Pond, Gregory Russell

PURPOSE There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

Introduction: With improving overall survival among MM patients, there is an increasing need to both understand the absolute risk and identify risk factors for developing a second primary malignancy (SPM). Understanding these risk and potential modulation factors may help guide decisions regarding treatment options, monitoring surveillance strategies, and patient counselling. Furthermore, understanding this baseline SPM risk will help contextualize the future SPM risk associated with newer therapeutics, including chimeric antigen receptor therapies. Thus, we conducted a population-based study with following objectives: 1) to evaluate the rate and distribution of SPMs, and 2) to identify risk factors including a history of prior malignancy associated with an increased risk of SPMs in patients with MM. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study using data from Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), an administrative database that captures all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated for newly diagnosed MM between 2007-2022 were identified using ICD-O-3 code 9732/3 (MM). The list of secondary cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) were identified from pathology codes maintained in the Cancer Care Ontario Registry. Additional risk factors were also collected including a history and type of any pre-existing cancer (at least 1 year prior to MM diagnosis), treatment details including history of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and lenalidomide usage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median overall survival (OS). We estimated the cumulative incidence of secondary cancer accounting for death as a competing risk. To identify the association of prognostic factors on the risk of developing a SPM, we performed competing risks regression and estimated the subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) accounting for death as a competing risk. Results: A total of 12123 patients . The median age at diagnosis was 70 (IQR 61-77) years, 6860 (57%) of our cohort had a male sex. In our 4511 (37%) received at least one ASCT, 8062 (67%) were lenalidomide exposed and 6917 (57%) were cyclophosphamide exposed at any time post MM diagnosis, and 3017 (16%) received oral melphalan based induction regimens. The median follow up for cohort was 4.53 (95% CI 4.4-4.7) years. A total of 2079 patients (17%) had a prior cancer diagnosis at least 1 year prior to their MM diagnosis. Of these patients, 665 (32%) had received chemotherapy and 553 (27%) had received radiation to treat their prior malignancy. The three most common prior cancers were: prostate cancer (25%), breast cancer (13%) and heme malignancies (4%).The median time from diagnosis of a prior malignancy to MM diagnosis was 6.4 (IQR 2.04-13.26) years. A total of 1070 (8.8%) of the cohort developed a SPM. The cumulative incidence of SPM post MM diagnosis, accounting for death as a competing risk, was 3.7% at 2 years, 7.6% at 5 years, and 11.5% at 10 years. The three most common SPMs were hematologic (21%), prostate (7%), and lung (7%) cancer. The three most common hematological SPMs were acute myeloid leukemia (37%), B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (16%), and myelodysplastic syndrome (19%). The median OS following after any SPM diagnosis was 1.64 (95% CI 1.36-1.92) years, was 1.85 (95% CI 1.54-2.28) years for patients that developed a non-hematologic SPM, and was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88-1.40) years for patients that developed a hematologic SPM. Conclusion: This study represents one of the largest real-world cohort studies examining the rates, risk factor and outcomes of MM patients developing secondary cancers. We show that a prior malignancy diagnosis increased the risk of SPM after adjusting for ASCT and lenalidomide exposure, sex, and age at MM diagnosis. These data are important for patients and physicians to understand the risks associated with treatment of MM.

Introduction: Frailty is known to be an important risk factor for adverse outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) and is often under-represented in clinical trials. Frail patients are known to have increased toxicity, high rates of treatment discontinuation rates and decreased efficacy including worse overall survival in MM. Teclistamab (TEC) is a bispecific BCMA-CD3 directed T-cell antibody (BsAb) that was approved based upon the pivotal MajesTEC-1 study showing high overall response rates in patients with R/R MM. In MajesTEC-1, the median age was 63, and patients with ECOG ≥ 2 were excluded, suggesting that the vast majority of patients in the trial were fit. There is a paucity of data both in clinical trials as well as in the real-world regarding the outcomes of patients, particularly frail patients, with BsAb. This data is needed to both understand current outcomes of frail patients as well as devise strategies for future optimization with BsAb treatment. We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) immunotherapy database with the objective of understanding the outcomes of older adults (age ≥ 70) including frail patients treated in the real-world with teclistamab. Methods: Data was collected from 7 individual academic sites for patients aged ≥ 70 years treated with teclistamab in the real-world. Data collected include patient demographics, disease characteristics, as well as efficacy and toxicity associated with teclistamab. Frailty score was retrospectively calculated using the simplified/IFM frailty index which includes chronological age, ECOG PS and Charlson Comorbidity Index categorizing the patients into fit (score 0-1) or frail (≥ score 2). Fisher's exact tests were performed to evaluate differences in outcomes between fit and frail patients. Results: A total of 81 pts were included in our total cohort. The median age was 76 year (range 70-91). Among them, 44 (54%) were > age 75 and 23 (28%) > age 80. Twenty-eight (35%) patients had an ECOG performance status of ≥2. Using the simplified/IFM frailty index, 22 (27%) were classified as fit and 59 (73%) were frail. In the frail subgroup, a high proportion of patients (42%) would be classified as ultra frail (frailty score of ≥3). Selected baseline patient and disease characteristics are as follows: high risk cytogenetics including 1q gain/amp (fit 67% vs frail 43%), median prior lines (fit 7 vs frail 5), triple class refractory (fit 81% vs frail 88%), CrCl <30 (fit 5% vs frail 15%). For patients hospitalized for step-up dosing, median number of hospital days was 8 both in the fit and frail group. All grade CRS was noted in 12 (55%) fit and 28 (47%) frail patients. Among the fit patients, only 1 of the 12 patients (8%) had grade 2 CRS, whereas 8 of 28 (29%) frail patients had grade 2 (p-value=0.23). ICANS was reported in 2 (9%) fit patients and 8 (14%) frail patients (p=0.72). The majority of ICANS was grade 1 in both groups, but among the frail group, there was one grade 3 and two grade 4 ICANS cases reported. Infections were reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 35 (59%) frail patients (p=0.32), with 2 (9%) and 14 (23%) being grade≥3 (p-value=0.21). IVIG was administered in most patients (fit 50% vs frail 58%, p=0.62). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 19 (32%) frail patients (p=0.30). The overall dosing interval was changed in 32% of fit patient and 34% of frail patients (p=1.00). The overall response rate was 50% for fit patients versus 66% for frail patient (p=0.61). The type of responses noted in the fit patient were as follows: sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 27%, PR/MR 5%, SD 18%, PD/NE 32% and for frail patients : sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 43%, PR/MR 9%, SD 5%, PD/NE 25%. The median follow-up time was 13.1 months. 12-month PFS for fit pts was 47.6% (95% CI 25.7% - 66.7%) and for frail pts 42.4% (29.0% - 55.3%). 12-months OS for fit pts was 64.9% (95% CI 39.9% - 81.6%) and for frail 61.5% (47.0% -73.1%). Conclusions: This is the first real-world study to evaluate the outcomes of teclistamab in frail older adults. With regards to toxicity, frail older adults showed a trend towards higher rates of ≥ grade 2 CRS, ≥ grade 2 ICANS as well as ≥3 grade infections. Efficacy was maintained in both fit and frail older adults similar to the MajesTEC-1 study. Our study highlights that BCMA BsAb can be safely utilized in older adults including frail older adults; however, additional proactive supportive care may be required to further optimize outcomes.

Introduction: Improvements in outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) depend on the use of regimens approved based on results from large phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy. However, many real-world (RW) patients would not have met the stringent RCTs inclusion criteria. Therefore, the effectiveness of these drugs in the RW setting is unknown. Understanding this efficacy-effectiveness gap is important to contextualize the expected outcomes in the current RW setting. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective population-based study to compare the efficacy versus effectiveness of registration RCTs with RW patients using standard of care (SoC) MM regimens for the primary outcomes of 1) progression free survival [PFS]; 2) overall survival [OS] and 3) serious adverse events (AEs). Methods: RW data was obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, an administrative database capturing all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated between Jan 2007 to Dec 2020 with SoC regimens were included. Only regimens with corresponding registrational phase III RCTs which led to the public reimbursement in Ontario were included (lenalidomide/dex [Rd] and bortezomib/Rd [VRd] for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients, and relapsed MM (RRMM) regimens included carfilzomib/Rd [KRd], carfilzomib/dex [Kd], daratumumab/Rd [DRd], daratumumab/bortezomib/dex [DVd], pomalidomide/dex [Pd]). In the RW cohort, PFS was defined as the time from initiation of index regimen to death, initiation of subsequent MM treatment, or last follow-up, and patients remaining on the index regimen as last follow up were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves from pivotal phase 3 RCTs were manually digitized to provide individual patient-level estimates of PFS and OS. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the gap of PFS and OS outcomes of RW versus RCT patients, and effect estimates were summarized using hazard ratios (HR). The frequency of serious AE data was abstracted from published RCTs. Given that serious AEs in RCTs would have resulted in hospitalization, hospital admission during treatment with the index regimen was used as a surrogate for serious AEs in the RW cohort. Differences in RW and RCT safety outcomes were reported descriptively. Results & Discussion: A total of 3951 RW MM patients, treated with 7 standard of care MM regimens, were included. Baseline characteristics of patients in the RW and RCT cohorts are shown in table 1. Overall, patients in the RW cohort were older than in the RCTs. For relapsed regimens, there was a longer time between MM diagnosis and start of the regimen in the real-world versus RCT. With regards to the efficacy-effectiveness gap, MM patients treated in routine practise in the RW had a worse PFS despite overestimated of RW PFS compared to highly selected RCT patients for 6 of the 7 MM regimens evaluated, with a pooled HR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.34-1.54) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1A). Similarly, RW patients had a worse OS compared to RCT patients treated with 6 of the 7 regimens, with a pooled HR of 1.75 (95% ci 1.63-1.88) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1B). RRMM patients in the RW had higher rates of prior lenalidomide exposure compared to RCT patients. The only regimen which showed a trend towards performing better in the RW as compared to RCTs was Pd. The reason for this is likely multifactorial but perhaps patients included in the MM-003 RCT may have had more refractory MM (given the higher prior immunomodulatory drug exposure and longer time from diagnosis to treatment among Pd RCT patient) compared to RW patients in this study. With regards to safety, the percentage of patients with inpatient hospitalization during treatment in the real-world cohort and reported serious AEs in RCT were comparable (VRD 57% vs not reported [NR]; Rd 64% vs NR; Kd 57% vs 59%; KRd 53% vs 60%; DVd 36% vs NR; DRd 46% vs 49%; Pd 59% vs 61%). Conclusion: This is one the largest population-level studies highlighting the significant efficacy-effectiveness gap between registrational RCTs and RW usage of these regimens, with RW patients experiencing 44% worse PFS and 75% worse OS compared to RCT patients. Our data emphasize the importance of ongoing evaluation of RW data to contextualize effectiveness and toxicity of selected regimens in the clinic, and better inform both clinicians and patients for shared treatment decision making.

Abstract Background Treatment options for penile squamous cell carcinoma are limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes and safety profiles of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors between 2015 and 2022 across 24 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Objective response rates were determined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria. Treatment-related adverse events were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Two-sided statistical tests were used for comparisons. Results Among 92 patients, 8 (8.7%) were Asian, 6 (6.5%) were Black, and 24 (29%) were Hispanic and/or Latinx. Median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-70) years. In all, 83 (90%) had metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma, and 74 (80%) had received at least second-line treatment. Most patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 26 [28%]), combination nivolumab-ipilimumab with or without multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 23 [25%]), or nivolumab (n = 16 [17%]) or cemiplimab (n = 15 [16%]) monotherapies. Median overall and progression-free survival were 9.8 months (95% confidence interval = 7.7 to 12.8 months) and 3.2 months (95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 4.2 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 13% (n = 11/85) in the overall cohort and 35% (n = 7/20) in patients with lymph node–only metastases. Visceral metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or higher, and a higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with worse overall survival. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 27 (29%) patients, and 9.8% (n = 9) of the events were grade 3 or higher. Conclusions Immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in a subset of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Future translational studies are warranted to identify patients more likely to derive clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Abstract Purpose: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using “flip dose” ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. Results: From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%–66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%–55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%–95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%–83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7–25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. Conclusions: Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

5 Background: Management options for patients (pts) with advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) PeCa are limited. The GSRGT assembled an international cohort of pts with advanced PeCa treated with ICI to evaluate toxicity and clinical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on pts with advanced PeCa receiving ≥1 cycle of ICI between 2015-2022 at 18 medical centers in the US, Europe, and Asia. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Objective response rate (ORR) was determined by the clinical investigator per RECIST 1.1 criteria, whenever feasible. Results: Among 72 pts with advanced PeCa treated with ICI, 24 (33%) were Hispanic and 7 (10%) were Black. 60 (83%) pts had metastases while the remainder had locally advanced disease. The median age was 64 (inter-quartile range (IQR): 54,70) years and 48 (67%) had ECOG performance status ≥1. Most pts (n=60, 83%) were treated in the ≥2nd line setting and received pembrolizumab (n=23), nivolumab (n=15), cemiplimab (n=15), nivolumab and ipilimumab (n=7), or other anti-PD1/L1-based therapies (n=12). Among 37 pts with available data on HPV status, 24 (65%) were HPV+. 3 (4%) pts were HIV+. irAE of any grade occurred in 18 (25%) pts, 7 (10%) were grade ≥3, 7 (10%) required steroids, 6 (9%) required hospitalization, and 8 (11%) led to treatment discontinuation. The median OS and 24-month OS and median PFS and 24-month PFS were 9.4 (95%CI: 6.8, 12.8) months and 19.3% (95%CI: 9.2, 32.1) and 2.8 (95%CI: 2.1, 3.9) months and 11.2 % (95%CI: 4.9, 20.2), respectively. Among 66 pts evaluable for response, ORR was 7/66 (11%) (2 with complete response, 5 with partial response), and 16 (24%) pts had stable disease for a disease control rate of 35%. The median duration of response was 7.9 (IQR: 3, not reached) months. Conclusions: In the largest retrospective cohort of ICI-treated advanced PeCa, ICI showed no new safety signals, however, overall anti-tumor activity was limited. Future translational studies are needed to identify pts that are more likely to derive clinical benefit from ICI.