Weiss, Matthias

Abstract Background Reference sets are needed to evaluate performance of multi-cancer detection (MCD) assays. The National Cancer Institute funded the Alliance reference set study to assess MCDs for use in future trials. Methods Individuals with cancer and controls were recruited; blood specimens were collected prior to cancer treatment. A performance evaluation study was designed utilizing reference set samples. Companies (n = 6) were selected to participate based on review of performance data and ability to utilize the blood collection tube. Companies received samples from cancer types their assay was designed to detect (“targeted”), plus additional “non-targeted” and control samples. Companies reported positive/negative calls, risk scores, and tissue-of-origin (TOO) predictions. Sensitivity was computed for early (I-II) and late (III-IV) stage cases, based on positive/negative calls (SEPN) and at fixed 98% specificity (SE98). Specificity and TOO accuracy were computed. Results Five hundred and forty nine cases (encompassing 13 cancer types) and 413 controls from the reference set were included in the study. Companies assessed samples from median 6 (range 5-9) targeted cancer types and median 8 (range: 7-11) overall cancer types. Median (range) specificity was 92.3% (76.5%-98.5%). Median (range) SEPN was 32% (25%-42%) for early stage and 73% (48%-89%) for late stage; while median (range) SE98 was 19% (8%-35%) for early stage and 66% (13%-79%) for late stage. Median sensitivity for non-targeted types was 40% (early stage) and 52% (late stage). Median (range) TOO accuracy (primary predicted site) was 75% (64%-78%). Conclusions Sensitivity and specificity varied widely across assays with early-stage sensitivity substantially lower than late-stage sensitivity. Clinical Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05334069.

AbstractBackgroundThe use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research is limited by a lack of structure and a standard data model. The objective of the ICAREdata (Integrating Clinical Trials and Real‐World Endpoints Data) project was to structure key research data elements in EHRs using a minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) data model to extract and transmit data.MethodsThe ICAREdata project captured two EHR data elements essential to clinical trials: cancer disease status and treatment plan change. The project was implemented in clinical sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials. Data were extracted from EHRs and sent by secure Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource messaging (a standard for exchanging EHRs) to a database. Selected elements were compared with corresponding data from the trial's electronic data capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave.ResultsBy December 2023, data were extracted and transmitted from 10 sites for 35 patients, involving 367 clinical encounters across 15 clinical trials. Data through March 2023 demonstrated that concordance for the elements treatment plan change and cancer disease status was 79% and 34%, respectively. When disease evaluation was reported by both EHR and EDC (n = 15), there was 87% agreement on cancer disease status.ConclusionsDocumentation, extraction, and aggregation of structured data elements in EHRs using mCODE and ICAREdata methods is feasible in multi‐institutional cancer clinical trials. EDC as a reference data set allowed assessment of the completeness of EHR data capture. Future initiatives will focus on elements with shared definitions in clinical and research environments and efficient workflows.Plain Language Summary Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming. ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records.

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In 2003, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group initiated a randomized phase III clinical trial (E4402) comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Rituximab-responsive patients (n = 299) were randomly assigned to either a retreatment rituximab (RR) strategy or a maintenance rituximab (MR) strategy. Each dosing strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF). In the original report, there was no difference in TTF between the two dosing strategies. Here, we report on the long-term outcomes for secondary end points of time to first cytotoxic therapy, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). At 7 years, 83% of MR patients had not required first chemotherapy compared with 63% of RR patients (hazard ratio, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.76]). At 7 years, 71% of MR remained in their first remission compared with 37% of RR patients. Despite the improved first remission length with MR, there was no difference in OS at 10 years (83% v 84%). With mature long-term data, we confirm that prolonged maintenance rituximab does not confer an OS advantage in low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract BACKGROUND: E4402 was a randomized phase III study comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL). The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure. The initial publication (Kahl, JCO 2014) demonstrated that a retreatment strategy utilized less drug and produced comparable time to treatment failure compared to a maintenance strategy. Here we provide long term follow up results, focusing on response duration, time to first cytotoxic therapy, overall survival, and risk of histologic transformation. METHODS: Eligible patients had untreated, low tumor burden (GELF criteria) FL. Patients received R 375 mg/m 2 weekly x 4 and responders were randomized to maintenance rituximab (MR) (single dose R q 3 months) or retreatment rituximab (RR) (R weekly x 4 doses at disease progression). Each strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary endpoint, time to treatment failure, was defined as progression within 6 months of last R, no response to R retreatment, initiation of alternative therapy, or inability to complete protocol therapy. Secondary endpoints included time to first cytotoxic therapy, quality of life and safety. The ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended release of study results at a planned interim analysis in September 2011 and patients and providers were notified of results. Time to treatment failure data collection halted with release of the results but limited data collection on time to first cytotoxic therapy, response duration, and risk of histologic transformation continued. INITITIAL RESULTS: From 11/03 to 9/08, 384 patients with FL were enrolled. Complete or partial response was achieved in 289 patients (71%), who were then randomized to MR (n=146) or RR (n=143). Demographic features were similar in the two arms: median age 59 years; ECOG PS 0-1 in all patients, and FLIPI low-risk (14.9 vs. 16.4%), intermediate-risk (46.3 vs. 42.9%) and high-risk (38.8 vs. 40.7%) for MR vs. RR, respectively. At initial publication, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the time to treatment failure was 3.9 years for MR vs. 3.6 years for RR (p=NS). LONG TERM FOLLOW UP RESULTS: Immunoglobulin levels and risks for serious infections/late complications in MR patients will be updated at the annual meeting. For the endpoint of time to first cytotoxic therapy, the median follow up is 8.7 years. At 7 years, 83% of MR and 63% of RR remained free from first cytotoxic therapy (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.50 - 3.76) [Figure 1]. For the endpoint of response duration, the median follow up is 12.1 years. At 10 years, 66% of the MR patients remained in their 1 st remission compared to 30% of the RR patients who remained in their 1 st remission [Figure 2]. The median response duration for RR patients receiving a single 4-week course of rituximab was 3.25 years. There was no difference in the overall survival at 10 years, 84% for MR vs. 83% for RR. There was a trend towards a lower risk of histologic transformation for patients receiving MR (n = 4) compared to RR (n = 11) (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: With long term follow up, the RESORT data indicates that in previously untreated, low tumor burden, follicular lymphoma, MR was superior to RR for delaying time to first cytotoxic therapy and for response duration, with a trend towards reducing the risk of histologic transformation. MR did not improve the overall survival. The original publication concluded that the time to treatment failure is similar between the two dosing strategies. Due to study design, time to treatment failure could not be analyzed in this long term follow up analysis. Compared to the historical benchmark of 3 years median time to first cytotoxic therapy when watch and wait is utilized, single agent rituximab, administered by either dosing strategy, was highly effective at delaying the time to first cytotoxic therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kahl: AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy; AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmaclcyclics: Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; TG Theraputics: Research Funding. Fenske: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

TPS8052 Background: The monoclonal antibody (MoAb) daratumumab (dara) has been approved for treatment of newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) in combination with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (DRd) in patients who are not eligible to undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT). Ongoing trials are examining the role of adding bortezomib (Btz) to DRd, but it remains unclear if all patients benefit from a quadruplet regimen. Availability of sensitive assays to detect measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD) in MM and emerging data demonstrating significant prognostic value for attaining MRD negativity, offers an unprecedented opportunity to develop individualized treatment approaches. An important question is to identify who benefits from adding a fourth drug to the MoAb-IMiD triplet, thus individualizing therapy based on depth of response. We hypothesize that prolonged intensive therapy with the addition of Btz for consolidation and maintenance after DRd induction therapy for NDMM will improve survival outcomes with a more pronounced effect when used in MRD positive patients. Methods: Patients with NDMM, R-ISS Stage I or II, who are not eligible to undergo SCT or those willing to defer SCT to first relapse and have not received more than 1 cycle of any NDMM therapy will be enrolled, provided they have measurable disease, adequate organ and marrow function, have received no more than once cycle of therapy for MM and significant peripheral neuropathy or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Importantly, a dominant clone should be identified by lymphotrack assay for future MRD monitoring. Once enrolled, induction therapy will be in 28 day cycles consisting of daraSC (1800 mg) weekly for 2 cycles, every other week for cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks for 9 cycles, along with len 25 mg days 1-21 of each cycle and dex 40 mg (20 mg for those > 75 years) weekly. At end of 9 cycles (induction), patients will undergo MRD testing by next generation sequencing and will be classified into MRD positive or negative subgroups. Using MRD as an integral biomarker, the trial employs a randomized biomarker-stratified design as proposed by Freidlin et al. to determine efficacy for each MRD subgroup. Patients will be stratified by MRD status and R-ISS stage and randomized to receive 9 cycles of consolidation with DRd, without (control arm) or with (experimental arm) Btz (1.3 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks), followed by DR maintenance until progression The primary endpoint is consolidation OS. Sample size considerations rest on estimates of MRD subgroup prevalence at the end of induction and operating characteristics establishing the treatment effect within the MRD positive subgroup as primary and MRD negative subgroup as key secondary. The total accrual goal is 1450 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04566328.

AbstractThrough our involvement in KEYNOTE‐059, we unexpectedly observed durable responses in two patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (mGEA) who received ramucirumab (anti‐VEGFR‐2)/paclitaxel after immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). To assess the reproducibility of this observation, we piloted an approach to administer ramucirumab/paclitaxel after ICI in more patients, and explored changes in the immune microenvironment. Nineteen consecutive patients with mGEA received ICI followed by ramucirumab/paclitaxel. Most (95%) did not respond to ICI, yet after irRECIST‐defined progression on ICI, all patients experienced tumor size reduction on ramucirumab/paclitaxel. The objective response rate (ORR) and progression‐free survival (PFS) on ramucirumab/paclitaxel after ICI were higher than on the last chemotherapy before ICI in the same group of patients (ORR, 58.8% vs 11.8%; PFS 12.2 vs 3.0 months; respectively). Paired tumor biopsies examined by imaging mass cytometry showed a median 5.5‐fold (range 4‐121) lower frequency of immunosuppressive forkhead box P3+ regulatory T cells with relatively preserved CD8+ T cells, post‐treatment versus pre‐treatment (n = 5 pairs). We then compared the outcomes of these 19 patients with a separate group who received ramucirumab/paclitaxel without preceding ICI (n = 68). Median overall survival on ramucirumab/paclitaxel was longer with (vs without) immediately preceding ICI (14.8 vs 7.4 months) including after multivariate analysis, as was PFS. In our small clinical series, outcomes appeared improved on anti‐VEGFR‐2/paclitaxel treatment when preceded by ICI, in association with alterations in the immune microenvironment. However, further investigation is needed to determine the generalizability of these data. Prospective clinical trials to evaluate sequential treatment with ICI followed by anti‐VEGF(R)/taxane are underway.