A phase I/II study of Pexa-Vec oncolytic virus in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition in refractory colorectal cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 117-117
Author(s):  
M. Cecilia Monge B. ◽  
Changqing Xie ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
Suzanne Fioraventi ◽  
Melissa Walker ◽  
...  

117 Background: The benefit of immune checkpoint inhibition is limited to the small percentage of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients whose tumors present mismatch repair (MMR) gene abnormalities; immunotherapy has not shown benefit in patients with MMR proficient CRC. Oncolytic immunotherapy represents a unique therapeutic platform. This phase I trial tests the safety of the combination of pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus durvalumab (durva) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CRC. Methods: Eligible patients with advanced proficient mixed match repair (pMMR) CRC received intravenous infusion of Pexa-Vec at dose level 3 x 108 plaque forming units (pfu) (DL1) or at 109 pfu (DL2) every 2 weeks for 4 doses and durva 1500 mg every 28 days. Response was assessed with CT every 8 weeks. Adverse events were recorded and managed. The primary endpoint included safety, tolerability and feasibility of this combination therapy. Samples of tumor and peripheral blood were collected for assessment of immune parameters. Results: Sixteen patients (6 males and 10 females) enrolled with a median age of 52.1 years (range 39-69) from Dec, 2017 to Oct, 2018. Four patients were treated with Pexa-Vec at DL1 and durva;twelve patients were treated with Pexa-Vec at DL2 and durva.The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAE) included fever 15/16 (94 %), hypotension 12/16 (75 %), chills 12/16 (75%), fatigue 8/16 (50%), sinus tachycardia 7/16 (44%) and rash 6/16 (38%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs were reported in 8/16 (50%)patients; the most common were fever 7/16 (44 %), lymphopenia 2/16 (13%), neutropenia 1/16 (6%) and anemia 1/16 (6%). 14 patients were evaluable for response analysis; one patient 1/14 (7 %) achieved a confirmed partial response (lasting 7.1 months) and continues to receive treatment, while 13 patients had progressive disease. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.2 months (95% CI: 2.2-2.3 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (CI: 4.9-10.1 months). Conclusions: Combination therapy of Pexa-Vec with durva ICI issafe, well tolerated and demonstrates possible activity in patients with advanced pMMR CRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03206073.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Michael Lawrence Dougan ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
...  

56 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has shown early promising results in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic or advanced tumors of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and stomach. We explore the cost-effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors as second-line treatment agents for this group of patients using a decision analytic approach. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the course of a virtual cohort of patients treated by (i) nivolumab 3 mg/kg, (ii) combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg, and (iii) best supportive care (BSC). Patients in the hypothetical cohort were 55-year-olds in an advanced/metastatic stage who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients who remained stable in treatment were monitored for adverse events until death. Rates of cancer-specific mortality, disease progression, and drug-related adverse events were estimated using results from the CheckMate 032 clinical trial. The primary endpoints were survival, measured in life-years (LY), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from a US-payer perspective considering costs of drugs, treatment, and management of immune-related adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was defined with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded the highest effectiveness (QALYs = 0.47, LYs = 1.09) in our base case modeling results, compared with nivolumab (QALYs = 0.43, LYs = 1.03), and BSC (QALYs = 0.19, LYs = 0.42). Nivolumab had an incremental cost of $84,555/QALY compared with BSC, while nivolumab with ipilimumab resulted in an incremental cost of $1.1M/QALY compared with nivolumab alone. The cost gap between the two was associated with the higher price of ipilimumab, and costs of managing increased toxicity. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that combination therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab is the most effective, but from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is expensive, making nivolumab monotherapy the cost-effective option. Additional clinical data are needed to confirm our modeling results.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16150-e16150
Author(s):  
Rebecca Wetzel ◽  
M. Cecilia Monge B. ◽  
Changqing Xie ◽  
Donna Mabry-Hrones ◽  
Santhana Webb ◽  
...  

e16150 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has demonstrated modest activity in biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). Augmentation of the immune response by ablative procedures to improve efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition has been previously demonstrated in hepatocellular carcinoma, however the outcome of the combination of immune checkpoint inhibition with tremelimumab (anti-CTLA4) and durvalumab (anti-PD1) with ablation in advanced biliary tract carcinoma is unclear. The primary objective of this study was to establish the efficacy via 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) of combining tremelimumab and durvalumab in patients with advanced BTC either alone or with tumor ablation. Secondary objectives were safety and feasibility of combination treatment. An exploratory objective was overall survival (OS). Methods: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed advanced or unresectable BTC (intra- or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer) who had progressed on, been intolerant to, or refused prior chemotherapy. Disease had to be technically amenable to cryoablation with at least two measurable lesions. Adequate organ function and an ECOG of 0 or 1 were required. Patients were treated with tremelimumab and durvalumab with or without tumor ablation. Tremelimumab and durvalumab were administered intravenously every 28 days for four cycles followed by durvalumab every 28 days until disease progression. Cryoablation was performed on day 36. Patients were imaged every 8 weeks and response was defined per RECIST v 1.1 criteria. Results: In total, 22 patients have been enrolled into the BTC cohort. Half underwent ablation and half received immunotherapy alone. The median age was 59 years (range 21-80). All patients had received prior systemic chemotherapy, locally advanced disease was present in 68% of patients. Median PFS was 2.1m and median OS was 5.6 m. DCR was 45% (SD). Median OS and PFS was similar in the group that received ablation vs immunotherapy alone with a median OS of 6.8 m vs 6.7 m and 2.0 m vs 2.7 m respectively. The most common grade 3- 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (27%), increased AST (41%), increased alkaline phosphatase (32%) and elevated bilirubin (27%). Conclusions: Combination checkpoint inhibition combined with tumor ablative procedures is a safe and effective treatment strategy for patients with advanced BTC, however the addition of ablative therapy may not enhance efficacy in this small cohort of patients. Results illustrate the poor prognosis of advanced BTC and may represent a non-chemotherapeutic approach to treatment in this patient population. Further studies are warranted to identify patient populations most likely to respond to these interventions. Clinical trial information: NCT02821754.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Cohen ◽  
Benoît Rousseau ◽  
Joana Vidal ◽  
Raphaël Colle ◽  
Luis A. Diaz ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yik Long Man ◽  
Neil Morton ◽  
Begoña Lopez

Abstract Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibition has revolutionised the management of patients with cancer. However, many immunotherapy-related adverse events have been recognised, such as colitis and dermatitis. We are increasingly aware of patients presenting to rheumatology with musculoskeletal complaints including polymyalgia-like symptoms or an inflammatory arthritis. More uncommonly, patients can present with large vessel vasculitis. We present a case of immunotherapy-related large vessel vasculitis following treatment with a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. Case description A 67-year-old man has been known to the oncology team with prostate cancer since 2014. He developed osteoblastic metastases despite androgen deprivation therapy and he was subsequently enrolled onto the NEPTUNE study which involved a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. Three weeks after his first cycle of immunotherapy, he developed fevers, diarrhoea and a macular rash. He was admitted for a flexible sigmoidoscopy and biopsies demonstrated inflammation in keeping with immunotherapy-related colitis. It was also noted that his thyroxine level was 64.7pmol/L with a TSH of 0.02mlU/L and this was thought to be immunotherapy-related thyroiditis. His immunotherapy was discontinued and he was on a weaning course of prednisolone with a good response.  Five months after his single cycle of immunotherapy, he began reporting generalised aches which were worse in his chest and radiated to his right scapula. He also had bilateral shoulder pain but no specific stiffness. This pain was more noticeable as he weaned off the prednisolone. He had no claudication, headaches or constitutional symptoms. A CT pulmonary angiogram showed no evidence of pulmonary emboli, but there was an incidental finding of circumferential thickening of the aorta suggestive of a vasculitis. Inflammatory markers were notably raised - ESR 127mm/h and CRP 199mg/L. There was no evidence of infection on cultures. He was referred to the rheumatology team. Examination was unremarkable with no evidence of weak pulses or bruits. Immunology tests were all negative. An urgent PET-CT was organised which demonstrated extensive active large vessel vasculitis involving the aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid and vertebral arteries. He was given one dose of methylprednisolone (1mg/kg) which resulted in a marked improvement in his pain overnight. He received two further doses of methylprednisolone and his CRP improved to 38mg/L. He continues to improve on a weaning course of prednisolone.  Discussion Ipilimumab was the first checkpoint inhibitor approved for cancer in 2010. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have since become an expanding field in oncology, particularly in resistant or advanced cases of melanoma and lung cancer. There are currently six checkpoint inhibitors licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. These are monoclonal antibodies targeting the checkpoint pathway including CTLA4, PD-1 and PDL-1. There are well documented case series with regard to immunotherapy-related toxicities including colitis, dermatitis and endocrinopathies. More relevant to rheumatologists, checkpoint inhibitors have also been associated with rheumatic presentations including inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sicca symptoms, myositis and vasculitis. A review of the literature in 2018 found 53 cases of vasculitis associated with checkpoint inhibition, of which 20 were confirmed. All these cases were resolved by withholding the immune checkpoint inhibitor and where necessary, giving steroid therapy. On the whole, immunotherapy-related vasculitis is not as common as arthritis or polymyalgia. As the use of checkpoint inhibitors becomes more widespread, it is important that as rheumatologists, we are aware of the various rheumatic conditions that they can trigger and how to manage them. Key learning points This single case highlights the wide range of immunotherapy-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibition. Their use in clinical practice will likely become more widespread owing to their success in treating a variety of advanced or resistant malignancies. Apart from being familiar with the various rheumatic complaints, we should also be aware of the other systems that can become involved, so that the patient is managed holistically. Symptoms will usually improve with termination of the checkpoint inhibitor but steroid therapy is often required. The addition of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs should be considered in cases where there are relapsing symptoms whilst weaning steroids. However, this is a decision that requires a multidisciplinary approach since it could affect the prognosis of the underlying malignancy. With more research into this area, there will a better understanding of the true incidence of immunotherapy-related adverse events in these patients and how to reduce these in the future. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 591-591
Author(s):  
S. Sadahiro ◽  
T. Suzuki ◽  
Y. Maeda ◽  
A. Tanaka ◽  
K. Okada ◽  
...  

591 Background: FOLFOX+bevacizumab (BEV) is the standard systemic chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). We investigated the combination of FOLFOX4 and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) in patients who had isolated liver metastasis from CRC. We also compared efficacy and safety between this combination therapy and its concomitant use with BEV. Methods: Twenty-five patients entered a phase I/II trial of HAI (5-FU 250 mg/d, leucovorin 25 mg/d; d1-7, q2w) combined with FOLFOX4. Fourteen other patients with a similar background received HAI + FOLFOX4 combined with BEV and the two regimens were compared. Results: In the phase I/II study, the recommended doses for FOLFOX were as follows: L-OHP, 85 mg/m2; l-LV, 100 mg/m2; 5-FU (bolus), 400 mg/m2; and 5-FU (infusion), 600 mg/m2. Sixteen patients who received this regimen showed a response rate of 93.8% (2 CR and 13 PR), a median progression-free survival of 323 days, and a one-year survival rate of 93.7%. In the subsequent phase II trial of HAI + FOLFOX4 with BEV, 14 patients were enrolled and the response rate was 78.6% (2 CR and 9 PR). The outcome was inferior when BEV was used concomitantly. The median numbers of doses were 10 (range: 1-27) for FOLFOX4 and 9 (1-27) for HAI without BEV, whereas the corresponding numbers with BEV were 8 (1-12) and 2 (0-9), respectively. There was a marked decrease in the number of HAI procedures when BEV was used. Thrombosis occurred in 8 patients who received concomitant BEV, which was the most common reason for cessation of HAI. Other adverse events (≥Grade 3) were neutropenia (n=7; 43.8%) and thrombocytopenia (n=2; 12.5%) without BEV or neutropenia (n=7; 43.8%) and diarrhea (n=1; 7.1%) with BEV, and no marked difference was seen between the two regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated. Severe neuropathy was only observed in 1 patient (6.3%; Grade 3) who received concomitant BEV. Conclusions: In the present study, HAI + FOLFOX combined with BEV caused thrombosis and disturbance of wound healing, thereby increasing the incidence of complications and making it difficult to continue treatment. These findings suggest that BEV should not be administered with HAI therapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Jacobs ◽  
Evelien Smits ◽  
Filip Lardon ◽  
Patrick Pauwels ◽  
Vanessa Deschoolmeester

Colorectal cancer (CRC), as one of the most prevalent types of cancer worldwide, is still a leading cause of cancer related mortality. There is an urgent need for more efficient therapies in metastatic disease. Immunotherapy, a rapidly expanding field of oncology, is designed to boost the body’s natural defenses to fight cancer. Of the many approaches currently under study to improve antitumor immune responses, immune checkpoint inhibition has thus far been proven to be the most effective. This review will outline the treatments that take advantage of our growing understanding of the role of the immune system in cancer, with a particular emphasis on immune checkpoint molecules, involved in CRC pathogenesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document