Vera Aguilera, Jesus

Management of PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma (MM) remains challenging. Immunotherapy or chemotherapy alone provides limited benefit in this setting. Chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) has demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety profiles in lung cancer. Our pre-clinical study showed that in MM patients who have failed PD-1 blockade, the addition of chemotherapy increases CX3CR1+ therapy-responsive CD8+ T-cells with enhanced anti-tumor activity, resulting in improved clinical response. Here, we examined the clinical outcomes of CIT in MM patients after PD-1 blockade failure and the treatment-related changes in CX3CR1+ therapy-responsive CD8+ T-cells. We reviewed MM patients seen between January 2012 and June 2018 who failed anti-PD-1-based therapy and received subsequent CIT, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or chemotherapy alone. Overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), event-free survival (EFS), and toxicities were assessed. Among 60 patients, 33 received CIT upon disease progression on PD-1 blockade. At a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the CIT group had a median OS of 3.5 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7–NR] vs. 1.8 years (95% CI 0.9–2; P = 0.002) for those who received subsequent ICI (n = 9) or chemotherapy alone (n = 18), with ORR of 59% vs. 15% (P = 0.0003), respectively. The median EFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 6–10) following CIT vs. 3.4 months (95% CI 2.8–4.1; P = 0.0005) following ICI or chemotherapy alone. Therapy-responsive CX3CR1+CD8+ T-cells showed dynamic increase with successful CIT. CIT showed favorable clinical outcomes and acceptable safety profile in PD-1 blockade-resistant patients. CX3CR1+CD8+ therapy-responsive T-cells can be potentially used for monitoring disease response to CIT.

Abstract Background Early phase clinical trials evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments. The exclusion/inclusion criteria in these trials are usually rigorous and may exclude many patients seen in clinical practice. Our objective was to study the comorbidities limiting the participation of patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer in clinical trials. Materials and Methods We queried ClinicalTrials.gov on December 31, 2016. We reviewed the eligibility criteria of 1,103 trials. Logistic regression analyses were completed, and exclusion was studied as a binary variable. Results Out of 1,103 trials, 70 trials (6%) excluded patients >75 years of age, and 45% made no reference to age. Eighty-six percent of trials placed restrictions on patients with history of prior malignancies. Regarding central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, 416 trials (38%) excluded all patients with CNS metastasis, and 373 (34%) only allowed asymptomatic CNS metastasis. Regarding chronic viral infections, 347 trials (31%) excluded all patients with human immunodeficiency virus, and 228 trials (21%) excluded all patients with hepatitis B or C infection. On univariate analysis, chemotherapy trials were more likely to exclude patients with CNS metastasis and history of other malignancies than targeted therapy trials. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that industry-sponsored trials had higher odds of excluding patients with compromised liver function. Conclusion Many clinical trials excluded large segments of the population of patients with cancer. Frequent exclusion criteria included patients with CNS metastasis, history of prior malignancies, and chronic viral infections. The criteria for participation in some clinical trials may be overly restrictive and limit enrollment. Implications for Practice The results of this study revealed that most early phase clinic trials contain strict exclusion criteria, potentially excluding the patients who may be more likely to represent the population treated in clinical settings, leaving patients susceptible to unintended harm from inappropriate generalization of trial results. Careful liberalization of the inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical trials will allow investigators to understand the benefits and drawbacks of the experimental drug for a broader population, and possibly improve recruitment of patients with cancer into clinical trials.

Abstract Lessons Learned Everolimus does not have sufficient activity to justify its use as single agent in metastatic melanoma. Patients treated with 10 mg per day dose were most likely to require dose reductions. Everolimus appeared to reduce the numbers of regulatory T cells in approximately half of the treated patients; unfortunately, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Background Everolimus (RAD-001) is an orally active rapamycin analogue shown in preclinical data to produce cytostatic cell inhibition, which may be potentially beneficial in treating melanoma. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma (MM). Methods This study included two cohorts; cohort 1 received 30 mg of everolimus by mouth (PO) weekly, and cohort 2 was dosed with 10 mg of everolimus PO daily. The endpoints of the study were safety, 16-week progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and measures of immunomodulatory/antiangiogenic properties with therapy. Tumor samples before therapy and at week 8 of treatment were analyzed. Peripheral blood plasma or mononuclear cell isolates collected prior to therapy and at weeks 8 and 16 and at time of tumor progression were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor and regulatory T-cell (Treg) measurements. Results A total of 53 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 (n = 24) and cohort 2 (n = 29). Only 2 patients of the first 20 patients enrolled in cohort 2 had treatment responses (25%; 95% confidence interval, 8.6%–49.1%); this result did not allow full accrual to cohort 2, as the study was terminated for futility. Median OS was 12.2 months for cohort 1 versus 8.1 months in cohort 2; no PFS advantage was seen in either group (2.1 months vs. 1.8 months). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 myocardial ischemia (3.4%); grade 3 fatigue, mucositis, and hyperglycemia (10.3%); and anorexia and anemia (6.9%). Everolimus significantly reduced the number of Tregs in approximately half of the treated patients; however, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Conclusion Everolimus does not have sufficient single-agent activity in MM; however, we have identified evidence of biological activity to provide a potential rationale for future combination studies.

Purpose: Many cancer clinical trials lack appropriate representation of specific patient populations, limiting their generalizability. Therefore, we determined the representation of ethnic minorities and women in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported as completed in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2003 to 2016 were analyzed. We calculated enrollment fractions (EFs) for each group, defined as the number of enrollees divided by the 2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database cancer prevalence. Results: Of 1,012 clinical trials, 310 (31%) reported ethnicity with a total of 55,689 enrollees. Participation varied significantly across ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic whites were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials (EF, 1.2%) than African Americans (EF, 0.7%; P < .001) and Hispanics (EF, 0.4%; P < .001). A decrease in African American (6% v 9.2%) and Hispanic (2.6% v 3.1%) enrollment was observed when compared with historical data from 1996 to 2002. Younger patients (age younger than 65 years) were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than the elderly (64% v 36%; P < .001). Low recruitment of female patients was observed in clinical trials for melanoma (35%), lung cancer (39%), and pancreatic cancer (40%). Conclusion: We observed a decrease in recruitment of minorities over the past 14 years compared with historical data. African Americans, Hispanics, and women were less likely to be enrolled in cancer clinical trials. Future trials should take extra measures to recruit participants that adequately represent the US cancer population.