Search

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minori

This cost analysis, from a societal perspective, compared the cost difference of a networked teletrial model (NTTM) with four regional hubs versus conventional trial operation at a single metropolitan specialist centre. The Australian phase 3 cancer interventional randomised controlled trial included 152 of 328 regional participants (patient enrolment 2018-2021; 6-month primary end point). The NTTM significantly reduced (AU$2155 per patient) patient travel cost and time and lost productivity.

IMPORTANCE: Thromboprophylaxis for individuals receiving systemic anticancer therapies has proven to be effective. Potential to maximize benefits relies on improved risk-directed strategies, but existing risk models underperform in cohorts with lung and gastrointestinal cancers. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical benefits and safety of biomarker-driven thromboprophylaxis and to externally validate a biomarker thrombosis risk assessment model for individuals with lung and gastrointestinal cancers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapies [TARGET-TP]) conducted from June 2018 to July 2021 (with 6-month primary follow-up) included adults aged 18 years or older commencing systemic anticancer therapies for lung or gastrointestinal cancers at 1 metropolitan and 4 regional hospitals in Australia. Thromboembolism risk assessment based on fibrinogen and d-dimer levels stratified individuals into low-risk (observation) and high-risk (randomized) cohorts. INTERVENTIONS: High-risk patients were randomized 1:1 to receive enoxaparin, 40 mg, subcutaneously daily for 90 days (extending up to 180 days according to ongoing risk) or no thromboprophylaxis (control). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was objectively confirmed thromboembolism at 180 days. Key secondary outcomes included bleeding, survival, and risk model validation. RESULTS: Of 782 eligible adults, 328 (42%) were enrolled in the trial (median age, 65 years [range, 30-88 years]; 176 male [54%]). Of these participants, 201 (61%) had gastrointestinal cancer, 127 (39%) had lung cancer, and 132 (40%) had metastatic disease; 200 (61%) were high risk (100 in each group), and 128 (39%) were low risk. In the high-risk cohort, thromboembolism occurred in 8 individuals randomized to enoxaparin (8%) and 23 control individuals (23%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = .005; number neede

Background: People with cancer are at higher risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 infection. We investigated the differences in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes in people with various solid organ and hematological malignancies. Method(s): An online survey of adult patients with cancer attending eight health services across four states in Australia, was conducted from June to September 2021. Demographics, cancer history and vaccination status were recorded. Only completed surveys were analysed. Variables were compared with chi-squared and multivariable analysis using logistic regression. Vaccine hesitancy was assessed using the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, and the Monash Disease Vaccine Acceptance Scale. T-test analysis was used to examine relationships between the scales and groups. Result(s): There were 2997 evaluable responses; 53.2% female, 61.8% from metropolitan areas, 27.5% with metastatic solid organ disease and 50.6% on current anti-cancer treatment. Patients with GI cancers comprised 13.5% (n = 405), compared with hematological 28.4%, breast 24.6%, genitourinary 14.1% and other cancer types 19.4%. Vaccination rates were significantly lower for respondents with GI cancers compared to other cancer types (71.6% v 79.3%; p< 0.001). Significant differences in the GI cancer population compared to all others were: more males (p < 0.001), lower level of education (p= 0.001), fewer reporting English as first language (p = 0.02) and shorter time since cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001). These remainedsignificant after logistic regression. Among GI cancer respondents, factors associated with being vaccinated compared to unvaccinated included: older age (p < 0.001), higher education level (p = 0.03) and English as first language (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the scales measuring vaccine hesitancy, confidence and complacency, for the GI cancer population compared to other can

Aims: People with cancer are at increased risk of severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID-19) vaccination is key to protecting this vulnerable population. The Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) aimed to develop a statement addressing key issues relevant to COVID-19 vaccination in solid tumour patients, including vaccine safety, efficacy and delivery in the Australian context. Methods : Representative MOGA members convened a working group to produce this position statement. Recommendations from key international oncology society groups (e.g., American Society of Clinical Oncology) were summarised and incorporated in the Australian context. Consultation from the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy was included. The statement was endorsed by COSA, with an initial version published in the Internal Medicine Journal and versions since regularly updated on the MOGA website. Results : Safety of COVID-19 vaccination in the cancer population has been shown in registration trials (4% of BNT162b2 phase III study) and cohort studies of people with cancer. Allergy risks arise from shared constituents between COVID-19 vaccines andanti-neoplastic therapy. Whilst history of allergy to pegylated drugs require an immunologist review, 30 min post-vaccine observation is appropriate with past allergy to polysorbate (e.g., docetaxel) and polyxyl 35 castor oil (e.g., paclitaxel) containing medications. Early data show reduced immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients, particularly chemotherapy recipients, although the impact of otheranti-neoplastic therapy is less clear. Timely administration of the booster dose is important for seroconversion in cancer patients. Optimal timing of COVID-19 vaccination in relation toanti-neoplastic therapy remains undetermined. Avoidance of concurrent administration withanti-neoplastic therapy infusion and avoidance of nadir period maybe considered. Conclusions : COVID

Background: Immune checkpoint immunotherapy (ICI) is active against many cancers. Many people are failed by PD1 inhibition alone, but not all patients benefit, nor require combination ICI treatment. UNISoN (NCT03177239) previously reported outcomes in people with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) receiving nivolumab (N) monotherapy, and N plus ipilimumab (I) in those whose cancers progressed after N alone. We present the final planned report. Method(s): Population, Intervention, Analysis: Participants (pts) with advanced nccRCC with good performance status (ECOG 0/1) received N 240mg q2w alone (Part 1). Those with cancers refractory to N at 3 months were offered combination I (1mg/kg) + N (3mg/kg) q3w for up to 4 doses, followed by N 240mg q2w for a maximum total of 12 months of N (Part 2). UNISoN was powered to identify a clinically-relevant objective tumor response rate (OTRR) of 30% (assuming 15% was not relevant) among people receiving I+N in Part 2. Result(s): 85 pts with a representative spectrum of nccRCC histologies were enrolled and received N. Amongst the total population enrolled to UNISoN Part 1/2, mOS was 24 (16-28) months and 12m OS was 65% (54%-74%); of those proceeding to Part 2, the mOS was 10 (6-17) months only. Overall, 17% (10%-27%; 14/83) and 10% (3%-23%; 4/41) of pts experienced a response from N alone or I+N, respectively. 41 pts refractory to N received I+N. Overall in Part 2, the median time on treatment was 2.1 (95% CI 1.8, 2.8) months, the median number of cycles was 3; median follow-up at final analysis was 22 (16-30) months. In this population, the median PFS was 2.6 (2.2-3.8) months and 12m PFS was 11% (4%-23%). 13% (7%-22%) of patients were free of progression or death at 24 months. The primary endpoint was not met; only 80% of pts failed by N were assessable for response in Part 2. Overall tumor responses from N alone or I+N were more common in pts with papillary histology; pts with chromophobe histology had poor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of intermittent docetaxel chemotherapy guided by circulating methylated glutathione S-transferase Pi-1 (mGSTP1) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: GUIDE (NCT04918810) is a randomised, two-arm, non-comparative phase-2 trial recruiting 120 patients at six Australian centres. Patients with Prostate Cancer Working Group-3 defined metastatic CRPC who are commencing docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q3w will be pre-screened for detectable mGSTP1 at baseline ± following two cycles of treatment. Those with detectable plasma mGSTP1 at baseline that becomes undetectable after two cycles of chemotherapy will be eligible for GUIDE. Prior to Cycle 4 of docetaxel, these patients are randomised 2:1 to one of two treatment arms: Arm A (cease docetaxel and reinstitute if mGSTP1 becomes detectable) or Arm B (continue docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q3w in accordance with clinician's usual practice). The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include time on treatment holidays, safety, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, health resource use, and cost associated with treatment. Enrolment commenced November 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The results of this trial will generate data on the clinical utility of mGSTP1 as a novel biomarker to guide treatment de-escalation in metastatic CRPC.

As COVID-19 vaccinations became available and were proven effective in preventing serious infection, uptake amongst individuals varied, including in medically vulnerable populations. This cross-sectional multi-site study examined vaccine uptake, hesitancy, and explanatory factors amongst people with serious and/or chronic health conditions, including the impact of underlying disease on attitudes to vaccination. A 42-item survey was distributed to people with cancer, diabetes, or multiple sclerosis across ten Australian health services from 30 June to 5 October 2021. The survey evaluated sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics and incorporated three validated scales measuring vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related beliefs generally and specific to their disease: the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale and the Disease Influenced Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six. Among 4683 participants (2548 [54.4%] female, 2108 [45.0%] male, 27 [0.6%] other; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [13.3] years; 3560 [76.0%] cancer, 842 [18.0%] diabetes, and 281 [6.0%] multiple sclerosis), 3813 (81.5%) self-reported having at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Unvaccinated status was associated with younger age, female sex, lower education and income, English as a second language, and residence in regional areas. Unvaccinated participants were more likely to report greater vaccine hesitancy and more negative perceptions toward vaccines. Disease-related vaccine concerns were associated with unvaccinated status and hesitancy, including greater complacency about COVID-19 infection, and concerns relating to vaccine efficacy and impact on their disease and/or treatment. This highlights the need to develop targeted strategies and education about COVID-19 vaccination to support medically vulnerable populations and health professionals.

Purpose: Combination immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 blockade has demonstrated significant clinical activity across several tumor types. Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are a heterogeneous group of rare tumors with limited treatment options. CA209-538 is a clinical trial of combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab in rare cancers, including advanced NETs. Patients and Methods: CA209-538 is a prospective multicenter clinical trial in patients with advanced rare cancers. Patients received treatment with nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every two weeks and continued for up to 96 weeks, until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed every 12 weeks by RECIST 1.1. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete remission partial remission stable disease). Result(s): Twenty-nine patients with advanced NETs received treatment. Three (10%) patients had low-, 13 (45%) had intermediate-, and 13 (45%) had high-grade tumors; lung was the most common primary site (39%). The objective response rate was 24% with a CBR of 72%; 43% of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN), and 33% of patients with atypical bronchial carcinoid achieved an objective response. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-10.5] and overall survival was 14.8 months (95% CI: 4.1-21.3). Immune-related toxicity was reported in 66% of patients with 34% experiencing grade 3/4 events. Conclusion(s): Combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated significant clinical activity in subgroups of patients with advanced NETs including patients with atypical bronchial carcinoid and high-grade pancreatic NENs.Copyright © 2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Aim: To deliver an independent, weekly JournalClub including contemporaneous articles with expert analysis, in an original and engaging format. Method(s): The Oncology Journal Club Podcast is recorded weekly covering recent articles with a mix between information and analysis. It is available via Google/ Apple Podcast, Spotify and via the Oncology News Australia website. There are two alternating formats, each featuring a host (ES) and two co-hosts (CU and HP: representing rural/regional and international oncology). The first consists of several 5-7 minute 'in depth' reviews of a recent publication, followed by a related guest interview (e.g. one of the authors), then Quick Bites (1-minute outlines of practice changing publications) and PBS Update. The alternate format involves themed episodes,with relevant publications and/or guest interviews, produced without specific funding by an independent oncology news service (RB). Complementary special extended interview podcasts are also available. The podcast is recorded voluntarily by the hosts/co-hosts, with a unique format and tone based on easy interaction and banter, identifying the key issues of the papers and how they impact practice. Result(s): As of August 10, 2020, 11 episodes of the Oncology Journal Club podcast have been produced, covering 123 papers and featuring 10 interviewees. There have been > 5000 downloads (from >400 to >1000 per episode) from 31 countries. The discussion covers 13 major tumour types, supportive care, technology,COVID-19, diet, geriatric oncology, equality, immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Feedback from listeners comprises >50 comments which reflect the accessibility of the format, e.g. The podcast is brilliant. This is my favourite way to do Journal Club (CEO of an Australian National Cancer Organisation). Conclusion(s): The Oncology JournalClub Podcast is a novel educational platform that has gained a significant following in Australia, delivering analysis of contemporary cancer

People with cancer are vulnerable to increased morbidity and mortality from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 vaccination is key to protecting the population of people with cancer from adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Medical Oncology Group of Australia aimed to address the considerations around COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer, in particular, safety and efficacy of vaccination. The assessment of patients with generalised allergic reaction to anti-cancer therapy containing vaccine components and practical implementation of vaccination of people on active anti-cancer therapy are also discussed.Copyright © 2021 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

TP53 mutations are implicated in the progression of mucinous borderline tumors (MBOT) to mucinous ovarian carcinomas (MOC). Optimized immunohistochemistry (IHC) for TP53 has been established as a proxy for the TP53 mutation status in other ovarian tumor types. We aimed to confirm the ability of TP53 IHC to predict TP53 mutation status in ovarian mucinous tumors and to evaluate the association of TP53 mutation status with survival among patients with MBOT and MOC. Tumor tissue from an initial cohort of 113 women with MBOT/MOC was stained with optimized IHC for TP53 using tissue microarrays (75.2%) or full sections (24.8%) and interpreted using established criteria as normal or abnormal (overexpression, complete absence, or cytoplasmic). Cases were considered concordant if abnormal IHC staining predicted deleterious TP53 mutations. Discordant tissue microarray cases were re-evaluated on full sections and interpretational criteria were refined. The initial cohort was expanded to a total of 165 MBOT and 424 MOC for the examination of the association of survival with TP53 mutation status, assessed either by TP53 IHC and/or sequencing. Initially, 82/113 (72.6%) cases were concordant using the established criteria. Refined criteria for overexpression to account for intratumoral heterogeneity and terminal differentiation improved concordance to 93.8% (106/113). In the expanded cohort, 19.4% (32/165) of MBOT showed evidence for TP53 mutation and this was associated with a higher risk of recurrence, disease-specific death, and all-cause mortality (overall survival: HR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.5-14.3, p = 0.0087). Within MOC, 61.1% (259/424) harbored a TP53 mutation, but this was not associated with survival (overall survival, p = 0.77). TP53 IHC is an accurate proxy for TP53 mutation status with refined interpretation criteria accounting for intratumoral heterogeneity and terminal differentiation in ovarian mucinous tumors. TP53 mutation status is an important biomarker to identify MB

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services Victoria (DHHS), the Monash Partners Comprehensive Cancer Consortium (MPCCC) and Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC) pooled their combined infrastructure to establish the Victorian COVID-19 Cancer Network (VCCN) backed by a Taskforce of expert members. In a few short months, this state-wide clinical network implemented a number of new models of care including clinics to manage acutely presenting cancer patients away from emergency departments, chemotherapy in the home, telehealth models and addressing sustainability of clinical trials.Copyright © 2020 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management is characterised by a high disease burden, poor survival and substantial variation in management and outcomes. Service redesign provides opportunities for quality improvement (QI) and this improvement may be leveraged across multiple sites using QI collaboration. AIM: This initiative targeted Quality Improvement (QI) in lung cancer management, engaging a QI collaborative using service redesign methodologies in five Victorian hospitals. QI targets included timeliness from referral and diagnosis to treatment, multi-disciplinary meeting (MDM) presentation and supportive care screening. Redesign strategies targeted process sustainability through enhanced team capability. METHODS: This study engaged a prospective quality improvement cohort design targeting newly diagnosed tissue confirmed lung cancer with 6-month pre-intervention period and 6-month redesign implementation period, between September 2016 and August 2017, evaluated using Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Hospital sites included three regional and two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria. QI redesign targeted time intervals from referral to first specialist appointment (FSA), referral to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment (any intent), MDM documented in medical records and Supportive Care Screening Tool documented in medical records. RESULTS: There was a marked reduction in referral to FSA interval across all sites, with median (interquartile range) falling from 6 (0-15) to 4 (1-10) days, and proportion seen by a specialist within 14 days increased from 74.3% to 84.2%. The interval between diagnosis and treatment was not substantively changed in the 6-month implementation period. The proportion of subjects with documented presentation to the MDM increased from 61% to 67%. The proportion for which Supportive Care Screening documentation remained low at 26.3% post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Data-driven redesign initiatives enable identification and analysis of clinical pra

BACKGROUND: In patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), the role of pre- and postoperative systemic therapy continues to be debated. Previous studies have shown that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis, as a marker of minimal residual disease, is a powerful prognostic factor in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Serial analysis of ctDNA in patients with resectable CRLM could inform the optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy. Here, we performed a validation study to confirm the prognostic impact of postoperative ctDNA in resectable CRLM observed in a previous discovery study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We prospectively collected plasma samples from patients with resectable CRLM, including presurgical and postsurgical samples, serial samples during any pre- or postoperative chemotherapy, and serial samples in follow-up. Via targeted sequencing of 15 genes commonly mutated in CRC, we identified at least 1 somatic mutation in each patient's tumor. We then designed a personalized assay to assess 1 mutation in plasma samples using the Safe-SeqS assay. A total of 380 plasma samples from 54 patients recruited from July 2011 to Dec 2014 were included in our analysis. Twenty-three (43%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 42 patients (78%) received adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. Median follow-up was 51 months (interquartile range, 31 to 60 months). At least 1 somatic mutation was identified in all patients' tumor tissue. ctDNA was detectable in 46/54 (85%) patients prior to any treatment and 12/49 (24%) patients after surgery. There was a median 40.93-fold (19.10 to 87.73, P < 0.001) decrease in ctDNA mutant allele fraction with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but ctDNA clearance during neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with a better recurrence-free survival (RFS). Patients with detectable postoperative ctDNA experienced a significantly lower RFS (HR 6.3; 95% CI 2.58 to 15.2; P < 0.001) and overall survival (HR 4.2

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the rapid uptake of telehealth in cancer care and in other fields. Many of the changes made in routine clinical practice could be embedded beyond the duration of the pandemic. This is intended as a practical guide to cancer clinicians and others in establishing and improving the quality of consultations performed by telehealth.

Cancer has become a prevalent disease, affecting millions of new patients globally each year. The COVID-19 pandemic is having far-reaching impacts around the world, causing substantial disruptions to health and health care systems that are likely to last for a prolonged period. Early data have suggested that having cancer is a significant risk factor for mortality from severe COVID-19. A diverse group of medical oncologists met to formulate detailed practical advice on systemic anticancer treatments during this crisis. In the context of broad principles, issues including risks of treatment, principles of prioritizing resources, treatment of elderly patients, and psychosocial impact are discussed. Detailed treatment advice and options are given at a tumor stream level. We must maintain care for patients with cancer as best we can and recognize that COVID-19 poses a significant competing risk for death that changes conventional treatment paradigms.Copyright © 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Background: Patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTC) have a poor prognosis with first and second line chemotherapy resulting in modest survival benefits. Immunotherapy using single agent anti-PD-1 therapy has also shown low activity with an objective response rate (ORR) of less than 10%. Combined CTLA-4/PD-1 blockade using ipilimumab (ipi) and nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated superior efficacy compared to single agent anti-PD-1 therapy in pts with advanced melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. To date, no trials in BTC pts with ipi/nivo therapy have been reported. Method(s): 39 pts with metastatic BTCs were enrolled into the CA 209-538 clinical trial for rare cancers. Patients received nivo 3mg/kg and ipi 1mg/kg q 3 weekly for 4 doses, followed by nivo 3mg/kg q 2 weekly. Treatment continued for up to 96 weeks, or until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. Response (RECIST 1.1) was assessed every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR = CR +PR + SD). Exploratory endpoints include correlation of efficacy with biomarkers including PD-L1 expression and tumour mutation burden. Result(s):39 pts with BTC were enrolled and 33 pts (85%) had received at least one prior line of systemic treatment (0-2 lines). The ORR was 24% and the CBR 45% with the median duration of response not been reached (range 2-26+months). Responses were observed in 3/14 intrahepatic, 1/10 extrahepatic, 0/2 unspecified cholangiocarcinoma and 5/13 gallbladder ca pts. None of the responding pts had a microsatellite instable tumour. 2 pts with durable partial responses were subsequently rendered surgically free of disease. Median OS and PFS were 6.1 and 3.1 months respectively. 22 (56%) pts experienced an immune -related adverse event (irAE) with grade3/4 irAEs being observed in 8 (20%) pts. Conclusion(s): Combination immunotherapy with ipi/nivo demonstrates significant clinical activity in a subset of patients with advanced microsatellite s

Background: AK112 is a humanized IgG1 bispecific anti-PD-1/VEGF antibody. VEGF blockade potentiates PD-1 inhibition by, inter alia, opposing the immunosuppressive effects of VEGF-A, which include suppression of dendritic cell activity and enhancement of checkpoint molecule expression on CD8+ T cells and proliferation of regulatory T cells. Combination therapies involving PD-(L)1 and VEGF inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of selected patients with metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma and advanced endometrial carcinoma. A supplemental Biologics License Application has been submitted for an anti-PD-L1 + anti-VEGF combination for the firstline treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Given the strong correlation between VEGF and PD-1 expression in the tumor microenvironment, the simultaneous blockade of these 2 targets by AK112 as a single agent might achieve higher target binding specificities and synergistically produce enhanced antitumor activity compared to co-administration of anti-PD-(L)1 and anti-VEGF therapies. Method(s): This is a Phase 1a/1b, first-in-human, multicenter, open-label study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumor that is refractory/relapsed to standard therapies. The primary objective is to assess safety, tolerability and DLTs; and to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) or Maximum Administered Dose of AK112. Antitumor activity, PK and immunogenicity of AK112 will be studied as secondary objectives. As exploratory endpoints, tumor tissue samples may be evaluated for PD-L1 expression, mRNA expression profile and biomarkers (e.g. CD8+, FoxP3, Granzyme B, apelin and EPHB4). PD-1 receptor occupancy on circulating T-cells and serum VEGF level may also be measured as indications of target engagement. The dose-escalation phase will evaluate 5 dose levels of AK112 (up to 20 mg/kg Q2W IV) using a 3+3+3 study design. Additional subjects (up to 18 subjects) may be enrolled at any

Background: Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are predominantly the clear cell (cc) subtype, with a unique biology, characterized by sensitivity to angiogenesis inhibition. However vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors elicit modest responses in people with rare variant non-clear cell (ncc) RCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are active against many cancers, but people with rare variant nccRCC have been excluded from frontline trials despite experiencing a more aggressive disease course and poorer prognosis compared to those with ccRCC. UNISON (NCT03177239) aims to test 2 ideas; the activity of ICI in nccRCC, and the novel sequencing strategy of anti-programmed cell death protein (PD)1 immunotherapy, followed by the combination of anti-PD1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)4 blockade, in people failed by single agent treatment. Method(s): This single-arm, two-part trial recruits people of good performance status suffering metastatic or locally advanced unresectable rare variant nccRCC, including but not limited to papillary (type 1/2), chromophobe, sarcomatoid, Xp11 translocation, collecting duct, and unclassified histological subtypes. Participants are offered fixed dose nivolumab at 240mg every two weeks in Part 1 of the trial. If they experience progressive disease, eligible participants may proceed to Part 2 consisting of nivolumab (3mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses. People experiencing disease control after single-agent or combined ICI are eligible to continue treatment for up to 1 year. UNISON is powered to distinguish a clinically nonrelevant objective tumor response rate (OTRR) of 15% in people taking combination ICI whose cancers are refractory to single-agent PD1, versus a clinically-relevant OTRR of 30% at 5% level of significance with 80% power. 85 participants were recruited in Part 1, on the assumption that 55% of those entering Part 1 will be eligible for inclusion in Part 2.

Importance: Biliary tract cancers represent a rare group of malignant conditions with very limited treatment options. Patients with advanced disease have a poor outcome with current therapies. Objective(s): To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers. Design, Setting, and Participant(s): The CA209-538 prospective multicenter phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial included patients with advanced rare cancers including patients with biliary tract cancers. This subgroup analysis evaluated 39 patients from CA209-538 with biliary tract cancers who were enrolled from December 2017 to December 2019. Most of the patients (n = 33) had experienced disease progression after 1 or more lines of therapy and had tumor tissue available for biomarker research. Intervention(s): Patients received treatment with nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and continued for up to 96 weeks until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxic events. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease control rate (complete remission, partial remission, or stable disease) as assessed by RECIST 1.1. Result(s): Among the 39 patients included in this subgroup analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial (20 men, 19 women; mean [range] age, 65 [37-81] years), the objective response rate was 23% (n = 9) with a disease control rate of 44% (n = 17); all responders had received prior chemotherapy, and none had a microsatellite unstable tumor. Responses were exclusively observed in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. The median duration of response was not reached (range, 2.5 to =23 months). The median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.2-4.6 months), and overall survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 2.7-11.9 months). Immune-related toxic events were repor

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services Victoria (DHHS), the Monash Partners Comprehensive Cancer Consortium (MPCCC) and Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC) pooled their combined infrastructure to establish the Victorian COVID‐19 Cancer Network (VCCN) backed by a Taskforce of expert members. In a few short months, this state‐wide clinical network implemented a number of new models of care including clinics to manage acutely presenting cancer patients away from emergency departments, chemotherapy in the home, telehealth models and addressing sustainability of clinical trials.