Phase 1/2 trial of vesicular stomatitis virus expressing human interferon-β and NIS (VSV-IFNβ-NIS), with ipilimumab and nivolumab, in patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma.
TPS602 Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is an aggressive malignancy comprising both pulmonary and extrapulmonary primary sites. NEC includes both small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), as well as other neuroendocrine carcinomas arising from any primary organ. A substantial portion (~40%) of NEC arises from gastrointestinal primary sites. The optimal systemic therapy beyond first line platinum and etoposide is not established. There is a critical need to improve upon the median survival in the second line, as most patients do not survive more than 6 months. The efficacy of dual immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICIs) therapy in NEC shows some promise, but most tumors do not respond. One possible explanation for this is that the tumor microenvironment in NEC is non-inflamed. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based oncolytic virus being tested in multiple early phase clinical trials. Preliminary studies of immune responses in patients receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy suggest some patients develop T cell responses to viral antigens and known tumor antigens. We hypothesize that VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy may convert a non-inflamed or immune-excluded phenotype in NEC to a highly inflamed phenotype that sensitizes the tumor to ICIs. Methods: This is a phase 1-2 safety run-in study designed to determine the safety and efficacy of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in combination with dual ICI therapy, ipilimumab and nivolumab, followed by dose expansion in patients with refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NEC. After a safety run-in, we will be testing the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in an expansion cohort of patients with SCLC or NEC of any primary site. Patients must have previously progressed on at least one line of systemic therapy. Prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors is permitted. Patients are treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab on day 1, followed by one RP2D of 1.0x10^11 TCID50 VSV-IFNβ-NIS on day 4, followed by nivolumab every 3 weeks and ipilimumab every 6 weeks until progression, up to 2 years. The primary objective is to estimate the response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives include estimation of disease-control rate, duration or response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety signals. The NEC expansion cohort will seek to enroll 10 patients. If at least one objective response is observed, and safety is confirmed, the regimen will be considered for future study. Clinical trial information: NCT03647163 .
Deep and Repeated Response to Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in a Patient With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Amplified Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma With Brain Metastases: A Case Report
Metastatic CUP is complex, especially NCUP. Precision oncology is crucial for rare, aggressive cancers. A 54-year-old had HER2+ neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown origin. T-DXd treatment, response, re-challenge show importance of genomics and caution.
Recurrent Tumefactive Central Nervous System Lesions Due to BRIP1-Related Fanconi Anemia
Introduction: Fanconi anemia (FA) is an inherited condition associated with genetic mutations that affect DNA repair proteins. More than 20 genes involved in the FA/BRCA pathway have been implicated in FA, including BRIP1. Tumefactive brain lesions are rare in FA. Case Report: We describe a patient with FA and recurrent tumefactive brain lesions preceded by calcifications on head computed tomography. A biopsy revealed white-matter gliosis with severe vasculopathy. Whole-genome sequencing demonstrated a BRIP1 homozygous variant with a final diagnosis of recurrent tumefactive brain lesions due to BRIP1-associated CNS vasculopathy. Immunosuppressive treatment was ineffective in the present case. Conclusions: Mechanistically, the specific role of BRIP1 mutation in CNS inflammation and vasculopathy is unclear. However, immunodeficiency disorders can lead to autoimmunity and/or immune dysregulation due to the possible loss or gain of function of components of the immune system.
A Review of Theranostics: Perspectives on Emerging Approaches and Clinical Advancements
Background Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. Patients and Methods A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0–100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0–50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51–100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. Results Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) ( P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS ( P = .017). Conclusions Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.
Efficacy of first‐line checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy in high‐grade extrapulmonary metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas
Abstract Poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP NECs) are aggressive cancers characterized by a high Ki‐67 index, rapid tumor growth and poor survival, and are subdivided into small and large cell carcinoma. For small cell carcinoma of the lung, a pulmonary NEC, the combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) is considered standard therapy and superior to CTX alone. EP NECs are typically treated with platinum‐based regimens, some clinicians have adopted the addition of a CPI to CTX based on data from trials in patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung. In this retrospective study of EP NECs, we report 38 patients treated with standard first‐line CTX and 19 patients treated with CTX plus CPI. We did not observe any additional benefit of adding CPI to CTX in this cohort.
Phase 1/2 trial of vesicular stomatitis virus expressing human interferon-β and NIS (VSV-IFNβ-NIS), with pembrolizumab, in patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma.
TPS657 Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is an aggressive malignancy comprising both pulmonary and extrapulmonary primary sites. NEC includes both small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), as well as other neuroendocrine carcinomas arising from any primary organ. A substantial portion (~40%) of NEC arises from gastrointestinal primary sites. The optimal systemic therapy beyond first line platinum and etoposide is not established. There is a critical need to improve upon the median survival in the second line, as most patients do not survive more than 6 months. The efficacy of single agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in NEC has been disappointing. One possible explanation for this is that the tumor microenvironment in NEC is non-inflamed. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based oncolytic virus being tested in multiple early phase clinical trials. Preliminary studies of immune responses in patients receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy suggest some patients develop T cell responses to viral antigens and known tumor antigens. We hypothesize that VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy may convert a non-inflamed or immune-excluded phenotype in NEC to a highly inflamed phenotype that sensitizes the tumor to ICIs. Methods: This is a phase 1-2 safety run-in study designed to determine the safety of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in combination with a single agent ICI, pembrolizumab, followed by dose expansion in patients with refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NEC. The safety run-in portion of this study has been completed, and we are presently testing the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in an expansion cohort of patients with SCLC or NEC of any primary site. Patients must have previously progressed on at least one line of systemic therapy. Prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors is permitted. Patients are treated one time with the RP2D of 1.0x10^11 TCID50 VSV-IFNβ-NIS on day 1, followed by pembrolizumab on day 8 and then pembrolizumab every 21 days until progression, up to 2 years. The primary objective is to estimate the response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives include estimation of disease-control rate, duration or response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety signals. The NEC expansion cohort will seek to enroll 10 patients. If at least one objective response is observed, and safety is confirmed, the regimen will be considered for future study. Clinical trial information: NCT03647163 .
Disparities in overall survival (OS) outcomes based on treating facility volume in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
150 Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) comprise less than 5% of all pancreatic tumors and 7% of all neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). There has been considerable progress in understanding the biology of pNETs and numerous therapeutic options emerged, especially with the collaboration of various specialties in the multidisciplinary setting. In this this study, we sought to analyze the association of facility volume, treatment modalities offered, and different risk adjusted outcomes in pNETs. Methods: We extracted data from National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) that covers 70% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases in the U.S and Puerto Rico. Patients with pNETs diagnosed between 2004 & 2017 were included and classified into tertiles based on hospital volume. Volume–outcome relationship was determined by using Cox regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, insurance type and therapy received. Kaplan Meier estimates of OS were compared with log-rank test. The primary predictor of interest was the facility volume defined as number of pNETs treated/year. A total of 7202 patients with pathologically confirmed pNETS were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T:mean cases/year) T1: < 3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. Results: A total of 7202 pNET patients were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5 patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T: mean cases/year) T1:<3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. The unadjusted median OS by facility volume was: T1: 71 months (m), T2: 136 m, and T3: not-reached (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, patients treated at lower-tertile facilities had higher risk of death [T2 hazard ratio (HR), 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33); T1 HR, 1.45 (CI, 1.30-1.67), p < 0.0001] and such a difference in OS was more pronounced in stage IV disease (Table). Patients at T3 facilities (vs T1) were more likely to receive surgical resection of the primary tumor (75 vs 49%), lymph node dissection performed at the time of surgery (70 vs 42%), and a better R0 resection (72 vs 46%) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients who were treated for pNETs at high-volume centers (> 9cases/year) had significantly higher OS and were more likely to receive surgical resection along with lymph node dissection and R0 resection. There was a 45% increased risk of death in patients treated at low volume centers (< 3/year) as compared to high-volume centers (> 9/year). While OS difference was noticed in all stages, the difference was more pronounced in stage IV disease demonstrating the importance of multi-disciplinary approach in pNETs management and incorporating such quality measures in low-volume facilities.[Table: see text]
A phase II study of pemetrexed and pembrolizumab in recurrent and/or metastatic salivary gland malignancies.
TPS6111 Background: Treatment options for recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) salivary gland cancer (SGC) are limited with response rates to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT) low at 10-30%, and responses to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) <10%. Current therapeutic agents used to treat R/M SGC have an unfavorable toxicity profile including cytotoxic CTs such as cisplatin and doxorubicin and the targeted therapy lenvatinib. Treatments with general applicability and acceptable side effect profile are urgently needed. Pemetrexed (PTX) is a multi-targeted anti-folate CT with an excellent safety and toxicity profile with promising responses reported in a case series of patients (pts) with R/M SGC (Viscuse P and Price K. Marked responses to pemetrexed chemotherapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland: case series. Head Neck 2019;41(6):E99-103.). As the combination of PTX and pembrolizumab (PMB) showed enhanced responses and survival in pts with lung cancer, we hypothesize that PTX and PMB will have efficacy in pts with R/M SGC and that the combination will have improved anti-cancer activity compared with historical controls. Correlative studies on archived tissues include methylthioadenosine phosphorylase loss, PDL1 expression, and thymidylate synthase expression as potential biomarkers of response. Methods: MC200708 is a single institution (3-site), open-label, single arm phase II study of PTX and PMB in patients with R/M SGC. Pts will be treated in two cohorts: one for pts with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) and the other for pts with all other types of SGC (non-ACC cohort). Eligible pts must be ≥18 years old, have a pathologically confirmed SGC that is not amenable to curative-intent therapy, ECOG 0-2, adequate organ function, and at least 1 measurable lesion by RECIST 1.1. Any number of lines of prior therapy is allowed; prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors and/or PTX is allowed. Key exclusion criteria: serious medical co-morbidity or autoimmune disease, prior grade 3-4 adverse event (AE) or grade 2-4 lung AE with ICI, and uncontrolled brain metastases. Simon’s two-stage design will be used for each cohort separately given the expected difference in responses in pts with ACC and non-ACC. Primary endpoint is overall response rate. Secondary endpoints are progression free and overall survival and toxicity. All patients will receive the same treatment of PTX 500 mg/m2 IV + PMB 200 mg IV every 3 weeks until disease progression or treatment intolerance. Response assessments will occur every 3 cycles. Enrollment began July 2021 and 16 of the planned 45 patients (ACC cohort 9 of 20 pts, non-ACC 7 of 25) have been accrued. Clinical trial information: NCT04895735.
KRAS wild-type pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Molecular and therapeutic opportunities.
4130 Background: KRAS is mutationally activated in over 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Compared to pts with KRAS mutation, KRAS wild-type (wt) PDAC seem to have better response to therapy and may harbor potentially actionable molecular alterations. Here, we analyze the molecular profile and clinical outcome of a cohort of pts with KRAS wt PDAC. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on pts with PDAC who underwent CLIA-certified Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) testing at Mayo Clinic between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2021. Pts with KRAS wt PDAC with available reports were included. Their genomic drivers, RNA expression, demographics, disease characteristics, therapies offered, and clinical outcome data were collected. The study was approved by the institutional IRB. Results: Of the 241 eligible pts, 8% (19) has KRAS wt PDAC. Among those, 2 pts had no mutation identified by the gene/molecular panel used. Of the 17 pts (89%) with identified alterations, mutations found in ³ 2 pts were TP53 (53%), CDKN2A (16%) and CDKN2B/ERBB2/PTEN/MSH3/RNF43/FBXW7/KMT2D/GNAS (11% each). Chromosomal rearrangements were identified in 5 (26%): CADPS2-BRAF, GP2-ERBB2, PTPRK-RSPO3, EML4-NTRK3 and TFG-MET. RNA expression results were available in 12 pts: common overexpression were ERBB2 (27%) and MET/NRAS/MYC/CCDN1/CCNE1/AR (18% each); and the under-expression MGMT (18%). Among the 13 pts with available MSI status via NGS, 2 (11%) were MSI-high (both had high TMB [28.4 and 23.7 m/MB]) while all others were TMB < 10 m/MB. The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (68% males). 8/19 (42%) were Stage IV at diagnosis with 15/19 (79%) pts ultimately diagnosed with metastatic disease. Among metastatic pts, median lines of treatment received was 2.5 (range:0-4). 4 pts received FOLFIRINOX (FFX), 2 gemcitabine/ nab-paclitaxel (GP) and tumor response were comparable to previously reported results. 1 received 1st-line pembrolizumab and remained on therapy at the time of analysis. The median length of follow up from diagnosis was 29 months. A patient with TFG-MET re-arrangement previously progressed on FFX and GP was treated using a MET inhibitor, and achieved significant CA19-9 drop and pancreas tumor shrinkage at 1st restaging, with ongoing response. Conclusions: The molecular profile of KRAS wt PDAC is highly heterogeneous and difficult to generalize. Novel approaches (e.g., basket trials) are needed to develop therapy for this rare PDAC subgroup.