Citations

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Background The class of CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) has emerged as an important anti-lymphoma modality for patients (pts) with R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Odronextamab, a novel, off-the-shelf, CD20×CD3 BsAb, has previously demonstrated compelling efficacy in both R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and R/R FL. In pts with R/R FL, odronextamab monotherapy achieved 75% complete response (CR) rates and encouraging durability of responses, and showed generally manageable safety, in the Phase 2 ELM-2 study (NCT03888105; Kim TM, et al. ASH. 2022). Here, we report the results of a second, pre-specified interim analysis of ELM-2. Methods Intravenous odronextamab was administered weekly in 21-day cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4. Optimization of the step-up regimen to further mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported previously (Kim TM, et al. ASH. 2022). Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg during C1, followed by 80 mg on Days 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 160 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts who achieved a durable CR for ≥9 months transitioned to dosing every 4 weeks. A pre-specified interim analysis was performed when 80 pts had completed ≥12 months follow-up. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included CR rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and changes in scores of patient-reported outcomes. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was included as an exploratory endpoint. Results At data cut off (Jan 31, 2023), the global study was fully enrolled and included 140 safety-evaluable pts with FL; 128 pts were efficacy-evaluable and 85 pts had ≥12 months follow-up. The median duration of study follow-up for efficacy was 26.6 months. In the safety-evaluable FL population, median age was 60.5 years (range 22-84), 53% were male, and pts had received a median of 3 (range 2-13) prior lines of therapy. 73% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, 41% were double refractory, and 74% were refractory to an anti-CD20 antibody. 50% of pts had progression of disease within 2 years (POD24) and 29% had a prior autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. ORR and CR rate by ICR were 80% (102/128) and 72% (92/128), respectively, and were consistent across pts with high-risk features. Responses were durable, with both median DoR and duration of CR of 21.7 months; the probability of maintaining CR for 24 months was 48%. Median PFS was 20.7 months (95% CI: 16.7-26.5) and median OS was not reached; the probability of survival at 3 years was 63%. Patient-reported overall quality of life (QoL) scores were maintained during the course of treatment. MRD status at 12 weeks was highly predictive of PFS. Safety was generally consistent with previous reports, and no new treatment-related Grade (Gr) 5 events were recorded since the first interim analysis. The most common treatment-emergent AEs (>30% all grades) were CRS (55%), anemia (34%), neutropenia (34%), and pyrexia (33%). With the optimized 0.7/4/20 mg step-up regimen (n=72), 98% of CRS events were Gr 1/2, and only one pt had Gr 3 CRS. All CRS events resolved with supportive measures; 13 pts received tocilizumab for CRS management with the optimized regimen. Only one low-grade ICANS event was reported with the optimized regimen. Gr ≥3 infections occurred in 50 (36%) pts (Gr 5, n=14 [10%]); COVID-19 infections were reported in 46 (35%) pts (Gr 5, n=8 [6%]). Conclusions The results of this pre-specified analysis of the Phase 2 ELM-2 study continue to demonstrate deep and durable responses with odronextamab in heavily pretreated, refractory pts with R/R FL. 90% of responders were complete responders, with a 48% probability of maintaining CR for 2 years. High CR rates appear to translate to favorable, long-term survival outcomes in the setting of incurable disease. The incidence of AEs was consistent with earlier reports, with no new treatment-related Gr 5 events. Importantly, continued treatment with odronextamab had no detrimental effects on overall QoL. These data underscore the promise of odronextamab as a potentially effective agent for the management of R/R FL. Updated data will be presented.

Background: Goals of patient-centered care for management of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL) are to improve clinical outcomes while maintaining or improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In ELM-2 (NCT03888105), a Phase 2, open-label, multicohort, multicenter study, odronextamab monotherapy demonstrated high and durable complete response rates and generally manageable safety in patients with R/R FL. We report here, for the first time, patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from ELM-2 in patients with R/R FL. Methods: Patients with R/R FL Grade 1-3a received odronextamab IV at 80 mg weekly in 21-day cycles in Cycles (C) 1-4. Optimization of the step-up regimen to mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported previously. Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg in C1, then 80 mg on Days 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance continued at 160 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients with durable complete response (≥9 months) switched to dosing every 4 weeks. Patients completed EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-Lym, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at Weeks 1 (baseline), 2, 3, 4, and 10, then every 8 weeks for the remainder of the first year and every 12 weeks in the second year. Results here focus on six key PRO scales: EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning (PF), role functioning (RF), and fatigue; FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale (LymS); and EQ-5D-3L visual analog score (VAS). Longitudinal analyses using mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) were conducted through Week 50 (the last visit with ≥10 patients with PRO data). Changes from baseline were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not contain zero. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed, hence all statistical significance is nominal. Published ranges for minimum important difference (MID) to define clinically meaningful changes are: EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, 10 points; FACT-Lym LymS, 2.9-5.4 points; and EQ-5D-3L VAS, 7-12 points. For responder and time to definitive deterioration (TTDD) analyses, the upper end of these published MID ranges was used to define deterioration or improvement. Results: At the ELM-2 interim data cutoff on 31-Jan-2023, 140 patients with R/R FL Grade 1-3a had received at least 1 dose of odronextamab. Median age was 60.5 years (range: 22-84), with 38.6% ≥65 years, 52.9% male, 57.1% White, 32.1% Asian, 52.2% ECOG=0, and 47.1% ECOG=1. Median duration of follow-up was 26.6 months (range: 6.2-37.5). PRO completion rates for EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-Lym, and EQ-5D-3L were high at baseline and remained high for all assessments through Week 50. At baseline, moderate levels of general health (GHS/QoL) and high levels of functioning (PF and RF) were observed that were higher (better) than reference values for general cancer or non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). Fatigue scores at baseline were lower (less symptoms) than reference values for general cancer or NHL. EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, PF, RF, and fatigue scores were maintained from baseline through Week 50 (Table). For EQ-5D-3L VAS, the overall estimated mean changes from baseline improved statistically significantly but did not reach MID thresholds (Table). For FACT-Lym LymS, overall estimated mean change from baseline statistically significantly improved, and scores improved statistically significantly from Weeks 10 to 42 (except Week 34), with clinically meaningful improvements at Weeks 26 and 42 (Figure). The proportion of patients reporting meaningful improvement or stability across the six scales was higher than the proportion reporting meaningful worsening through Week 50 (Table). The median TTDD for EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL was 22.41 (95% CI: 14.59 to not yet reached) months, corresponding to the median PFS. Median TTDD was not reached for EORTC QLQ-C30 PF, FACT-Lym LymS, and EQ-5D-3L VAS scales. Conclusions: For patients with R/R FL, patient-reported HRQoL results were favorable during odronextamab treatment until disease progression, with no detriments on patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life. These results complement encouraging clinical efficacy, durability of responses, and tolerability observed in this highly refractory patient population and support the future role of odronextamab in the management of patients with R/R FL.

Abstract Background: DS-8201a is a HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate with a topoisomerase 1 (top1) inhibitor payload. Preclinical evidence suggests that inhibiting PARP can potentiate top1 inhibitor-induced DNA damage and cytotoxicity. However, the clinical activity of combined top1-inhibiting chemotherapy and PARP inhibition has been limited by toxicity. We hypothesized that targeted delivery of a top1 inhibitor via DS-8201a may reduce systemic toxicity while maintaining synergistic cytotoxic activity in combination with olaparib. This combination is being investigated in the ongoing phase 1 trial CTEP #10355 (NCT04585958) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors expressing HER2. We present the safety analysis of pts enrolled to Module 1 (Mod 1) of dose escalation (continuous olaparib). Preliminary efficacy results are explored. Methods: Accrual was limited to pts ≥18 years old with advanced or recurrent solid tumors expressing HER2, defined as HER2 IHC ≥1+ (local testing allowed) or amplification of ERBB2 by NGS or ISH. In Mod 1, pts received DS-8201a IV once every 3 weeks and olaparib twice daily (BID) continuously in a 3+3 dose escalation design. Dose Level 1 (DL1) of Mod 1 evaluated DS-8201a dosed at 4.4mg/kg with olaparib 100mg BID Days 1-21. Dose Level 2 (DL2) of Mod 1 evaluated DS-8201a dosed at 5.4mg/kg with olaparib 100mg BID Days 1-21. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of combined DS-8201a + olaparib as graded by CTCAE v5. Secondary objectives include assessment of clinical activity as measured by objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR; partial response [PR] + complete response [CR] + stable disease [SD] ≥6 months [mo]), median progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR). Results: As of 30-Nov-2022, 10 pts were treated in Mod 1, with median age of 62.5 years. 10% were Asian, 10% were African American, and 80% were white. 40% had endometrial cancer and 60% had ovarian cancer. 6 of 7 pts treated on DL1 were DLT-evaluable, of which 1 patient experienced a DLT of Grade (G) 4 neutropenia. All 3 pts in DL2 were DLT-evaluable, and each experienced a DLT (2 pts with G4 febrile neutropenia, 1 pt with G4 neutropenia). Most common TRAEs in Mod 1 included: ANC decrease (60% G4, 20% G3, 20% G1/2), platelet count decrease (20% G4, 20% G3, 40% G1/2), and anemia (70% G3, 20% G1/2). All Mod 1 pts required dose holds, dose reductions, and/or discontinuation of olaparib. Of the 10 pts in Mod 1, 40% achieved a RECIST response (1 CR, 3 PR). 40% had SD lasting ≥6 mo, for a CBR of 80%. Median PFS is estimated at 7.4 mo (95% CI 4.7mo-not reached), with 7 patients alive and progression-free at 6 mo. Conclusion: Continuous dosing of olaparib in combination with DS-8201a yielded an unacceptable safety profile and dose escalation in Mod 1 was not continued. An alternative dosing schedule was initiated in Module 2 (Mod 2) evaluating DS-8201a IV every 3 weeks and olaparib BID Days 8-14; accrual to Mod 2 is ongoing. There is preliminary evidence of clinical activity of this combination. Citation Format: Elizabeth K. Lee, Andrea E. Wahner Hendrickson, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Cheryl A. Pickett, Niya Xiong, Su-Chun Cheng, Madeline Polak, Hannah Sawyer, Martin Hayes, Ursula A. Matulonis, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos. A phase 1 study of DS-8201a in combination with olaparib in HER2-expressing malignancies (CTEP #10355): Results of module 1 dose escalation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B041.

PURPOSE Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (hereafter mutation) in the BRCA1/ 2 genes (g BRCA); however, clinical benefit has also been demonstrated in mBC with somatic BRCA1/ 2 mutations (s BRCA) or germline PALB2 mutations (g PALB2). This study aims to describe the genomic landscape of homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations in mBC and assess PARPi treatment outcomes for patients with g BRCA compared with other HRR genes and by status of a novel homologous recombination deficiency signature (HRDsig). METHODS A real-world (RW) clinico-genomic database (CGDB) of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) linked to deidentified, electronic health record–derived clinical data was used. CGP was analyzed for HRR genes and HRDsig. The CGDB enabled cohort characterization and outcomes analyses of 177 patients exposed to PARPi. RW progression-free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) were compared. RESULTS Of 28,920 patients with mBC, g BRCA was detected in 3.4%, whereas the population with any BRCA alteration or g PALB2 increased to 9.5%. HRDsig+ represented 21% of patients with mBC. BRCA and g PALB2 had higher levels of biallelic loss and HRDsig+ than other HRR alterations. Outcomes on PARPi were assessed for 177 patients, and g BRCA and s BRCA/ gPALB2 cohorts were similar: g BRCA versus s BRCA/g PALB2 rwPFS was 6.3 versus 5.4 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37 [0.77-2.43]); rwOS was 16.2 versus 21.2 months (HR, 1.45 [0.74-2.86]). Additionally, patients with HRDsig+ versus HRDsig– had longer rwPFS (6.3 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.62 [0.42-0.92]) and numerically longer rwOS (17.8 v 13.0 months; HR, 0.72 [0.46-1.14]). CONCLUSION Patients with s BRCA and g PALB2 derive similar benefit from PARPi as those with g BRCA alterations. In combination, HRDsig+, s BRCA, and g PALB2 represent an additional 19% of mBC that can potentially benefit from PARPi. Randomized trials exploring a more inclusive biomarker such as HRDsig are warranted.

Abstract BACKGROUND Leveraging external data has the potential to increase efficiency and precision of drug development in glioblastoma by complementing or replacing data from in-trial controls. We used an external control arm (ECA) to re-analyze data of the abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115 arms of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial. METHODS INSIGhT (NCT02977780) is an ongoing phase 2 adaptive platform trial in newly diagnosed MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma with a shared control arm of patients receiving radiation therapy with concurrent and maintenance temozolomide. The initial experimental arms (abemaciclib, neratinib, CC-115) have not shown a survival benefit relative to the shared control arm. We re-analyzed the experimental arm data and replaced the shared control arm with an ECA. The ECA was developed from a collection of trial datasets and real-world data available through the Glioblastoma External (GBM-X) Data Platform (). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for possible differences between pretreatment covariates (age, sex, resection, KPS) in the ECA and shared control arm. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS On INSIGhT, patients were randomized to abemaciclib (n = 74), neratinib (n = 80), and CC-115 (n = 12). There were 687 unmethylated MGMT patients in the GBM-X ECA. After propensity score matching, there was no significant treatment effect associated with abemaciclib (HR 1.091, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.536), neratinib (HR = 1.043, 95%CI:0.787-1.383, p = 0.770), or CC-115 (HR 1.088, 95%CI:0.834-1.433, p = 0.794) compared to the ECA. CONCLUSION In comparison to an ECA, there was no significant survival benefit with abemaciclib, neratinib and CC-115. Treatment effects estimates were similar to the primary analyses based on the original shared control arm of INSIGhT. The use of external control arms in early phase testing of new therapies is supported by our findings and could significantly reduce costs and time to conduct trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Abstract INTRODUCTION NF2-related schwannomatosis (NF2-SWN) predisposes affected individuals to vestibular schwannomas (VS), non-vestibular schwannomas (NVS), meningiomas, and ependymomas. The rarity of NF2-SWN and the presence of multiple tumor types has impeded clinical trials. We conducted a multi-center, adaptive, platform-basket trial to screen multiple drugs against progressive NF2-SWN tumors. We report the final analysis of the first treatment arm with brigatinib, an oral ALK inhibitor that inhibits multiple tyrosine kinases. METHODS This study enrolled participants ≥ 12 years with NF2-SWN and progressive target tumors (baskets: VS, NVS, meningioma, or ependymoma Radiographic response (RR) was defined as ≥ 20% decrease in target tumor volume from baseline. The primary outcome was RR rate. Secondary outcomes included safety, hearing response, and RR in non-target tumors. Tumor response was evaluated by MRI every 3 months in year 1 and every 6 months thereafter. In stage 1, 20 participants received brigatinib 180 mg daily. Interim analysis suggested activity in NVS and meningioma. Thus, an additional 20 participants with progressive meningioma or NVS were enrolled in stage 2. RESULTS Forty participants (median age 26 years, 12 pediatric, 28 female) were treated. Prior treatment included surgery (90%), radiation therapy (20%) and chemotherapy (55%). Target tumors included 10 VS, 9 NVS, 19 meningiomas, and 2 ependymomas. Overall RR rate was 10% for all target tumors (22% for non-VS, 11% for meningioma, 0% for VS, and 0% for ependymomas). There were no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were diarrhea (63%), nausea (40%), muscle cramps (33%), increased LDH (35%), increased AST (33%), and increased ALT (23%). CONCLUSION Brigatinib treatment was associated with RR in NVS and meningiomas in a heavily pretreated cohort of participants with progressing NF2-SWN tumors. This novel design provides unique ability to assess treatments for hereditary syndromes with multiple primary tumors.

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) parenchymal brain metastases are uncommon and troubling observations in the course of the disease. Our study aims to evaluate the prevalence of brain metastases among PCa patients while reporting various therapeutic modalities, clinical features, and oncological outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 34 patients with parenchymal brain metastasis out of 4575 patients using a prospectively maintained database that contains clinicopathologic characteristics of PCa patients between January 2012 and December 2021. Based on the three treatment modalities used, the patients were divided into three groups: stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and systemic therapy alone. The Kaplan–Meier curve was used to calculate overall survival [OS] probability and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare between groups.ResultsAt the time of brain metastasis diagnosis, the median age was 66 years, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) was 2.2 (0.1–26.6) ng/ml and the median (IQR) months from initial PCa diagnosis to brain metastasis development was 70.8 (27.6–100.9). The median (IQR) primary Gleason score was 8 (7–9) and over a median (IQR) follow‐up time of 2.2 (1.2–16.5) months, 76.5% (n = 26) of the patients died. Thirteen (38.2%) patients had solitary lesion, whereas 21 (61.8%) had ≥2 lesions. The lesions were supratentorial in 19 (55.9%) patients, infratentorial in six (17.6%), and both sides in nine (26.5%). Among all 34 patients, 10 (29.4%) were treated with SRS, seven (20.6%) with WBRT, and 17 (50%) with systemic therapy alone. OS varied greatly between the three treatment modalities (log‐rank test, p = 0.049). Those who were treated with SRS and WBRT had better OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.16–0.86, p = 0.022).ConclusionsIn our single‐institutional study, we confirmed that PCa brain metastasis is associated with poor survival outcomes and more advanced metastatic disease. Furthermore, we found that SRS and WBRT for brain metastasis in patients with recurrent PCa appear to be associated with improved OS as compared with systemic therapy alone and are likely secondary to selection bias.

AbstractBackgroundFor men with prostate cancer, radiographic progression may occur without a concordant rise in prostate‐specific antigen (PSA). Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of radiographic progression using C‐11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients achieving ultra‐low PSA values and to evaluate clinical outcomes in this patient population.MethodsIn a single institution study, we reviewed the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic C‐11 Choline PET metastatic prostate cancer registry to identify patients experiencing radiographic disease progression (rDP) on C‐11 choline PET scan while the PSA value was less than 0.5 ng/mL. Disease progression was confirmed by tissue biopsy or response to subsequent therapy. Clinicopathologic variables were abstracted by trained research personnel. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Intergroup differences were assessed using the log‐rank test. A univariate and multivariate Cox regression model was performed to investigate variables associated with poor survival after rDP.ResultsA total of 1323 patients within the registry experienced rDP between 2011 and 2021, including 220 (16.6%) men with rDP occurring at low PSA level. A median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 54.7 (19.7–106.9) months elapsed between the time of prostate cancer diagnosis and low PSA rDP, during which 173 patients (78%) developed castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Sites of low PSA rDP included local recurrence (n = 17, 8%), lymph node (n = 90, 41%), bone (n = 94, 43%) and visceral metastases (n = 19, 9%). Biopsy at the time of rDP demonstrated small‐cell or neuroendocrine features in 21% of patients with available tissue. Over a median (IQR) follow‐up of 49.4 (21.3–95.1) months from the time of low PSA rDP, 46% (n = 102) of patients died. Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes include advanced age at rDP, CRPC status, bone and visceral metastasis (p value <0.05). Visceral metastases were associated with decreased overall survival (p = 0.009 by log‐rank) as compared with other sites of rDP.ConclusionsMen with prostate cancer commonly experience metastatic progression at very low or even undetectable PSA levels. Periodic imaging, even at low absolute PSA values, may result in more timely identification of disease progression.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival and several are FDA-approved. Although not yet approved, neoadjuvant ICIs have also shown to improve event-free survival and remains an ongoing area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma, bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, and lifileucel, an autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, for unresectable or metastatic melanoma are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAF V600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.