Search

Objective: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician's choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis., Methods: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis., Results: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1-43.0) months. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49-1.10) and 0.64 (0.44-0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45-1.02) and 0.61 (0.41-0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3-5, 74% and 72%), respectively., Conclusion: Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03517449., Competing Interests: Kan Yonemori has received lecture fees from Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Takeda, Chugai, Fuji Film Pharma, PDR pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD), Boeringer Ingelheim, Ono, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, Jansen, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca; is a member of the advisory board for Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genmab, Gilead, OncXerna, Takeda, Novartis, and MSD; research funding from MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Genmab, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, and Haihe; and is principle investigator for MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Merk Biopharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Chugai, Ono, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Genmab, Boeringer Ingelheim, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Nihon Kayaku, and Haihe., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: Standard therapy for advanced endometrial cancer after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy remains unclear., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had previously received at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg, administered orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin at 60 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered intravenously every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel at 80 mg per square meter, administered intravenously weekly [with a cycle of 3 weeks on and 1 week off]). The two primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed on blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival. The end points were evaluated in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease and in all patients. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 827 patients (697 with pMMR disease and 130 with mismatch repair-deficient disease) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (411 patients) or chemotherapy (416 patients). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 6.6 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.72; P<0.001; overall: 7.2 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66; P<0.001). The median overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 17.4 vs. 12.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001; overall: 18.3 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 88.9% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 72.7% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced endometrial cancer. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck]; Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03517449.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Immunologic responses to anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients occur rapidly with pharmacodynamic T cell responses detectable in blood by 3 weeks. It is unclear, however, whether these early blood-based observations translate to the tumor microenvironment. We conducted a study of neoadjuvant/adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy in stage III/IV melanoma. We hypothesized that immune reinvigoration in the tumor would be detectable at 3 weeks and that this response would correlate with disease-free survival. We identified a rapid and potent anti-tumor response, with 8 of 27 patients experiencing a complete or major pathological response after a single dose of anti-PD-1, all of whom remain disease free. These rapid pathologic and clinical responses were associated with accumulation of exhausted CD8 T cells in the tumor at 3 weeks, with reinvigoration in the blood observed as early as 1 week. Transcriptional analysis demonstrated a pretreatment immune signature (neoadjuvant response signature) that was associated with clinical benefit. In contrast, patients with disease recurrence displayed mechanisms of resistance including immune suppression, mutational escape, and/or tumor evolution. Neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment is effective in high-risk resectable stage III/IV melanoma. Pathological response and immunological analyses after a single neoadjuvant dose can be used to predict clinical outcome and to dissect underlying mechanisms in checkpoint blockade.

Despite the success of monotherapies based on blockade of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) in human melanoma, most patients do not experience durable clinical benefit. Pre-existing T-cell infiltration and/or the presence of PD-L1 in tumours may be used as indicators of clinical response; however, blood-based profiling to understand the mechanisms of PD-1 blockade has not been widely explored. Here we use immune profiling of peripheral blood from patients with stage IV melanoma before and after treatment with the PD-1-targeting antibody pembrolizumab and identify pharmacodynamic changes in circulating exhausted-phenotype CD8 T cells (T ex cells). Most of the patients demonstrated an immunological response to pembrolizumab. Clinical failure in many patients was not solely due to an inability to induce immune reinvigoration, but rather resulted from an imbalance between T-cell reinvigoration and tumour burden. The magnitude of reinvigoration of circulating T ex cells determined in relation to pretreatment tumour burden correlated with clinical response. By focused profiling of a mechanistically relevant circulating T-cell subpopulation calibrated to pretreatment disease burden, we identify a clinically accessible potential on-treatment predictor of response to PD-1 blockade.

The success of genetically engineered T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARTs) has been a momentous step forward in harnessing the potent cancer fighting abilities of the immune system. The efficacy seen in relapsed/refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), not only by inducing remission, but also in maintaining long-term disease control, has been unprecedented. While the foundation for this approach has been firmly set in place, continued development will improve the efficacy, toxicity and applicability to other malignancies of this new class of 'living drugs'. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the most current clinical trial data in both acute and chronic leukaemias, and discuss some of the potential ways to enhance the activity and safety of CART therapy going forward., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Despite successful remission induction in 60-80% of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia, there remain a significant number of patients who exhibit primary refractory disease. Here we examine the data for predicting likelihood of having refractory disease, available therapeutic options, and how to decide the appropriate treatment option for a patient., Recent Findings: Recently identified recurrent molecular mutations and early response to chemotherapy as determined by kinetics of peripheral blast clearance or nadir bone marrow biopsy assist in determining the likelihood of primary refractory disease. Newer cytotoxic agents, used as salvage chemotherapy, or in novel conditioning regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplant may represent improvement over prior regimens. FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene inhibitors and other targeted therapies currently in clinical trials show promise for select patients. Hypomethylating agents provide benefit to patients who are not candidates for other therapies., Summary: Recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of acute myeloid leukemia have not yet translated to a significantly improved outlook for patients with refractory disease. While there are several therapeutic options, outcomes remain poor and further studies are needed to identify and validate novel approaches.

The aetiopathogenesis of the abnormal immune response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) remains incompletely understood. We and other investigators demonstrated altered expression of adenosine deaminase that act on RNA (ADAR) genes in SLE patients. Based on this information, we hypothesize that the altered expression and function of ADAR enzymes is a mechanism for the immunopathogenesis of SLE. ADARs edit gene transcripts through site-specific conversion of adenosine to inosine by hydrolytic deamination at C6 of the adenosine. Thirteen SLE subjects and eight healthy controls were studied. We assessed the role of ADAR enzymes in editing of PDE8A1 gene transcripts of normal and SLE T cells. These studies demonstrated the occurrence of ADAR-catalysed altered and site-selective editing profile of specific sites in the PDE8A1 gene transcripts of normal and SLE T cells. Two hot spots for A to I editing were observed in the PDE8A1 transcripts of normal and SLE T cells. A fundamental finding of this study is A to I hypo-editing followed by up-regulation of PDE8A1 transcripts in SLE T cells. These results are confirmed by analysing PDE8A1 transcripts of normal T cells activated with type I interferon-alpha. It is proposed that, the altered expression of ADAR enzymes tilt the balance of editing machinery and alter editing in SLE transcriptome. Such altered editing may contribute to the modulation of gene regulation and ultimately, immune functions in SLE and play an important role in the initiation and propagation of SLE pathogenesis.