualag™ (nivolumab and relatlimab-rmbw): A New Dual I-O Option in the 1L Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma

RR

Written By: Leonel Fernando Hernandez Aya, MD. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Content Sponsored by: Bristol Myers Squibb
Dr Hernandez Aya is a paid consultant for BMS and was compensated for his contribution in drafting this content.

See additional definitions of abbreviations used throughout the article at the bottom of this page.

Overview of Metastatic Melanoma
Since the approval of anti–CTLA-4 in 2011 for metastatic melanoma, immuno-oncology(I-O) has transformed treatment outcomes.1 There are now several approved I-O options, and of those approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, dual immunotherapy in particular has had long-term success.2 The first dual immunotherapy, approved in 2015, consisted of PD-1 and CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitors for the 1L treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF mutation status.1,3,4 This anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 combination showed benefit in overall survival (OS) compared with anti–CTLA-4 alone.5 In general, the safety profile was consistent with previous experience with anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 alone.4 Until March 2022, this dual anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 immunotherapy was the only option indicated for the 1L treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma.3,6 Opdualag, the second approved dual immunotherapy, has provided an additional treatment option for nivolumab-monotherapy–appropriate patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.6-8

Opdualag
Opdualag is a dual immunotherapy option combining an anti–PD-1, nivolumab, with the first-in-class anti–LAG-3, relatlimab, in a fixed-dose formulation.7,8 PD-1 and LAG-3 are two distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints.7 Combined PD-1 and LAG-3 inhibition results in increased T-cell activation compared to the activity of either antibody alone. This initiates an improved anti-tumor immune response.8

Opdualag is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.8 The approval is based on RELATIVITY-047, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, global study of Opdualag versus nivolumab monotherapy.7 Patients were stratified by AJCC v8 M stage, BRAF, PD-L1, and LAG-3 status.7 Key exclusion criteria include patients with active or untreated brain or leptomeningeal metastases, uveal melanoma, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic treatment with moderate- or high-dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications.8

RELATIVITY-047 enrolled 714 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive Opdualag (480 mg nivolumab/160 mg relatlimab as a fixed-dose combination[FDC]) every 4 weeks (n=355) or nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (n=359).8 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival(PFS), and secondary endpoints were OS and overall response rate(ORR). PFS was determined by BICR using RECIST v1.1. Baseline characteristics were balanced across both treatment arms.7

Study design8

Median duration of treatment for Opdualag at the 19.3-month median follow-up was 8.3 months.7,9 Treat until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.8

*Patients were allowed to have received prior adjuvant and neoadjuvant melanoma therapy. Anti–PD-1, anti–CTLA-4, or BRAF-MEK therapy was allowed as long as there was at least 6 months between the last dose of therapy and date of recurrence; interferon therapy was allowed as long as the last dose was at least 6 weeks prior to randomization.8† PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1%) using PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx test.8‡ LAG-3 expression (≥1% vs <1%) using a clinical trial assay.8§ The final analysis of OS was not statistically significant.8

Opdualag is associated with the following Warnings and Precautions: severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, myocarditis, and other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions; complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); and embryo-fetal toxicity.

Opdualag demonstrated superior PFS compared to nivolumab at the primary analysis(median of 13.2 months) with curve separation as early as 3 months and sustained over time.7,8 Median PFS (mPFS)was 10.1 months with Opdualag versus 4.6 months with nivolumab (HR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.62–0.92; P=0.0055).8 Similarly, patients who received Opdualag had longer PFS regardless of key prognostic indicators, such as the AJCC metastasis stage of the tumor, LDH level, and tumor burden.7

At the follow-up analysis (median of 19.3 months), mPFS was 10.22 months with Opdualag and 4.63 months with nivolumab (HR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.94).10 OS and ORR were also evaluated.8 The final analysis for the secondary endpoint of OS was not statistically significant (threshold for significance was P<0.04302), and median OS (mOS)was not reached with Opdualag compared with nivolumab, which resulted in a mOS of 34.1 months (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–1.01; P=0.0593). Additionally, the ORR was higher with Opdualag (43%) versus nivolumab (33%), with the median DOR not yet reached for both treatment arms.8,10 ORR was not formally tested based on the testing hierarchy.8

Progression-free survival at the 19.3-month median follow-up10*†‡

Symbols represent censored observations.
*Assessed by BICR.8† Final PFS analysis.8‡ Kaplan-Meier estimate.8§ Based on stratified Cox proportional hazard model.8II Based on stratified log-rank test.8

Overall survival10*

*At the time of the final OS analysis, which was event-driven and occurred after the final PFS analysis.8† Based on stratified Cox proportional hazard model.8‡ Based on stratified log-rank test.8§ Not significant at alpha level 0.04302.8

In RELATIVITY-047, Opdualag had no additional safety events and similar most common Grade 3/4 AEs versus nivolumab monotherapy.7,8 Adverse reactions occurring in ≥15% of patients receiving Opdualag were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), diarrhea (24%), nausea (17%), headache (18%), hypothyroidism (17%), decreased appetite (15%), and cough (15%).8

Toxicity was graded per NCI CTCAE v5.
*Clinically relevant adverse reactions in <15% of patients who received Opdualag included vitiligo, adrenal insufficiency, myocarditis, and hepatitis.8† Includes multiple terms.8

Opdualag is a FDC administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion every 4 weeks.8 A FDC is the co-formulation of 2 active ingredients in a single vial administered as a single infusion, which may help reduce preparation and infusion times and could help minimize potential risk of administration errors.7,8,11 Opdualag can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue Opdualag in patients with severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions. In patients who received Opdualag as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 7% (23/355) of patients.8

Summary/conclusions
Dual immunotherapy has changed the metastatic melanoma treatment landscape.2 Currently there are 2 dual immunotherapy options available for 1L treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.3,8 As the newest dual immunotherapy, Opdualag more than doubled mPFS with a similar safety profile compared with nivolumab.8 Opdualag can be used for the treatment of all nivolumab monotherapy-appropriate patients, providing the opportunity for more patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma to receive a dual immunotherapy.8 From my clinical experience, “it is great to have another treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma.”

Indication for Opdualag
Opdualag is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Important Safety Information for Opdualag
Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
Immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

IMARs which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. IMARs can occur at any time after starting treatment with a LAG-3 and PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. While IMARs usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of Opdualag. Early identification and management of IMARs are essential to ensure safe use. Monitor patients closely for symptoms and signs that may be clinical manifestations of underlying IMARs. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment. In cases of suspected IMARs, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if Opdualag requires interruption or discontinuation, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose IMARs are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, which may be fatal. In patients treated with other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies, the incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. Immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.7% (13/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (2.3%) adverse reactions. Pneumonitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Colitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated colitis, defined as requiring use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies.

Immune-mediated diarrhea or colitis occurred in 7% (24/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (4.5%) adverse reactions. Colitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 2% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.8% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated hepatitis, defined as requiring the use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology.

Immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 6% (20/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 4 (0.6%), Grade 3 (3.4%), and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hepatitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.3% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
Opdualag can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can be present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. In patients receiving Opdualag, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 4.2% (15/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.4%) and Grade 2 (2.5%) adverse reactions. Adrenal insufficiency led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.1% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.8% of patients.

Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis occurred in 2.5% (9/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.3%) and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hypophysitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis occurred in 2.8% (10/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Thyroiditis did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Thyroiditis led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hyperthyroidism occurred in 6% (22/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hyperthyroidism did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Hyperthyroidism led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hypothyroidism occurred in 17% (59/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (11%) adverse reactions. Hypothyroidism led to the permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.5% of patients.

Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated. Diabetes occurred in 0.3% (1/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, a Grade 3 (0.3%) adverse reaction, and no cases of diabetic ketoacidosis. Diabetes did not lead to the permanent discontinuation or withholding of Opdualag in any patient.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated nephritis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear etiology. In patients receiving Opdualag, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 2% (7/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (0.8%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and Drug Rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms has occurred with PD-1/L-1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (33/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.6%) and Grade 2 (3.4%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated rash did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Immune-mediated rash led to withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Myocarditis
Opdualag can cause immune-mediated myocarditis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. The diagnosis of immune-mediated myocarditis requires a high index of suspicion. Patients with cardiac or cardio-pulmonary symptoms should be assessed for potential myocarditis. If myocarditis is suspected, withhold dose, promptly initiate high dose steroids (prednisone or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/day) and promptly arrange cardiology consultation with diagnostic workup. If clinically confirmed, permanently discontinue Opdualag for Grade 2-4 myocarditis.

Myocarditis occurred in 1.7% (6/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Myocarditis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% of patients.

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
The following clinically significant IMARs occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received Opdualag or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: Cardiac/Vascular: pericarditis, vasculitis; Nervous System: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; Ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur. Some cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other IMARs, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, as this may require treatment with systemic steroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss; Gastrointestinal: pancreatitis including increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis (and associated sequelae including renal failure), arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; Endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; Other (Hematologic/Immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

Infusion-Related Reactions
Opdualag can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue Opdualag in patients with severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions. In patients who received Opdualag as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 7% (23/355) of patients.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT)
Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on its mechanism of action and data from animal studies, Opdualag can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with Opdualag for at least 5 months after the last dose of Opdualag.

Lactation
There are no data on the presence of Opdualag in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effect on milk production. Because nivolumab and relatlimab may be excreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in a breastfed child, advise patients not to breastfeed during treatment with Opdualag and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions
In Relativity-047, fatal adverse reaction occurred in 3 (0.8%) patients who were treated with Opdualag; these included hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute edema of the lung, and pneumonitis. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 36% of patients treated with Opdualag. The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in ≥1% of patients treated with Opdualag were adrenal insufficiency (1.4%), anemia (1.4%), colitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.4%), acute myocardial infarction (1.1%), back pain (1.1%), diarrhea (1.1%), myocarditis (1.1%), and pneumonitis (1.1%).

Common Adverse Reactions and Laboratory Abnormalities
The most common adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of the patients treated with Opdualag were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), and diarrhea (24%).

The most common laboratory abnormalities that occurred in ≥20% of patients treated with Opdualag were decreased hemoglobin (37%), decreased lymphocytes (32%), increased AST (30%), increased ALT (26%), and decreased sodium (24%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for Opdualag.

Indication for OPDIVO® (nivolumab) + YERVOY® (ipilimumab)
OPDIVO, in combination with YERVOY, is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Important Safety Information
Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO or YERVOY. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO and YERVOY. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) level, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO and before each dose of YERVOY. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO or YERVOY interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% (61/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.9%), and Grade 2 (2.1%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 7% (31/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.0%), and Grade 2 (4.4%).

Immune-Mediated Colitis
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated colitis, which may be fatal. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 2.9% (58/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.7%) and Grade 2 (1%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 25% (115/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.4%), Grade 3 (14%) and Grade 2 (8%).

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis and Hepatotoxicity
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated hepatitis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 1.8% (35/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (1.3%), and Grade 2 (0.4%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 15% (70/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (2.4%), Grade 3 (11%), and Grade 2 (1.8%).

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune-mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 1% (20/1994), including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.6%).In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 8% (35/456), including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.4%), and Grade 2 (4.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypophysitis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (0.3%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypophysitis occurred in 9% (42/456), including Grade 3 (2.4%) and Grade 2 (6%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, thyroiditis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 2 (0.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hyperthyroidism occurred in 2.7% (54/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (<0.1%) and Grade 2 (1.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hyperthyroidism occurred in 9% (42/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.9%) and Grade 2 (4.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypothyroidism occurred in 8% (163/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (4.8%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypothyroidism occurred in 20% (91/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (11%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, diabetes occurred in 0.9% (17/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.3%), and 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated nephritis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 1.2% (23/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (<0.1%), Grade 3 (0.5%), and Grade 2 (0.6%).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions
OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.

YERVOY can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, including bullous and exfoliative dermatitis, SJS, TEN, and DRESS. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-bullous/exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (171/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (2.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated rash occurred in 28% (127/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (4.8%) and Grade 2 (10%).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions
The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of <1% (unless otherwise noted) in patients who received OPDIVO monotherapy or OPDIVO in combination with YERVOY or were reported with the use of other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Severe or fatal cases have been reported for some of these adverse reactions: cardiac/vascular: myocarditis, pericarditis, vasculitis; nervous system: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barré syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

In addition to the immune-mediated adverse reactions listed above, across clinical trials of YERVOY monotherapy or in combination with OPDIVO, the following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions, some with fatal outcome, occurred in <1% of patients unless otherwise specified: nervous system: autoimmune neuropathy (2%), myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis, motor dysfunction; cardiovascular: angiopathy, temporal arteritis; ocular: blepharitis, episcleritis, orbital myositis, scleritis; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis (1.3%); other (hematologic/immune): conjunctivitis, cytopenias (2.5%), eosinophilia (2.1%), erythema multiforme, hypersensitivity vasculitis, neurosensory hypoacusis, psoriasis.

Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada–like syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving OPDIVO and YERVOY, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Infusion-Related Reactions
OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY in patients with severe (Grade 3) or life-threatening (Grade 4) infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild (Grade 1) or moderate (Grade 2) infusion-related reactions. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 6.4% (127/1994) of patients. In a separate trial in which patients received OPDIVO monotherapy as a 60-minute infusion or a 30-minute infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.2% (8/368) and 2.7% (10/369) of patients, respectively. Additionally, 0.5% (2/368) and 1.4% (5/369) of patients, respectively, experienced adverse reactions within 48 hours of infusion that led to dose delay, permanent discontinuation or withholding of OPDIVO. In melanoma patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, infusion-related reactions occurred in 2.5% (10/407) of patients.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with OPDIVO or YERVOY. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between OPDIVO or YERVOY and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on its mechanism of action and findings from animal studies, OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The effects of YERVOY are likely to be greater during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with OPDIVO and YERVOY and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Increased Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma when OPDIVO is Added to a Thalidomide Analogue and Dexamethasone
In randomized clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of OPDIVO to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma with a PD-1 or PD-L1 blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials.

Lactation
There are no data on the presence of OPDIVO or YERVOY in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effects on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment and for 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 067, serious adverse reactions (74% and 44%), adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation (47% and 18%) or to dosing delays (58% and 36%), and Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions (72% and 51%) all occurred more frequently in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm (n=313) relative to the OPDIVO arm (n=313). The most frequent (≥10%) serious adverse reactions in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm and the OPDIVO arm, respectively, were diarrhea (13% and 2.2%), colitis (10% and 1.9%), and pyrexia (10% and 1.0%).

Common Adverse Reactions
In Checkmate 067, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions in the OPDIVO plus YERVOY arm (n=313) were fatigue (62%), diarrhea (54%), rash (53%), nausea (44%), pyrexia (40%), pruritus (39%), musculoskeletal pain (32%), vomiting (31%), decreased appetite (29%), cough (27%), headache (26%), dyspnea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (23%), arthralgia (21%), and increased transaminases (25%). In Checkmate 067, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions in the OPDIVO arm (n=313) were fatigue (59%), rash (40%), musculoskeletal pain (42%), diarrhea (36%), nausea (30%), cough (28%), pruritus (27%), upper respiratory tract infection (22%), decreased appetite (22%), headache (22%), constipation (21%), arthralgia (21%), and vomiting (20%).

Please see US Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO and YERVOY.

References
1. Michielin O, Atkins MB, Koon HB, Dummer R, Ascierto PA. Evolving impact of long-term survival results on metastatic melanoma treatment. J Immunother Cancer. 2020. doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-000948.
2. Curti BD, Faries MB. Recent advances in the treatment of melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2229-2240.
3. OPDIVO [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
4. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(1):23-34.
5. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(16):1535-1546.
6. Cancer Research Institute. FDA Approval Timeline of Active Immunotherapies. Updated June 27, 2022. Accessed July 11, 2022. https://www.cancerresearch.org/en-us/scientists/immuno-oncology-landscape/fda-approval-timeline-of-active-immunotherapies.
7. Tawbi HA, Schadendorf D, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(1):24-34.
8. Opdualag [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
9. PubD 00058298. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2022.
10. Long GV, Hodi FS, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: overall survival and response rates from RELATIVITY-047 (CA224-047). Oral presentation at ASCO Plenary Series 2022. Presentation number 9505.
11. US Food and Drug Administration. CFR–Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Updated March 29, 2022. Accessed July 1, 2022.https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=300.50.

© 2022 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. OPDIVO®, YERVOY®, Opdualag™, and the related logos are trademarks of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
7356-US-2200441 8/22

Additional Definitions
AJCC=American Joint Committee on Cancer; BICR=blinded independent central review; CI=confidence interval;CTLA-4=cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4; DOR=duration of response; ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; HR=hazard ratio;IHC=immunohistochemistry; IV=intravenous;LAG-3=lymphocyte-activation gene 3; LDH=lactate dehydrogenase; M stage=metastasis stage; mo=month; no=number; NS=not significant; PD-1=programmed death receptor-1; PD-L1=programmed death ligand 1; q4w=every 4 weeks; RECIST=Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to ENHERTU® for HER2-Mutant Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on August 11, 2022, granted accelerated approval to ENHERTU® (fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki), for adult patients with unresectable or metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have activating human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 or HER2 (ERBB2) mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test, and who have received a prior systemic therapy. This is the first drug approved for HER2-mutant NSCLC. FDA also approved Oncomine™ Dx Target Test (tissue) and Guardant360® CDx (plasma) as companion diagnostics for ENHERTU®. If no mutation is detected in a plasma specimen, the tumor tissue should be tested.

The American Cancer Society estimates that for 2022, about 236,740 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed and 135,360 patients will die of the disease. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Of the three main subtypes of NSCLC, 30% are Squamous Cell Carcinomas (SCC), 40% are Adenocarcinomas and 10% are Large Cell Carcinomas. With changes in the cigarette composition and decline in tobacco consumption over the past several decades, Adenocarcinoma now is the most frequent histologic subtype of lung cancer.

The HER or erbB family of receptors consist of HER1, HER2, HER3 and HER4. HER2 is a Tyrosine Kinase Receptor expressed on the surface of several tumor types including Breast, Gastric, Lung and Colorectal cancers. It is a growth-promoting protein, and HER2 overexpression/HER2 gene amplification is often associated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis in certain tumor types. However, HER2 overexpression and gene amplification are associated with distinct molecular entities and have limited therapeutic value in lung cancer.

HER2 mutations unlike HER2 overexpression and gene amplification are oncogenic drivers and are detected in 2 to 4% of NSCLCs. They are more often detected in younger, female and never-smokers, and almost exclusively in Adenocarcinomas. Next-generation sequencing is used to identify HER2 mutations. Majority of HER2 mutations (80-90%) occur in exon 20, as either a duplication or an insertion of 12 nucleotides, resulting in the addition of four amino acids (YVMA) at codon 775 in the kinase domain. This distinct molecular entity is characterized by specific pathological and clinical behavior. These acquired HER2 gene mutations have been independently associated with cancer cell growth, aggressive form of disease and poor prognosis, and with an increased incidence of brain metastases. There are currently no therapies approved specifically for the treatment HER2 mutant NSCLC and is therefore an unmet need.

ENHERTU® (Trastuzumab Deruxtecan) is an Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) composed of a humanized monoclonal antibody specifically targeting HER2, with the amino acid sequence similar to HERCEPTIN® (Trastuzumab), attached to a potent cytotoxic Topoisomerase I inhibitor payload by a cleavable tetrapeptide-based linker. ENHERTU® has a favorable pharmacokinetic profile and the tetrapeptide-based linker is stable in the plasma and is selectively cleaved by cathepsins that are up-regulated in tumor cells. Unlike KADCYLA® (ado-Trastuzumab emtansine), which is also an Antibody-Drug Conjugate, ENHERTU® has a higher drug-to-antibody ratio (8 versus 4), the released payload easily crosses the cell membrane with resulting potent cytotoxic effect on neighboring tumor cells regardless of target expression, and the released cytotoxic agent (payload) has a short half-life, minimizing systemic exposure. ENHERTU® is approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive or HER2-Low breast cancer and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive Gastric or GastroEsophageal Junction adenocarcinoma who have received a prior Trastuzumab based regimen. Translational research demonstrated that HER2-mutant NSCLC may preferentially internalize the HER2 receptor Antibody-Drug Conjugate complex regardless of HER2 protein expression and overcome resistance to other HER2-targeted agents.

In the DESTINY-Lung01 Phase II, open-label, two-cohort trial of heavily pretreated population of patients with HER2-mutated advanced NSCLC, treatment with ENHERTU® 6.4 mg/kg given by IV infusion every 3 weeks resulted in an Objective Response Rate (ORR) of 55%, with a median Duration of Response was 9.3 months. Responses were observed across different HER2 mutation subtypes. The median PFS was 8.2 months, and the median OS was 17.8 months (NEJM 2022;386:241-251).

The present FDA approval was based on DESTINY-Lung02, which is a global, multicenter, multi-cohort, randomized, blinded, dose-optimization, Phase II trial, in which the safety and efficacy of two doses ENHERTU® (5.4mg/kg or 6.4mg/kg) was evaluated, in patients with HER2 mutated metastatic NSCLC, with disease recurrence or progression during or after at least one regimen of prior anticancer therapy that must have contained a platinum-based chemotherapy. This study enrolled 152 patients (N=152) and patients were selected for treatment with ENHERTU® based on the presence of activating HER2 (ERBB2) mutations in a tumor specimen. Patients were randomized to receive ENHERTU® 6.4 mg/kg or 5.4 mg/kg by IV infusion every 3 weeks, until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The Primary endpoint of the trial was Objective Response Rate (ORR) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of Response (DoR), Progression Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS) and Safety. The primary/interim efficacy analysis included a pre-specified cohort of 52 patients (N=52). The median age in this cohort was 58 years, 69% were female; 79% were Asian, 12% were White, and 10% were of other races.

ENHERTU® 5.4mg/kg IV demonstrated a confirmed Objective Response Rate of 57.7%, with a Complete Response Rate of 1.9%, Partial Response Rate of 55.8%, and median Duration of Response of 8.7 months. The most common adverse effects included nausea, alopecia, increased AST and ALT, cytopenias, and was consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety concerns identified.

It was concluded that ENHERTU® is the first HER2-directed treatment option for patients with HER2 mutated NSCLC, and fulfills an unmet medical need in this patient population.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki-her2-mutant-non-small-cell-lung

Overall Survival Benefit with SARCLISA® Plus POMALYST® and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma

RR

SUMMARY: Multiple Myeloma is a clonal disorder of plasma cells in the bone marrow and the American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States, 34,470 new cases will be diagnosed in 2022 and 12,640 patients will die of the disease. Multiple Myeloma is a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years and characterized by intrinsic clonal heterogeneity. Almost all patients eventually will relapse, and patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, extramedullary disease or refractory disease have the worst outcomes. The introduction of Proteasome Inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents and CD 38 targeted therapies has resulted in higher Response Rates, as well as longer Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS), with the median survival for patients with myeloma approaching 10 years or more. Nonetheless, Multiple Myeloma (MM) in 2022 remains an incurable disease.

CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein, abundantly expressed on malignant plasma cells, and with low levels of expression on normal lymphoid and myeloid cells. DARZALEX® (Daratumumab) is a human IgG1 antibody that targets CD38 and was approved for use in combination with POMALYST® (Pomalidomide) and Dexamethasone in 2017, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, who have received at least two prior therapies including REVLIMID® (Lenalidomide) and a Proteasome Inhibitor. DARZALEX® exerts its cytotoxic effect on myeloma cells by multiple mechanisms, including Antibody Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity (ADCC), Complement Mediated Cytotoxicity and direct apoptosis. Additionally, DARZALEX® may have a role in immunomodulation by depleting CD38-positive regulator Immune suppressor cells, and thereby expanding T cells, in patients responding to therapy.

SARCLISA® (Isatuximab) is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody, similar to DARZALEX®, but unlike DARZALEX®, is not associated with complement activation, and can therefore be more readily given to patients with asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Further, SARCLISA® targets a specific epitope on the CD38 receptor, and this distinction from DARZALEX® allows use of SARCLISA® in cases when DARZALEX® fails. Additionally, SARCLISA® infusions are less cumbersome.

The FDA approval of SARCLISA® in 2020 was based on ICARIA-MM trial, which is an open-label, randomized, multicentre Phase III study in which 307 adult patients with Relapsed and Refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including REVLIMID® and a Proteasome Inhibitor were eligible. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either SARCLISA® along with POMALYST® and low-dose Dexamethasone (N =154) or POMALYST® and low-dose Dexamethasone alone (N = 153). Treatment consisted of 28-day cycles of SARCLISA® 10 mg/kg given IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first cycle and days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received POMALYST® 4 mg orally on days 1 to 21 of each cycle and Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged 75 years or older) orally or IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The Primary endpoint was Progression Free Survival (PFS), determined by an Independent Response Committee, and assessed in the intent-to-treat population.

At a median follow up of 11.6 months, the median PFS was 11.5 months in the SARCLISA® group versus 6.5 months in the control group (HR= 0.596; P=0.001). This PFS improvement represented an approximately 40% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death in the SARCLISA® group and was noted in all poor prognostic patient subgroups, including patients who were refractory to REVLIMID®, a Proteasome Inhibitor or both.

The researchers in this publication reported prespecified updated Overall Survival analysis, at 24 months after the primary analysis (second interim analysis). The median follow-up at data cutoff was 35.3 months. The median Overall Survival was 24.6 months in the SARCLISA® group and 17.7 months in the control group (HR=0.76; P=0.028, not crossing prespecified stopping boundary). Final Overall Survival analysis follow up is ongoing. Updated median PFS was 11.1 months in the SARCLISA® group versus 5.9 months in the control group (HR= 0.60; P<0.0001).

Approximately 60% of patients in the SARCLISA® group and 72% in the control group received subsequent therapy after disease progression. Median time to next treatment was longer in the SARCLISA® group (P<0.0001). Among these patients, 24% received DARZALEX® as subsequent therapy versus 58% in the control group. In a post hoc analysis, median overall survival was 19.9 months among control group patients who received DARZALEX® and 17.4 months among those who did not. Overall, median PFS on subsequent therapy or death was 17.5 months in the SARCLISA® group versus vs 12.9 months in the control group (HR=0.76; P=0.02).

The most common Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events in the SARCLISA® group versus the control group were neutropenia (50% versus 35%), pneumonia (23% versus 21%), and thrombocytopenia (13% versus 12%). No new safety concerns were identified with SARCLISA® plus POMALYST® and Dexamethasone, with longer follow up.

The authors concluded that the addition of SARCLISA® to POMALYST® and Dexamethasone resulted in an approximately 7 month difference in median Overall Survival compared with POMALYST® and Dexamethasone, and is a new standard of care for REVLIMID® and Proteasome Inhibitor-refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): follow-up analysis of a randomised, phase 3 study. Richardson PG, Perrot A, San-Miguel J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(3):416-427. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00019-5

PREMMplus Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment Tool May Identify People Likely to Benefit from Multigene Panel Testing

RR

SUMMARY: Hereditary factors play an important role in the risk of developing several cancers. Therefore, identification of a germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment decision making, risk-reducing interventions, cancer screening for early diagnosis, and germline testing and targeted surveillance of unaffected relatives. Previously published studies have been biased by estimating the prevalence of germline cancer susceptibility in patients with breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer from registry populations, genetic testing companies, and high-risk cancer clinics.

With the widespread adoption of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), multiple genes can be tested simultaneously (MultiGene Panel Testing-MGPT), rather than sequential single-gene testing, making MultiGene Panel Testing cheaper, faster and more efficient. Further, single-test multigene multiplexing strategy analyzes numerous cancer susceptibility genes and frequently detects highly penetrant, clinically actionable Pathogenic Germline Variants (PGV) in individuals whose clinical histories fail to fulfill syndrome-specific testing criteria. This is clinically relevant, as it has become increasingly complex to determine which individuals warrant germline testing.

Several risk assessment models have been developed to provide probability of an individual carrying a germline mutation. However, these models only provide syndrome-specific risk assessment for Lynch Syndrome, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC)), etc., and there is significant need for a risk assessment model tailored toward MultiGene Panel Testing.

The PREMM (PREdiction Model for gene Mutations) model has been rigorously tested, and is widely recognized and recommended by several professional societies, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American College of Gastroenterology, and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. The PREMMplus model is a clinical prediction algorithm (tool) that estimates the cumulative probability of an individual carrying a germline mutation in 19 genes linked to cancer. Individuals are considered to be high risk if they have a risk score greater than 2.5%, and are eligible for genetic evaluation to determine if they indeed harbor germline mutations, and these individuals in turn could benefit from measures to prevent the cancer, or detect cancer early.

This aim of this study was to develop and validate PREMMplus clinical risk assessment tool (clinical prediction model) that could be used to identify individuals who are likely to have Pathogenic Germline Variant and should undergo MultiGene Panel Testing. PREMMplus was designed to identify individuals carrying Pathogenic Germline Variants in 19 cancer susceptibility genes broadly categorized by phenotypic overlap and/or relative penetrance, and they included 11 Category A genes (APC, BRCA1/2, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, biallelic MUTYH, PMS2, and TP53) and 8 Category B genes (ATM, BRIP1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, and RAD51D). Assessment of germline variant pathogenicity was based on the most recent classification made by the clinical laboratory, performing MultiGene Panel Testing. This clinical prediction model was designed to achieve both high sensitivity and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) across a diverse spectrum of syndromes, used clinical data only, did not require tumor tissue thus facilitating scalability, and was adaptable to allow for future expansion, as new genes became incorporated into routine MultiGene Panel Testing.

Clinical predictors for this model included demographics (sex, ancestry, and age at testing), as well as personal, and family history of specific cancers in first- and second-degree relatives. EIGHTEEN cancer types were selected for PREMMplus development, including both common malignancies such as breast cancer and colorectal cancer and uncommon malignancies such as sarcoma and adrenocortical carcinoma, associated with inherited risk. Individuals were excluded from analysis if a personal and family history of any of these 18 cancers were not available, and/or if age at MultiGene Panel Testing was missing. Individuals with 2 or more Pathogenic Germline Variants were excluded from the development cohort.

The performance of this clinical model was validated in nonoverlapping data sets of 8,691 and 14,849 individuals with prior MultiGene Panel Testing ascertained from clinic and laboratory-based settings, respectively.

PREMMplus demonstrated high sensitivity and high Negative Predictive Value for identifying individuals with Pathogenic Germline Variants in the 19 different cancer susceptibility genes. PREMMplus demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.9%, 91.7%, and 89.3% and Negative Predictive Value of 98.3%, 97.5%, and 97.8% for identifying Category A gene Pathogenic Germline Variants carriers, in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. PREMMplus demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.9%, 85.6%, and 84.2% and Negative Predictive Value of 95.0%, 93.5%, and 93.5% for identifying Category A/B gene Pathogenic Germline Variants carriers in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Overall, 9.4%, 10.8%, and 9.2% of the development, clinic-based validation, and laboratory-based validation cohorts, respectively, harbored a Pathogenic Germline Variant in one of the 19 PREMMplus genes.

It was concluded that PREMMplus accurately identifies individuals with Pathogenic Germline Variants in a diverse spectrum of cancer susceptibility genes, with high sensitivity and Negative Predictive Value. PREMMplus represents a new evidence-based approach and can be used to identify individuals who should undergo MultiGene Panel Testing.

Development and Validation of the PREMMplus Model for Multigene Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment. Yurgelun MB, Uno H, Furniss CS, et al. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00120 Journal of Clinical Oncology

Efficacy of Low Dose Decitabine and Azacitidine in Lower Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome

RR

SUMMARY: It is estimated that in the US approximately 13,000 people are diagnosed with MyeloDysplastic Syndromes (MDS) each year. The prevalence has been estimated to be from 60,000 to 170,000 in the US. MyeloDysplastic Syndromes are a heterogenous group of stem cell disorders characterized by marrow failure resulting in cytopenias, mainly symptomatic anemia, with associated cytogenetic abnormalities, and abnormal cellular maturation with morphologic changes in clonal cells. Majority of the individuals diagnosed with MDS are 65 years or older and die as a result of infection and/or bleeding, consequent to bone marrow failure. About a third of patients with MDS develop Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).

The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) for MDS has 4 risk groups based on Total Risk Score (Low, Intermediate-1, Intermediate-2 and High). The three prognostic factors scored to predict the course of the patient’s disease include, percentage of blast cells in the bone marrow, type of chromosomal changes in the marrow cells and number of cytopenias (anemia, neutropenia or thrombocytopenia). Patients with low-risk MDS have an indolent disease course with a median survival of about 6 years with no therapeutic intervention. Patients with intermediate and higher-risk disease however have a shorter median survival even with treatment, with approximately a third of the patients progressing to AML within 3 years.

Patients with Low-risk MDS often present with symptomatic anemia and these patients are in chronic need for RBC transfusions. These patients are treated with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) as first line therapy. ESAs such as Darbepoetin alfa and Epoetin alfa are re-engineered and recombinant DNA technology products of Erythropoietin (EPO), and they stimulate erythropoiesis by binding and activating the EPO receptor. However, transfusion-dependent patients with serum EPO levels above 200U per liter are less likely to respond to ESAs. A majority of patients with higher-risk MDS are treated with hypomethylating agents such as VIDAZA® (Azacitidine) and DACOGEN® (Decitabine) and these agents can favorably modify the natural history of the disease, and have been shown to improve survival. However, the role of the hypomethylating agents in lower-risk MDS has not been established.

To better understand the role of hypomethylating agents in adult patients with previously untreated MDS, with low or Intermediate-1 risk MDS or Chronic MyeloMonocytic Leukemia (CMML), the researchers conducted a long-term analysis, of a previously reported randomized Phase II study of low dose Decitabine versus low dose Azacitidine, in lower-risk MDS and MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (Jabbour E, et al. Blood. 2017;130:1514-1522). The aim of this study was to better understand the impact of attenuated hypomethylating agents dosing, in patients with lower-risk MDS.

A total of 113 patients (N=113) were randomly assigned with a Bayesian response-adaptive design to receive either Decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV daily (N=73) or Azacitidine 75 mg/m2 IV daily (N=40) on days 1-3 of every 28-day cycle, between November 2012 and February 2016. Responding patients were allowed to continue therapy indefinitely. Bone marrow aspiration and/or biopsy were performed at the end of course 2 and every 3 months during the first year, and then every 3 to 6 months thereafter. Patients who had received other prior treatments for MDS, including growth factors, were eligible. Hydroxyurea treatment was permitted to control leukocytosis before study therapy. The authors in their previous publication reported that at a median follow up of 20 months, hypomethylating agents induced high response rates in patients with lower-risk MDS. The researchers in this extension analysis of lower-risk MDS patients, evaluated the Duration of Response, Event-Free Survival (EFS), and Overall Survival (OS), with a median follow-up of 68 months. The median number of treatment cycles was 15.

The Overall Response Rate was 67% in the Decitabine group and 48% in the Azacitidine group (P=0.042). Of the 59 patients who were transfusion dependent, 32% became transfusion independent (Decitabine 41% and Azacitidine 15%; P=0.039). The median duration of transfusion independency was 22 months. Among those patients who were transfusion independent at baseline, 9% became transfusion dependent after therapy. With a median follow-up of 68 months, the median overall Event-Free Survival was 17 months and median Overall Survival was 33 months. No early deaths were observed.

The authors concluded that low dose hypomethylating agents can induce durable response of transfusion independency in patients with lower-risk MDS, and response to hypomethylating agents can be associated with favorable clinical outcomes in this patient group.

Low-Dose Decitabine versus Low-Dose Azacitidine in Lower-Risk MDS. Sasaki K, Jabbour E, Montalban-Bravo G, et al. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2200034

Elacestrant in ER-Positive, HER2-Negative, Metastatic 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 290,560 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2022 and about 43,780 individuals will die of the disease, largely due to metastatic recurrence. Approximately 70% of breast tumors express Estrogen Receptors and/or Progesterone Receptors. The most common subtype of metastatic breast cancer is Hormone Receptor-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative breast cancer (65% of all metastatic breast tumors), and these patients are often treated with anti-estrogen therapy as first line treatment. However, resistance to hormonal therapy occurs in a majority of the patients, with a median Overall Survival (OS) of 36 months. With the development of Cyclin Dependent Kinases (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor is the mainstay, for the management of ER+/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, as first line therapy. Even with this therapeutic combination, most patients will eventually experience disease progression, including the development of ESR1 (Estrogen Receptor gene alpha) mutations.

ESR1 is the most common acquired mutation noted in breast tumors as they progress from primary to metastatic setting. These mutations promote ligand independent Estrogen Receptor activation and have been shown to promote resistance to estrogen deprivation therapy. It appears that ESR1 mutations are harbored in metastatic ER-positive breast cancers with prior Aromatase Inhibitor (AI) therapy, but not in primary breast cancers, suggesting that ESR1 mutations may be selected by prior therapy with an AI in advanced breast cancer. In a previously published study (JAMA Oncol.2016;2:1310-1315), ESR1 mutations Y537S and D538G mutations detected in baseline plasma samples from ER+/HER- advanced breast cancer patients, was associated with shorter Overall Survival. In this study it was noted that there was a three-fold increase in the prevalence of these mutations in patients who had failed first line hormonal therapy for metastatic disease, compared with those who were initiating first line therapy for advanced breast cancer (33% versus 11%).

Fulvestrant is a parenteral, Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader (SERD) and is the only SERD approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, acquired ESR1 mutations can also occur following Fulvestrant treatment, possibly because of poor bioavailability and incomplete ER blockade when administered intramuscularly. There is therefore an urgent unmet need for an alternate SERD that has activity in tumors harboring ESR1 mutations, and has improved bioavailability allowing oral administration.

Elacestrant is an oral, nonsteroidal, Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader (SERD) that degrades the Estrogen Receptor (ER) in a dose-dependent manner and inhibits estradiol-dependent functions of ER target gene transcription induction and breast cancer cell proliferation. Estradiol-stimulated tumor growth was diminished by Elacestrant in the ER+ xenograft models derived from heavily pretreated patients, including models resistant to CDK 4/6 inhibitors, Fulvestrant and those harboring ESR1 mutations Y537S and D538G. In an early Phase I trial, Elacestrant was noted to have an acceptable safety profile, and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed Partial Responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer.

EMERALD trial is a multicenter, International, randomized, open-label, Phase III study, designed to evaluate the benefit of Elacestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In this study, 477 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either Elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (N=239) or the Standard of Care which included investigator’s choice of Fulvestrant or an Aromatase Inhibitor including Anastrozole, Letrozole, or Exemestane (N=238). Treatment was given until disease progression. Both treatment groups were well balanced. The median patient age was 63 years, and patients must have progressed or relapsed on or after 1 or 2 lines of endocrine therapy for advanced disease, one of which was given in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, had 1 or fewer lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease, and had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. In the study, 48% had tumors with mutated ESR1 and 43% received two prior endocrine therapies. These patients were evenly distributed in both treatment groups. Patients were stratified by ESR1-mutation status, prior treatment with Fulvestrant, and visceral metastases. The co-Primary end points were Progression Free Survival (PFS) in the overall population, and in those with ESR1 mutations. Overall Survival (OS) was a Secondary end point.

Treatment with Elacestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, compared with Standard of Care. There was a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the Elacestrant group for all patients (HR=0.70; P=0.002) and a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations (HR=0.55; P=0.0005). The researchers in this study used landmark analysis of PFS at 6 months and 12 months which selects for patients who are still sensitive to endocrine therapy and addresses the limited PFS benefit caused by an initial progression, in patients with complete endocrine resistance who do not respond to endocrine therapy. The PFS at 12 months with Elacestrant was 22.3% in all patients compared with 9.4% for those receiving the Standard of Care treatment. Among the ESR1 mutation group, the 12 month PFS rate was more pronounced and was 26.8% with Elacestrant, compared to 8.2% with Standard of Care. The benefits with Elacestrant compared with Standard of Care, was consistent across multiple prespecified subgroups including patients who had received prior Fulvestrant. There also was a trend toward improved Overall Survival in patients who received Elacestrant, compared with Standard of Care. The final Overall Survival data were not mature at the time of this analysis. Nausea of any grade occurred in 35% of patients receiving Elacestrant and 18.8% receiving Standard of Care treatment, and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were 3.4% in the Elacestrant group versus 0.9% in the Standard of Care group.

It was concluded that Elacestrant is the first oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader that demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, compared with Standard of Care endocrine therapy, in patients with ER+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer, in the second/third line after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and has the potential to become the new standard of care in this study population.

Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial. Bidard F-C, Kaklamani VG, Neven P, et al. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00338 Journal of Clinical Oncology. Published online May 18, 2022.