Suman, Vera

Abstract Solitary plasmacytoma of bone (SPB) is a localized plasma cell neoplasm associated with a substantial risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM), yet the role of adjuvant systemic therapy following definitive radiation therapy (RT) remains undefined. We conducted a randomized phase III trial (Alliance A061402) to evaluate whether the addition of systemic therapy with ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IXA-LEN-DEX) to zoledronic acid (ZA) improves outcomes compared with ZA alone in patients with SPB and minimal (< 10%) bone marrow plasma cell involvement following RT. Patients were randomized to receive six 28-day cycles of IXA-LEN-DEX-ZA or ZA alone. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) to MM. The study was closed early due to poor accrual after enrolling 11 patients (IXA-LEN-DEX-ZA, n = 5; ZA, n = 6). All patients completed RT and planned treatment without dose reductions. The combination regimen was well tolerated, with limited grade ≥ 3 toxicities, including hypophosphatemia and lymphopenia. At follow-up extending beyond 4 years, the 1- and 4-year progression rates to MM in the IXA-LEN-DEX-ZA arm were 0% and 33%, respectively, compared with 37.5% and 58.3% at 1 and 2 years in the ZA-alone arm. Although underpowered, these findings demonstrate the feasibility and tolerability of an all-oral adjuvant systemic regimen in SPB and provide prospective data supporting further investigation of systemic strategies to delay progression to MM.

Background: Studies have suggested a synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a key target and master transcriptional factor regulating myeloma cell survival. Method: A 3 + 3 phase I trial was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Three dose levels (DLs) were planned. The cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily in doses of 560 mg on DL1-2 and 840 mg on DL3, LEN was administered orally on days 1–21 in doses of 15 mg on DL1 and 25 mg on DL2-3, and DEX was administered orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a dose of 40 mg if age < 75 years or in a dose of 20 mg if it was ≥75 years for DL1-3. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 but ≥30 mL/min were treated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions with LEN 10 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included the following: grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; and grade 3–4 hyperglycemia or a thrombotic/embolic event, and other nonhematologic toxicities. The overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients with a partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR) according to IMWG criteria on two consecutive evaluations at least 4 weeks apart. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as the percentage of patients with stable disease (SD) or a better outcome on two consecutive evaluations at weeks apart. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1: six patients; DL2: three patients; DL3: five patients) were registered for the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to limited accrual. Thirteen patients are included in the summary of toxicities and response as one patient on DL3 halted participation prior to the start of the treatment. Two patients on DL3 were excluded from the determination of MTD: one having discontinued cycle 1 treatment due to COVID-19 infection and the another having mistakenly taken 280 mg/day of IBR instead of the assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1. Only one patient developed a DLT, on DL1 with grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range: 1–56). Severe toxicities reported included grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis in the setting of PD (1). Disease responses included a VGPR on DL1 and CR on DL3. Thus, the ORR was 15.4% (90% CI: 2.8–41.0%). One patient on DL1 maintained SD for 4.6 years before discontinuing the treatment to undergo an alternative therapy. Another five patients maintained SD for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles. Thus, the CBR was 61.5% (90% CI: 35.5–83.4%). Conclusions: The combination of LEN with IBR in RR MM proved feasible, with manageable toxicities and the majority of discontinuations being due to disease progression.

Abstract Purpose: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 &lt;1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 &lt;0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort). Results: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%–89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. Conclusions: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor.

Abstract Purpose: AB160 is a 160-nm nano-immunoconjugate consisting of nab-paclitaxel (ABX) nanoparticles noncovalently coated with bevacizumab (BEV) for targeted delivery into tissues expressing high levels of VEGF. Preclinical data showed that AB160 resulted in greater tumor targeting and tumor inhibition compared with sequential treatment with ABX then BEV. Given individual drug activity, we investigated the safety and toxicity of AB160 in patients with gynecologic cancers. Patients and Methods: A 3+3 phase I trial was conducted with three potential dose levels in patients with previously treated endometrial, cervical, and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to ascertain the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). AB160 was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (ABX 75–175 mg/m2, BEV 30–70 mg/m2). Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. Results: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were seen among the three dose levels tested. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia, thromboembolic events, and leukopenia. DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2) was chosen as the RP2D. Seven of the 19 patients with measurable disease (36.8%) had confirmed partial responses (95% confidence interval, 16.3%–61.6%). Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that AB160 allowed 50% higher paclitaxel dosing and that paclitaxel clearance mirrored that of therapeutic antibodies. Conclusions: The safety profile and clinical activity of AB160 supports further clinical testing in patients with gynecologic cancers; the RP2D is DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2).

Cancer vaccines have often failed to live up to their promise, although recent results with checkpoint inhibitors are reviving hopes that they will soon fulfill their promise. Although mutation-specific vaccines are under development, there is still high interest in an off-the-shelf vaccine to a ubiquitous antigen, such as MUC1, which is aberrantly expressed on most solid and many hematological tumors, including more than 90% of breast carcinomas. Clinical trials for MUC1 have shown variable success, likely because of immunological tolerance to a self-antigen and to poor immunogenicity of tandem repeat peptides. We hypothesized that MUC1 peptides could be optimized, relying on heteroclitic optimizations of potential anchor amino acids with and without tumor-specific glycosylation of the peptides. We have identified novel MUC1 class I peptides that bind to HLA-A*0201 molecules with significantly higher affinity and function than the native MUC1 peptides. These peptides elicited CTLs from normal donors, as well as breast cancer patients, which were highly effective in killing MUC1-expressing MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Each peptide elicited lytic responses in greater than 6/8 of normal individuals and 3/3 breast cancer patients. The CTLs generated against the glycosylated-anchor modified peptides cross reacted with the native MUC1 peptide, STAPPVHNV, suggesting these analog peptides may offer substantial improvement in the design of epitope-based vaccines.