Search

Background: In the phase 3 EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 study, cemiplimab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in Japan., Methods: Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed cell death-ligand 1 status and randomized 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice  single-agent chemotherapy for up to 96 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)., Results: Overall, 608 patients were randomized, of whom 56 (9.2%) were in Japan (cemiplimab, n = 29; chemotherapy, n = 27). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.6 (6.0-25.3) versus 18.2 (6.0-38.2) months for patients in Japan and for the overall population, respectively. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.4 (7.0-not evaluable) and 9.4 (5.4-14.9) months for cemiplimab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.68). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.0 (1.4-8.2) versus 3.7 (1.8-4.2) months with cemiplimab and chemotherapy (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.61), respectively. ORR was 17.2% for cemiplimab and 7.4% for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.44-13.99). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at any grade was 79.3% for cemiplimab and 100% for chemotherapy. Grade ≥3 adverse events were 37.9% versus 66.7% with cemiplimab and chemotherapy, respectively., Discussion: While acknowledging limitations inherent to a small subgroup analysis, the HR of 0.86 observed in Japanese patients suggests an emerging survival benefit despite a 4.6-month shorter median duration of follow-up versus the overall study population., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Coblockade of lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) and PD-1 receptors could provide significant clinical benefit for patients with advanced melanoma. Fianlimab and cemiplimab are high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized IgG4 monoclonal antibodies, targeting LAG-3 and PD-1, respectively. We report results from a first-in-human phase-I study of fianlimab and cemiplimab safety and efficacy in various malignancies including advanced melanoma., Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma were eligible for enrollment into four cohorts: three for patients without and one for patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting. Patients were treated with fianlimab 1,600 mg and cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 51 weeks, with an optional additional 51 weeks if clinically indicated. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 criteria., Results: ORRs were 63% for patients with anti-PD-1-naïve melanoma (cohort-6; n = 40; median follow-up 20.8 months), 63% for patients with systemic treatment-naïve melanoma (cohort-15; n = 40; 11.5 months), and 56% for patients with previous neo/adjuvant treatment melanoma (cohort-16; n = 18, 9.7 months). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the combined cohorts (6 + 15 + 16), the ORR was 61.2% and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) 13.3 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not estimated [NE]). In patients (n = 13) with previous anti-PD-1 adjuvant therapy, ORR was 61.5% and mPFS 12 months (95% CI, 1.4 to NE). ORR in patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy for advanced disease (n = 15) was 13.3% and mPFS 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.7). Treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events ≥grade 3 (G3) were observed in 44% and 22% of patients, respectively. Except for increased incidence of adrenal insufficiency (12%-G1-4, 4%-G3-4), no new safety signals were recorded., Conclusion: The current results show a promising benefit-risk profile of fianlimab/cemiplimab combination for patients with advanced melanoma, including those with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the adjuvant, but not advanced, setting.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Stratigos reports advisory board or steering committee roles for Janssen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, and Sanofi; and research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Genesis Pharma, and Novartis. Dr Sekulic reports advisory roles for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc and Roche. Dr Peris reports advisory board roles for AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Janssen, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Dr Bechter reports advisory board roles for Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Ultimovacs. Dr Prey reports no conflict of interest. Dr Lewis reports grants and personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and is now an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Basset-Seguin is a consultant and investigator for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr Chang reports advisory roles for Castle, Feldan, Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Merck, Novartis, and Galderma. Dr Dalle reports research grants and travel fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and reports that their spouse is an employee of Sanofi with stock options. Dr Fernández Orland declares no conflict of interest. Dr Licitra reports institutional grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm International SA, Eisai, Novartis, and Roche; institutional grants from Celgene International, Exelixis, Hoffmann-La Roche, IRX Therapeutics, Medpace, Merck Serono, and Pfizer; and personal fees from Sobi, Ipsen, Incyte Biosciences Italy SRL, Doxa Pharma, Amgen, Nanobiotics SA, GSK, AccMed, Medical Science Foundation G. Lorenzini, Associazione Sinapsi, Think 2 IT, Aiom Servizi, Prime Oncology, WMA Congress Education, Fasi, DueCi Promotion SRL, MI&T, Net Congress & Education, PRMA Consulting, Kura Oncology, Health & Life SRL, and Immuno-Oncology Hub. Dr Robert reports grants, personal fees, and advisory board roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Biothera, and Ultimovacs. Dr Ulrich reports advisory board and speaker roles for Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sun Pharma. Dr Hauschild reports institutional funding and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck & Co, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis; and consultancy fees from OncoSec, Almirall Hermal, and Sun Pharma. Dr Migden reports advisory roles for and travel fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Sun Pharmaceuticals; an advisory role for Rakuten Medical; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and PellePharm. Dr Dummer reports intermittent, project-focused consultant and advisory roles for Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Alligator, MaxiVAX SA, and touchIME outside the submitted work. Drs Yoo, Inocencio, Chen, Seebach, Lowy, and Fury are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mr Okoye is also an employee and shareholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Bassukas reports non-financial support from Leo Pharma and Novartis, and institutional grants from Leo Pharma. Dr Loquai reports personal fees from Roche, Sun Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, Almirall Hermal, and BioNTech. Dr De Giorgi reports no conflict of interest. Dr Eroglu reports advisory board fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Eisai, OncoSec, and Natera; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Gutzmer reports documentation fees to their institution from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc; personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis; grants and personal fees from Pfizer; grants from Johnson & Johnson; and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Almirall Hermal, Sun Pharma, 4SC, and Immunocore. Dr Ulrich reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and personal fees from Roche, medac, and Sun Pharma. Dr Puig reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Pfizer; grants from Avene; non-financial support from MAVIG, FotoFinder, 3Gen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from ISDIN, La Roche-Posay, and Roche; grants and personal fees from Sun Pharma, Leo Pharma, and Almirall; and personal fees from Ojer Pharma and Pierre Fabre. Dr LaFontaine reports employment at Sanofi and holds shares or stock in the company.

Background: Metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) is a rare condition with no effective second-line treatment options. Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that blocks the binding of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) to its ligands, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2). Here, we present the final analysis of cemiplimab in patients with mBCC after first-line hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment (NCT03132636)., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, phase II study, adults with mBCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, post-HHI treatment, received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Duration of response (DOR) was a key secondary endpoint. Other secondary endpoints were ORR per investigator assessment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response rate, safety, and tolerability., Results: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 70% were male and the median age of patients was 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 57.0-73.0] years. The median duration of follow-up was 8 months (IQR 4-21 months). The ORR per ICR was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 36%], with 2 complete responses and 10 partial responses. Among responders, the median time to response per ICR was 3 months (IQR 2-7 months). The estimated median DOR per ICR was not reached [95% CI 10 months-not evaluable (NE)]. The disease control rate was 63% (95% CI 49% to 76%) per ICR and 70% (95% CI 56% to 82%) per investigator assessment. The median PFS per ICR was 10 months (95% CI 4-16 months); the median OS was 50 months (95% CI 28 months-NE). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue [23 (43%)] and diarrhoea [20 (37%)]. There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusions: Cemiplimab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity, including durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with mBCC who had disease progression on or intolerance to HHI therapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical resection of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma is standard clinical practice; however, most tumours recur despite surgery, and no perioperative intervention has shown a survival benefit. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has induced pathological responses in multiple tumour types and might decrease the risk of postoperative recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the clinical activity of neoadjuvant cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma., Methods: For this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (stage Ib, II, and IIIb) were enrolled and received two cycles of neoadjuvant cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks followed by surgical resection. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had confirmed resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate liver function. Patients were excluded if they had metastatic disease, if the surgery was not expected to be curative, if they had a known additional malignancy requiring active treatment, or if they required systemic steroid treatment or any other immunosuppressive therapy. After resection, patients received an additional eight cycles of cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks in the adjuvant setting. The primary endpoint was significant tumour necrosis on pathological examination (defined as >70% necrosis of the resected tumour). Secondary endpoints included delay of surgery, the proportion of patients with an overall response, change in CD8 + T-cell density, and adverse events. Tumour necrosis and response were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab and completed surgical resection; safety and other endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Patients underwent pre-treatment biopsies and blood collection throughout treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03916627, Cohort B) and is ongoing., Findings: Between Aug 5, 2019, and Nov 25, 2020, 21 patients were enrolled. All patients received neoadjuvant cemiplimab, and 20 patients underwent successful resection. Of the 20 patients with resected tumours, four (20%) had significant tumour necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. 20 (95%) patients had a treatment-emergent adverse event of any grade during the neoadjuvant treatment period. The most common adverse events of any grade were increased aspartate aminotransferase (in four patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (in three), constipation (in three), and fatigue (in three). Seven patients had grade 3 adverse events, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (in two patients) and hypoalbuminaemia (in one). No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. One patient developed pneumonitis, which led to a delay in surgery by 2 weeks., Interpretation: This report is, to our knowledge, the largest clinical trial of a neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 monotherapy reported to date in hepatocellular carcinoma. The observed pathological responses to cemiplimab in this cohort support the design of larger trials to identify the optimal treatment duration and definitively establish the clinical benefit of preoperative PD-1 blockade in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TUM has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. TUM has served on advisory boards or data safety monitoring boards, or both, for AstraZeneca, Atara, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, Chimeric Therapeutics, Genentech, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Riboscience, and the Rockefeller University. MIF reports involvements with the following organisations: President of the New York Pathological Society (2019–21); President of the Hans Popper Hepatopathology Society of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (2016–18); Central Pathologist at Progenity; and Central Pathologist at Alexion Biopharma. SCW received salary support in 2021 from a Pilot Award (grant) from the Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation; SCW will also be receiving salary support from a research grant from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH in 2021–23. DD reports consulting for Atheneum Partners, Boston Healthcare Associates, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Dedham Group, Global Data, Guidepoint Global Advisors, Ipsen, and MJH Life Sciences. AOK reports a consulting role with Engine Biosciences and Axon Advisors LLC. MWS reports consulting roles with Eisai and Genentech. NF, NTG, RD, WW, FW, JM, BK, SL, VJ, NJ, SCH, HKC, JSS, EM, GT, and IL are employees and shareholders eof Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. PTh reports stock ownership in Mannkind and is an employee and shareholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NB reports a consulting role with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; stocks and other ownership interest in Avidea, Apricity, and PrimeVax; royalty payments from Neostem and Rome Therapeutics; scientific advisory board roles for Avidea, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, BreakBio, Carisma, CureVac, Duke University, Genentech, Genotwin, Gilead Sciences, Human Vaccines Project, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Novartis, Rome Therapeutics, Roswell Park, and Tempest Therapeutics; and both, for Merck, and research funding from Regeneron, Harbor Biomed, and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. SG reports consultancy or advisory roles, or both, for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen R&D, Merck, OncoMed, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen R&D, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; and is a named co-inventor on an issued patent for multiplex immunohistochemistry to characterise tumours and treatment responses. The technology is filed through the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has received payments associated with licensing this technology and both the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and SG is entitled to future payments. SG is also partially supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers CA224319, DK124165, CA234212, and CA196521). BT reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Helio Health; and is a consultant for Bayer Healthcare and Helio Health. MM reports consulting roles with Asher Bio, Celsius Therapeutics, Compugen, Dren Bio, Genenta, Innate Pharma, Morphic Therapeutic, Myeloid Therapeutics, and Nirogy Therapeutics; receives research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; honoraria from Amgen and GSK; and reports ownership interest less than 5% in Asher Bio, Celsius Therapeutics, Compugen, Dren Bio, Genenta, Morphic Therapeutic, Myeloid Therapeutics, and Nirogy Therapeutics. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed., Results: A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Survival was significantly longer with cemiplimab than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03257267.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: To provide pooled longer term data from three groups of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and to determine duration of response (DOR) and impact on quality of life (QoL)., Methods: Patients received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (group 1, metastatic CSCC [mCSCC], n=59; group 2, locally advanced CSCC, n=78) or cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (group 3, mCSCC, n=56). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). QoL was repeatedly measured at day 1 of each treatment cycle (groups 1 and 2: 8 weeks; group 3: 9 weeks)., Results: Median duration of follow-up was 15.7 months. Overall, ORR per ICR was 46.1% (95% CI: 38.9% to 53.4%). Complete response (CR) rates were 20.3%, 12.8%, and 16.1% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median time to CR was 11.2 months. Among patients with partial response or CR, the estimated proportion of patients with ongoing response at 12 months from the first objective response was 87.8% (95% CI: 78.5% to 93.3%), with median DOR not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of overall survival (OS) was 73.3% (95% CI: 66.1% to 79.2%) at 24 months, with median OS not reached. Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL improvements were observed as early as cycle 2 and were significantly improved and durable until last assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to first clinically meaningful improvement for pain was 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0 to 3.7) months and was significantly improved in responders versus non-responders (p<0.0001)., Conclusions: This is the largest (n=193) clinical dataset for a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor against advanced CSCC, confirming the sustained substantial clinical activity of cemiplimab in these patients, including new findings of improved CR rates over time, increasing DOR, and durable pain control and GHS/QoL improvement., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02760498), https://clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT02760498., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DR—institutional research grant and funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and travel and accommodation from Merck Sharp & Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline. NIK—grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; grants and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and HUYA Bioscience International; advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Incyte (data safety monitoring committee), Iovance, Merck, ARRAY Biopharma, Jounce Therapeutics, and Immunocore; grants from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, and Amgen; honorarium from Sanofi; and common stock ownership of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin, and Transenetrix. CDS—steering committee member for Castle Biosciences; steering committee member and consultant for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; consultant for Sanofi; received research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Genentech, and Merck; and is a chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. AG—personal fees and non-financial support (advisory board and travel support) from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma; personal fees (advisory board) from Merck KGaA, Eisai, and Pfizer; non-financial (travel) support from Astellas; and clinical trial unit support from PPD Australia. ALSC—consulting and advisory roles at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Merck; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Galderma, Jounce Therapeutics, and Merck. KDL—grants and personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. AML—uncompensated advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol-Myers Squibb with travel and accommodation expenses; and uncompensated consultancy for Eisai. LH-A—performed consulting and advisory roles at Massive Bio; speakers’ bureau roles at Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Polynoma, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, MedImmune, and Takeda. BGMH—consulting or advisory roles at Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, and Merck; and institutional research funding from Amgen. DS—institutional patients’ fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; advisory board honorarium fees from Amgen and Leo Pharma; speaker fee from Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board, speaker honorarium, and patients’ fees from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck-EMD; advisory board and speaker honorarium fees from Incyte and Pierre Fabre; advisory board honorarium and patients’ fees from MSD; steering committee honorarium fees from 4SC; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Array; and advisory board and patients’ fees from Philogen. AH—institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme/Merck, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Roche, and Novartis; institutional grants and consultancy fees from Merck Serono, Philogen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and consultancy fees from OncoSec. ES, JB, S-YY, SL, ZC, EO, C-IC, VM, IL, MGF—employees of and shareholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. MS—employee and shareholder in Sanofi. MRM—honoraria and travel expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, and Sun Pharma; and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Genentech, and Eli Lilly., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Before February, 2021, there was no standard treatment regimen for locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after first-line hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) therapy. Cemiplimab, a PD-1 antibody, is approved for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and has shown clinical activity as monotherapy in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we present the primary analysis data of cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after HHI therapy., Methods: We did an open-label, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial across 38 outpatient clinics, primarily at academic medical centres, in Canada, Europe, and the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic basal cell carcinoma (group 1) or locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (group 2) who had progressed on or were intolerant to previous HHI therapy were enrolled. Patients were not candidates for further HHI therapy due to progression of disease on or intolerance to previous HHI therapy or having no better than stable disease after 9 months on HHI therapy. Patients received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response by independent central review. Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis comprised all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab. The primary analysis is reported only for group 2; group 1 data have not reached maturity and will be reported when the timepoint, according to the statistical analysis plan, has been reached. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03132636, and is no longer recruiting new participants., Findings: Between Nov 16, 2017, and Jan 7, 2019, 84 patients were enrolled and treated with cemiplimab. At data cutoff on Feb 17, 2020, median duration of follow-up was 15 months (IQR 8-18). An objective response per independent central review was observed in 26 (31%; 95% CI 21-42) of 84 patients, including two partial responses that emerged at tumour assessments before the data cutoff and were confirmed by tumour assessments done subsequent to the data cutoff. The best overall response was five (6%) patients with a complete response and 21 (25%) with a partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40 (48%) of 84 patients; the most common were hypertension (four [5%] of 84 patients) and colitis (four [5%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 29 (35%) of 84 patients. There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Cemiplimab exhibited clinically meaningful antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after HHI therapy., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AJS reports advisory board or steering committee roles with Janssen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, and Sanofi; and research support from Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genesis Pharma, and Novartis. AS reports advisory roles with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Roche. KP reports advisory board roles with Abbvie, LEO Pharma, Janssen, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. OB has advisory board roles with Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Ultimovacs. KDL reports grants from the University of Colorado; and grants and personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. ALSC reports advisory roles with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Merck; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Galderma. SD reports that their spouse is an employee of Sanofi. LL reports institutional grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm International SA, Eisai, Novartis, and Roche; institutional grants from Celgene International, Exelixis, Hoffmann-La Roche, IRX Therapeutics, Medpace, Merck-Serono, and Pfizer; and personal fees from Sobi, Ipsen, Incyte Biosciences Italy SRL, Doxa Pharma, Amgen, Nanobiotics SA, GlaxoSmithKline, AccMed, Medical Science Fundation G. Lorenzini, Associazione Sinapsi, Think 2 IT, Aiom Servizi, Prime Oncology, WMA Congress Education, Fasi, DueCi Promotion SRL, MI&T, Net Congress & Education, PRMA Consulting, Kura Oncology, Health & Life SRL, and Immuno-Oncology Hub. CR reports grants and personal fees advisory board roles with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Biothera, and Ultimovacs. CU reports advisory board and speaker roles for Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sun Pharma. AH reports institutional funding and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck & Co, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Novartis; and consultancy fees from OncoSec, Almirall Hermal, and Sun Pharma. MRM reports advisory roles with and travel fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sun Pharmaceuticals; advisory role with Rakuten Medical; and research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and PellePharm. RD has intermittent, project focused consultant and advisory roles with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Alligator, MaxiVAX SA, and touchIME outside the submitted work. SL, S-YY, KM, EC, VJ, NF, EO, FS, DMW, and TB are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. CL reports personal fees from Roche, Sun Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, Almiral Hermal, and Biontech. ZE reports advisory board fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Array, Genentech, and SunPharma; and grants from Novartis. RG reports documentation fees to institution from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis; grants and personal fees from Pfizer; grants from Johnson & Johnson; and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Almirall Hermal, SUN Pharma, 4SC, and Bayer. JU reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and personal fees from Roche, medac, and Sun Pharma. SPu reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi; other (clinical trials) from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; grants from Avene; non-financial support from Abbie; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from ISDIN, La Roche-Posay, and Roche; grants and personal fees from Sun Pharma; non-financial support from Eli Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme; personal fees, non-financial support, and other (related to clinical trials) from Pfizer; grants, personal fees, and other from Leo Pharma and Almirall; personal fees and other (related to clinical trials) from Ojer Pharma; personal fees from Pierre Fabre; and non-financial support from MAVIG, FotoFinder, and 3Gen. GDY is an employee of, shareholder in, and a member of the Board of Directors at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. GT is an employee of, patent holder, and shareholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. IL and MGF are employees of, have patents pending, and are shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. SPr, MK, NB-S, AFO, IB, and VDG declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%., Methods: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy., Interpretation: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To characterize the safety, tolerability, and anti-tumor activity of cemiplimab as monotherapy or in combination with hypofractionated radiation therapy (hfRT) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. To determine the association between histology and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression., Methods: In non-randomized phase I expansion cohorts, patients (squamous or non-squamous histology) received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks for 48 weeks, either alone (monotherapy cohort) or with hfRT during week 2 (combination cohort). Due to insufficient tissue material, PD-L1 protein expression was evaluated in commercially purchased samples and mRNA expression levels were analyzed from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)., Results: Twenty patients enrolled in both cohorts in total; 10 had squamous histology. The most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea, fatigue, and hypokalemia, occurring in 35%, 25%, and 25%, respectively. Objective response rate was 10% in each cohort; responders had squamous histology. Duration of response was 11.2 months and 6.4 months for the responder in the monotherapy and combination cohort, respectively. Irradiated lesions were not included in the response assessments. In separate archived specimens (N = 155), PD-L1 protein expression in tumor and immune cells was negative (<1%) more commonly in adenocarcinoma than in squamous tumors. PD-L1 mRNA levels were lower in adenocarcinoma than squamous cell tumors (1.2 vs 5.0 mean transcripts per million, respectively) in TCGA., Conclusions: Cemiplimab has activity in cervical squamous cell carcinoma. The phase I results, combined with results from other anti-PD-1 trials in cervical cancer and our biomarker analyses have informed the design of the ongoing phase III trial, with the primary overall survival hierarchical analyses being done first in patients with squamous histology., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest DR has received institutional clinical trial funding from Genentech and Kura Oncology; institutional clinical trial funding and uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol Myers-Squibb, and GSK; and institutional clinical trial funding, uncompensated scientific committee, advisory board, and travel support from Merck. AGM has received consulting, advisory, speakers' bureau, and travel accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK-Tesaro, Clovis, Roche, Pharmamar, Genmab, MSD, Oncoinvent, Pfizer-Merck, Amgen, and Immunogen; and personal fees from Sotio. IB reports research funding and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Orion Pharma, Rakuten Aspyrian, Roche; research funding from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kura, Novartis, Pfizer, Shattuck Lab, VCN Biosciences. JYH is a consultant and receives fees from Foundation Medicine, Massive Bio, Inc., and Atheneum Consulting. DC has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Nectar, Torque, and Puretech. GF reports advisory roles to Fujifilm, EMD Serono and has received travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Fujifilm, Millennium, and Sarah Cannon Research Institute; speakers bureau expenses from Total Health Conferencing, royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and research funding to his institution from 3-V Biosciences, Abbisko, Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Aileron, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Amgen, ARMO, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bioatla, Biothera, Celldex, Celgene, Ciclomed, Curegenix, Curis, Cyteir, Daiichi, DelMar, eFFECTOR, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Exelixis, Fujifilm, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Hutchison MediPharma, Ignyta, Incyte, Jacobio, Jounce, Kolltan, Loxo, MedImmune, Millennium, Merck, miRNA Therapeutics, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, OncoMed, Oncothyreon, Precision Oncology, Prelude, Regeneron, Rgenix, Ribon, Strategia, Syndax, Taiho, Takeda, Tarveda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Turning Point Therapeutics, U.T. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Vegenics, and Xencor. SJ reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants from Nestle, outside the submitted work. KM reports institutional consultancy (honorarium and ad board) fees from Abbvie, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen, OncoMed, Pfizer, Samumed, Vavotar, VBL Therapeutics, Tarveda; institutional funding and personal fees from Clovis, Eli Lilly, Genentech Roche, Immunogen, and Tesaro. AN reports research funding from Eli Lily, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Neon Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, TopAlliance BiosciencesPsiOxus, Arcus; research funding and advisory board roles with Novartis, CytomX Therapeutics, Kymab; advisory board role with Genome; research funding to spouse from Immune Deficiency Foundation. MGM and SF declare no conflict of interest. KPP has received institutional research funding (START) from Abbvie, MedImmune, Peleton Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, ARMO BioSciences, ArQule, Amgen, Calithera Biosciences, Incyte, Merck, Jounce, ADC Therapeutics, 3D Medicines, EMD Serono, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Mersana, OncoMed, MabSpace Biosciences, Bayer, Basilia; advisory board roles with ArQule, Bayer, and Basilia. JB is a stockholder in Loxo Oncology, Forty-Seven, MorphoSys AG, and Zymeworks. MF, ES, JL, and S-YY are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. MGF, IL, MM, NAY-D, and WF are employees of, patent holders (pending approval), and shareholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cemiplimab, a high-affinity, potent human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to programmed cell death-1 demonstrated antitumor activity in a Phase 1 advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) expansion cohort (NCT02383212) and the pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT02760498). Here we report the primary analysis of fixed dose cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) (Group 3) and provide a longer-term update after the primary analysis of weight-based cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) (Group 1) among metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) patients in the pivotal study (NCT02760498)., Methods: The primary objective for each group was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator review (INV), duration of response (DOR) per ICR and INV, and safety and tolerability., Results: For Group 3 (n=56) and Group 1 (n=59), median follow-up was 8.1 (range, 0.6 to 14.1) and 16.5 (range, 1.1 to 26.6) months, respectively. ORR per ICR was 41.1% (95% CI, 28.1% to 55.0%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 45.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 54.8%) in both groups combined. Per ICR, Kaplan-Meier estimate for DOR at 8 months was 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5% to 99. 3%) in responding patients in Group 3, and at 12 months was 88.9% (95% CI, 69.3% to 96.3%) in responding patients in Group 1. Per INV, ORR was 51.8% (95% CI, 38.0% to 65.3%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 50.4% (95% CI, 41.0% to 59.9%) in both groups combined. Overall, the most common adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (27.0%) and diarrhea (23.5%)., Conclusion: In patients with mCSCC, cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously Q3W produced substantial antitumor activity with durable response and an acceptable safety profile. Follow-up data of cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously Q2W demonstrate ongoing durability of responses., Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02760498. Registered May 3, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760498., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DR: institutional research grant and funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline; uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; travel and accommodation from Merck Sharp & Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline. MRM: honoraria and travel expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, and Sun Pharma; and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Genentech, and Eli Lilly. AML: uncompensated advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol-Myers Squibb with travel and accommodation expenses. CDS: steering committee member for Castle Biosciences; a steering committee member and consultant for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; a consultant for Sanofi; has received research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Genentech, and Merck, and is a chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NIK: grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; grants and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and HUYA Bioscience International; advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Genentech, AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Merck, Array BioPharma, and Immunocore; grants from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, and Amgen; honorarium from Sanofi; and common stock ownership of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin, and TransEnterix. BGMH: consulting or advisory roles at Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, Merck, and institutional research funding from Amgen. DS: institutional patients’ fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; advisory board honorarium fees from Amgen and Leo Pharma; speaker fee from Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board, speaker honorarium and patients’ fees from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck-EMD; advisory board and speaker honorarium fees from Incyte and Pierre Fabre; advisory board honorarium and patients’ fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, steering committee honorarium fees from 4SC, advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Array; and advisory board and patients’ fees from Philiogen. LAD: advisory role at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and research funding from Eisai, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. LH-A: performed consulting and advisory roles at Massive Bio; speakers’ bureau roles at Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Immunocore, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Polynoma, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, MedImmune, and Takeda. ALSC: consulting and advisory roles at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck; research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, Galderma, and Merck. BM: speaker’s honoraria, travel, accommodations and expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sanofi. AH: institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme/Merck, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Roche, and Novartis; institutional grants and consultancy fees from Merck Serono, Philogen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and consultancy fees from OncoSec. CU: honoraria, consulting, or advisory roles, speaker’s bureau role, research funding and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Novartis, Sanofi, Galderma, and Almirall. TE: consulting or advisory roles at Sanofi Genzyme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme; speakers’ bureau role at Roche and Merck Sharp & Dohme and research funding from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. BS: consulting or advisory roles at Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck KGaA Australia. ACP: honoraria and consulting or advisory roles at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Array, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Amgen; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celldex, and Forance and travel, accommodation, expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Array, and Seattle Genetics. JLG: research institution support for the study from and advisory board for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. RG: honoraria from Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; consulting or advisory role for 4SC, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sun Pharma, and Takeda; research funding from Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer; travel, accommodations, expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sorono, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. MA: consulting or advisory roles for Pulse Biosciences and Revance Therapeutics. EO, MM, VJ, ES, JB, SL, IL, MGF: employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. AG: personal fees and non-financial support (advisory board and travel support) from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma; personal fees (advisory board) from Merck KGaA, Eisai, and Pfizer; non-financial (travel) support from Astellas; and clinical trial unit support from PPD Australia., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cemiplimab has shown substantial antitumour activity in patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma have poor prognosis with conventional systemic therapy. We present a primary analysis of the safety and antitumour activity of cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma., Methods: This pivotal open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial was done across 25 outpatient clinics, primarily at academic medical centres, in Australia, Germany, and the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1) received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks. Tumour measurements were done every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response, according to independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for radiological scans and WHO criteria for medical photography. Data cutoff was Oct 10, 2018, when the fully enrolled cohort reached the prespecified timepoint for the primary analysis. Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis comprised all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02760498., Findings: Between June 14, 2016, and April 25, 2018, 78 patients were enrolled and treated with cemiplimab. The median duration of study follow-up was 9·3 months (IQR 5·1-15·7) at the time of data cutoff. An objective response was observed in 34 (44%; 95% CI 32-55) of 78 patients. The best overall response was ten (13%) patients with a complete response and 24 (31%) with a partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 34 (44%) of 78 patients; the most common were hypertension in six (8%) patients and pneumonia in four (5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 23 (29%) of 78 patients. One treatment-related death was reported that occurred after onset of aspiration pneumonia., Interpretation: Cemiplimab showed antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for whom there was no widely accepted standard of care., Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) receptor delivers inhibitory checkpoint signals to activated T cells upon binding to its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2 expressed on antigen-presenting cells and cancer cells, resulting in suppression of T-cell effector function and tumor immune evasion. Clinical antibodies blocking the interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 restore the cytotoxic function of tumor antigen-specific T cells, yielding durable objective responses in multiple cancers. This report describes the preclinical characterization of REGN2810, a fully human hinge-stabilized IgG4(S228P) high-affinity anti-PD-1 antibody that potently blocks PD-1 interactions with PD-L1 and PD-L2. REGN2810 was characterized in a series of binding, blocking, and functional cell-based assays, and preclinical in vivo studies in mice and monkeys. In cell-based assays, REGN2810 reverses PD-1-dependent attenuation of T-cell receptor signaling in engineered T cells and enhances responses of human primary T cells. To test the in vivo activity of REGN2810, which does not cross-react with murine PD-1, knock-in mice were generated to express a hybrid protein containing the extracellular domain of human PD-1, and transmembrane and intracellular domains of mouse PD-1. In these mice, REGN2810 binds the humanized PD-1 receptor and inhibits growth of MC38 murine tumors. As REGN2810 binds to cynomolgus monkey PD-1 with high affinity, pharmacokinetic and toxicologic assessment of REGN2810 was performed in cynomolgus monkeys. High doses of REGN2810 were well tolerated, without adverse immune-related effects. These preclinical studies validate REGN2810 as a potent and promising candidate for cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(5); 861-70. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Nesvacumab (REGN910) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that specifically binds and inactivates the Tie2 receptor ligand Ang2 with high affinity, but shows no binding to Ang1. The main objectives of this trial were to determine the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of nesvacumab., Experimental Design: Nesvacumab was administered intravenously every two weeks with dose escalations from 1 to 20 mg/kg in patients with advanced solid tumors., Results: A total of 47 patients were treated with nesvacumab. No patients in the dose escalation phase experienced DLTs, therefore a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. The most common nesvacumab-related adverse events were fatigue (23.4%), peripheral edema (21.3%), decreased appetite, and diarrhea (each 10.6%; all grade ≤ 2). Nesvacumab was characterized by linear kinetics and had a terminal half-life of 6.35 to 9.66 days in a dose-independent manner. Best response by RECIST 1.1 in 43 evaluable patients included 1 partial response (adrenocortical carcinoma) of 24 weeks duration. Two patients with hepatocellular carcinoma had stable disease (SD) > 16 weeks, with tumor regression and >50% decrease in α-fetoprotein. Analyses of putative angiogenesis biomarkers in serum and tumor biopsies were uninformative for treatment duration., Conclusions: Nesvacumab safety profile was acceptable at all dose levels tested. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid tumors. On the basis of cumulative safety, antitumor activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, the 20 mg/kg dose was determined to be the RP2D., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)