Search

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Purpose Combining immunotherapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action may enhance efficacy. We describe the safety and efficacy of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC; an oncolytic virus) in combination with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor) in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib trial of T-VEC in combination with ipilimumab, T-VEC was administered intratumorally in week 1 (106 plaque-forming units/mL), then in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter (108 plaque-forming units/mL). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four infusions, beginning in week 6. The primary end point was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response criteria and safety. Results Median duration of treatment with T-VEC was 13.3 weeks (range, 2.0 to 95.4 weeks). Median follow-up time for survival analysis was 20.0 months (1.0 to 25.4 months). Nineteen patients were included in the safety analysis. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, and no new safety signals were detected. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were seen in 26.3% of patients; 15.8% had AEs attributed to T-VEC, and 21.1% had AEs attributed to ipilimumab. The objective response rate was 50%, and 44% of patients had a durable response lasting ≥ 6 months. Eighteen-month progression-free survival was 50%; 18-month overall survival was 67%. Conclusion T-VEC with ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile, and the combination appeared to have greater efficacy than either T-VEC or ipilimumab monotherapy.

2554 Background: KN046 is a novel bispecific antibody that blocks both PD-L1 interaction with PD1 and CTLA-4 interaction with CD80/CD86. KN046 has a wild type IgG1 Fc portion that preserves intact effector functions, such as depletion of Tregs in tumor microenvironments. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, tolerability, PK and preliminary efficacy of KN046 in subjects with advanced solid tumors. Methods: This traditional “3+3” dose-escalation design study enrolled patients (pts) with advanced unresectable or metastatic solid tumors refractory or intolerant to standard therapies. Previous treatment from PD1 or PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors was allowed. KN046 was administered intravenously Q2W. Dose limit toxicity (DLT) evaluation period is 28 days. The planned dose levels (DL) were 0.3, 1, 3, 5 and 10 mg/kg. Efficacy evaluation was performed by RECIST 1.1 every 8 weeks. Results: As of Dec 13, 2018, 10 pts had been enrolled (0.3 mg/kg, n = 1; 1 mg/kg, n = 3; 3 mg/kg, n = 3; and 5 mg/kg, n = 3). Median duration of treatment was 8 (range: 2-24) weeks. 1 DLT was observed at 5 mg/kg dose (a grade 3 immune-related hepatitis without elevation in total bilirubin; reversible in two weeks). The most common (≥30%) treatment-emergent AEs (TEAE) were Fatigue, Diarrhea, Nausea, Vomiting. Six immune-related TEAEs (Abdominal pain lower, Arthralgia, Hepatic function abnormal, Hyperthyroidism, Nausea and Transaminitis) were observed in 3 pts. One pt with NSCLC from 3 mg/kg cohort had confirmed completed response. Two pts (TNBC and nivolumab refractory RCC) from 1 mg/kg cohort had shown long-term stable disease ( > 12 weeks). Faster clearance of KN046 was observed at lower dose might be due to target-mediated clearance. T1/2 is approximately 7~9 days at doses of 3 mg/kg and above when saturation occurs. Conclusions: Single agent KN046 has an acceptable safety profile and is in line with previously reported safety data from other immune checkpoint inhibitors. Preliminary efficacy results are promising. PK data from initial 4 cohorts support Q2W schedule. The study is currently ongoing at dose level of 5 mg/kg Q2W. Clinical trial information: NCT03529526.

9509 Background: T is a HSV-1-based oncolytic virus designed to selectively replicate in tumors and produce GM-CSF to stimulate antitumor immune responses. I is an anti-CTLA-4 Ab that blocks inhibition of activated T cells. This is the first randomized study to evaluate the addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods: The 1o endpoint was ORR by immune-related response criteria. Key 2o endpoints: duration of response, disease control rate (DCR), PFS, OS, and safety. Prior treatment was allowed but not required. Pts had unresected stage IIIB-IV melanoma with measurable/injectable tumor(s) and no evidence of immunosuppression. T was given at approved dosing until no injectable tumors, disease progression (PD), or intolerance. I was started at w6 in T+I and at w1 in I at 3 mg/kg IV q3w x 4. Primary analysis occurred 6 m after last pt enrolled. Results: 198 pts were randomized: 98 T+I; 100 I. Characteristics were similar: 54% stage IIIB-IVM1a, 46% IVM1b/c. Median follow up time was 68 w (T+I) and 58 w (I). ORR was 38.8% (T+I) and 18.0% I, P = 0.002, Odds ratio (OR) 2.9. 89% T+I and 83% I pts remain in response. Unconfirmed visceral lesion response was 35.5% T+I vs 13.6% I. OS is immature. Of 190 pts (safety set: 95 T+I, 95 I), most common adverse events (AEs) for T+I, I (%) were fatigue (59, 42), chills (53, 3), and diarrhea (42, 35). 28% T+I and 18% I pts had gr ≥3 tx-related AE. There were 3 deaths (all unrelated) in T+I: 1 myocardial infarction and 2 PD. Conclusions: The study met the 1o endpoint. ORR was significantly higher for T+I vs I; responses were not limited to injected lesions. Toxicity of T+I combination was tolerable with no unexpected AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT01740297. [Table: see text]

TPS9598Background: Talimogene laherparepvec, an oncolytic viral immunotherapy, was designed to selectively replicate in tumors resulting in lytic cell death, antigen release, and production of GM-C...

9568Background: T-VEC is a herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 -based oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate in tumors, produce GM-CSF and stimulate antitumor immune responses in melanoma. T-VEC significantly improved durable response rate vs GM-CSF in stage IIIB-IV melanoma patients (pts) with injectable tumors. Pembro inhibits programmed cell death protein 1 and improves survival in advanced melanoma. The combination may further improve clinical benefit. Here we report phase 1b efficacy, safety and biomarker data from a phase 1b/3 study of T-VEC+pembro in unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma (NCT02263508) with all pts having started on T-VEC+pembro ≥ 6 mo prior. Methods: Key inclusion criteria: unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma, injectable lesions; no prior systemic tx; and ECOG PS 0-1. T-VEC: ≤ 4 mL in (sub)cutaneous/nodal lesions, 106 PFU/mL d1, 108PFU/mL d22 then Q2W; pembro: IV, 200 mg d36 then Q2W. Tx until first occurrence of: complete response (CR); no injectable tumors (for T-VEC); ...

TPS9081 Background: T-VEC is a herpes simplex virus-1-based oncolytic immunotherapy designed to preferentially replicate in tumors, produce GM-CSF and stimulate an anti-tumor immune response. OPTiM...

9026 Background: T-VEC is an intralesional oncolytic immunotherapy comprising a modified HSV-type 1. In the randomized OPTiM phase 3 trial, T-VEC significantly improved DR rate (DRR, continuous par...

3066 Background: BEZ235 is a potent and highly specific oral dual mTOR/PI3K inhibitor. BEZ235 hard-gelatin capsule (Burris, ASCO 2010) and SDS capsule (Rodon, SABCS 2010) were reported previously. ...

4041 Background: GAN and conatumumab (CON) are investigational, fully human, monoclonal antibodies against type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) and death receptor 5, respectively. A 3...

3056 Background: BEZ235 is a novel pan-class I PI3K/mTOR inhibitor with proven apoptotic effect (Brachman et al 2009), antiangiogenic effect (Schnell et al 2009) and clinical activity especially in...

4130^ Introduction: Pmab is a fully human antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor that is approved as monotherapy for mCRC in the US, EU, and Canada. AMG 655 is an investigational, fully human agonistic antibody against death receptor 5. This is the first study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMG 655 and pmab for the tx of mCRC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were ≥ 18 years old, had ECOG status 0–1, radiographic disease progression (PD) during or after tx with fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and/or oxaliplatin chemotherapy for mCRC. This is a 2-part study: in part 1 (n∼6–27 pts), the primary endpoint is the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs); in part 2 (n∼38–41 pts), the primary endpoint is objective response rate per modified RECIST. Secondary endpoints for both parts include efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and antibody formation. In part 1, pts received pmab 6 mg/kg Q2W plus AMG 655 at a starting dose of 10 mg/kg (evaluation of subsequent doses of 3 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg if needed; 6–9 pts at each dose) by sequential intravenous infusion at week 1 and Q2W thereafter until PD or intolerability. The tolerable dose in part 1 was selected for part 2. Results: We describe here the safety of the first 15 pts (n=5 part 1; n=10 part 2) after ≥ 8 weeks on study. Eight (53%) pts were women, 14 (93%) pts were white, and 9 (60%) pts had ECOG 1. Median (range) age was 61 (38–77) years. All pts received pmab 6 mg/kg and AMG 655 10 mg/kg Q2W. Median (range) follow-up time was 15.4 (9–31) weeks. There were no DLTs in part 1, thus AMG 655 10 mg/kg Q2W was selected for part 2. One (7%) pt had a tx-related adverse event (AE) ≥ grade (gr) 3: gr 3 hypomagnesemia. Tx-emergent Aes ≥ 25% are shown ( Table ). Laboratory values ≥ gr 3: one gr 3 AST and ALT; one gr 3 lipase. From intensive PK samples from the first 6 pts, pmab had no apparent impact on the PK of AMG 655. Conclusions: AMG 655 and pmab can be safely combined in later lines of tx for mCRC. The study is ongoing. Safety results for additional pts will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text] ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting. For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings. For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .