BackgroundNeoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab has yielded high response rates in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma. These response rates translated to high short-term survival rates.... Show moreBackgroundNeoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab has yielded high response rates in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma. These response rates translated to high short-term survival rates. However, data on long-term survival and disease recurrence are lacking.Patients and methodsIn OpACIN, 20 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w four cycles of adjuvant or split two cycles of neoadjuvant and two adjuvant. In OpACIN-neo, 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to arm A (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), arm B (2× ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), or arm C (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w plus 2× nivolumab 3 mg/kg q2w; n = 26) followed by surgery.ResultsThe median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached in either trial. After a median follow-up of 69 months for OpACIN, 1/7 patients with a pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy had disease recurrence. The estimated 5-year RFS and OS rates for the neoadjuvant arm were 70% and 90% versus 60% and 70% for the adjuvant arm. After a median follow-up of 47 months for OpACIN-neo, the estimated 3-year RFS and OS rates were 82% and 92%, respectively. The estimated 3-year RFS rate for OpACIN-neo was 95% for patients with a pathologic response versus 37% for patients without a pathologic response (P < 0.001). In multiple regression analyses, pathologic response was the strongest predictor of disease recurrence. Of the 12 patients with distant disease recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy, 5 responded to subsequent anti-PD-1 and 8 to targeted therapy, although 7 patients showed progression after the initial response.ConclusionsUpdated data confirm the high survival rates after neoadjuvant combination checkpoint inhibition in macroscopic stage III melanoma, especially for patients with a pathologic response. Pathologic response is the strongest surrogate marker for long-term outcome. Show less
Background: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for... Show moreBackground: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. Patients and methods: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. Results: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Delta 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Delta 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Delta 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Conclusion: With 35 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDES and DDFS with no new safety signals. Show less
Background: Oral targeted therapies show a high pharmacokinetic (PK) interpatient variability. Even though exposure has been positively correlated with efficacy for many of these drugs, these are... Show moreBackground: Oral targeted therapies show a high pharmacokinetic (PK) interpatient variability. Even though exposure has been positively correlated with efficacy for many of these drugs, these are still dosed using a one-size-fits-all approach. Consequently, individuals have a high probability to be either underexposed or overexposed, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Therapeutic drug monitoring, which is personalized dosing based on measured systemic drug concentrations, could address these problems.Patients and methods: Patients were enrolled in this prospective multicenter study (www.trialregister.nl; NL6695) if they started treatment with one of the 24 participating oral targeted therapies. Primary outcome was to halve the proportion of underexposed patients, compared with historical data. PK sampling was carried out after 4, 8 and 12 weeks, and every 12 weeks thereafter. In case of Cmin below the predefined target and manageable toxicity, a pharmacokinetically guided intervention was proposed (i.e. checking compliance and drugedrug interactions, concomitant intake with food, splitting intake moments or dose increments).Results: In total, 600 patients were included of whom 426 patients are assessable for the primary outcome and 552 patients had >= 1 PK sample(s) available and were therefore assessable for the overall analyses. Pharmacokinetically guided dosing reduced the proportion of underexposed patients at the third PK measurement by 39.0% (95% confidence interval 28.0% to 49.0%) compared with historical data. At the third PK measurement, 110 out of 426 patients (25.8%) had a low exposure. In total, 294 patients (53.3%) had >= 1 PK sample(s) below the preset target at a certain time point during treatment. In 166 of these patients (56.5%), pharmacokinetically guided interventions were carried out, which were successful in 113 out of 152 assessable patients (74.3%).Conclusions: Pharmacokinetically guided dose optimization of oral targeted therapies was feasible in clinical practice and reduced the proportion of underexposed patients considerably. Show less
Background: In the phase III CheckMate 743 study (NCT02899299), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with unresectable... Show moreBackground: In the phase III CheckMate 743 study (NCT02899299), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We report updated data with 3-year minimum follow-up. Patients and methods: Adults with previously untreated, histologically confirmed, unresectable MPM and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of <= 1 were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or six cycles of platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy. This report includes updated efficacy and safety outcomes, exploratory biomarker analyses including four-gene inflammatory expression signature score, and a post hoc efficacy analysis in patients who discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results: With a median follow-up of 43.1 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to prolong OS versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 18.1 versus 14.1 months [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.73 (0.61e0.87)], and 3-year OS rates were 23% versus 15%, respectively. Three-year progression-free survival rates were 14% versus 1%, and objective response rates were 40% versus 44%. At 3 years, 28% versus 0% of responders had an ongoing response. Improved survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was observed across subgroups, including histology. A high score of the four-gene inflammatory signature appeared to correlate with improved survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. No new safety signals were observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, despite patients being off therapy for 1 year. In patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs, median OS was 25.4 months, and 34% of responders maintained their responses for >= 3 years after discontinuation. Conclusions: With 3 years' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide long-term survival benefit over chemotherapy and a manageable safety profile, supporting the regimen as standard-of-care treatment for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology. Show less
A. Kawai43, K. Kopeckova44, D. A. Krakorova45, A. Le Cesne46, F. Le Grange1, E. Legius47, A. Leithner48, A. Lopez Pousa49, J. Martin-Broto36, O. Merimsky50, C. Messiou51, A. B. Miah52, O. Mir53, M.... Show moreA. Kawai43, K. Kopeckova44, D. A. Krakorova45, A. Le Cesne46, F. Le Grange1, E. Legius47, A. Leithner48, A. Lopez Pousa49, J. Martin-Broto36, O. Merimsky50, C. Messiou51, A. B. Miah52, O. Mir53, M. Montemurro54, B. Morland55, C. Morosi56, E. Palmerini57, M. A. Pantaleo58, R. Piana59, S. Piperno-Neumann60, P. Reichardt61, P. Rutkowski62, A. A. Safwat63, C. Sangalli64, M. Sbaraglia19, S. Scheipl48, P. Schoffski65, S. Sleijfer66, D. Strauss67, K. Sundby Hall13, A. Trama68, M. Unk69, M. A. J. van de Sande70, W. T. A. van der Graaf66,71, W. J. van Houdt72, T. Frebourg73x, R. Ladenstein41z, P. G. Casali2,74z & Show less
Background: Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As... Show moreBackground: Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-Iymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS.Patients and methods: Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry.Results: There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (kappa = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had >= 70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P <= 0.0001). The number of B lymphocytes was significantly increased in patients with a high fibrosis subtype of treatment response (P = 0.046).Conclusions: There is strong reproducibility for assessment of pathological response using INMC criteria. Immunotherapeutic response of fibrosis subtype correlated with improved RFS, and may represent a biomarker. Potential B-cell contribution to fibrosis development warrants further study. Reclassification of pNR to a threshold of >= 70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of <10% fibrosis subtype of response may identify those at highest risk of recurrence, but requires validation. Show less
Background: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal... Show moreBackground: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study.Patients and methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used.Results: Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively.Conclusions: With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib. Show less
Background: The Intergroup 0116 and the MAGIC trials changed clinical practice for resectable gastric cancer in the Western world. In these trials, overall survival improved with post-operative... Show moreBackground: The Intergroup 0116 and the MAGIC trials changed clinical practice for resectable gastric cancer in the Western world. In these trials, overall survival improved with post-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy (CT). Intention-to-treat analysis in the CRITICS trial of post-operative CT or post-operative CRT did not show a survival difference. The current study reports on the per-protocol (PP) analysis of the CRITICS trial.Patients and methods: The CRITICS trial was a randomized, controlled trial in which 788 patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric or esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were included. Before start of preoperative CT, patients from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were randomly assigned to receive post-operative CT or CRT. For the current analysis, only patients who started their allocated post-operative treatment were included. Since it is uncertain that the two treatment arms are balanced in such PP analysis, adjusted proportional hazards regression analysis and inverse probability weighted analysis were used to minimize the risk of selection bias and to estimate and compare overall and event-free survival.Results: Of the 788 patients, 478 started post-operative treatment according to protocol, 233 (59%) patients in the CT group and 245 (62%) patients in the CRT group. Patient and tumor characteristics between the groups before start of the post-operative treatment were not different. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years since the start of post-operative treatment, the 5-year overall survival was 57.9% (95% confidence interval: 51.4% to 64.3%) in the CT group versus 45.5% (95% confidence interval: 39.2% to 51.8%) in the CRT group (adjusted hazard ratio CRT versus CT: 1.62 (1.24-2.12), P = 0.0004). Inverse probability weighted analysis resulted in similar hazard ratios.Conclusion: After adjustment for all known confounding factors, the PP analysis of patients who started the allocated post-operative treatment in the CRITICS trial showed that the CT group had a significantly better 5-year overall survival than the CRT group (NCT00407186). Show less
Roth, P.; Pace, A.; Rhun, E. le; Weller, M.; Ay, C.; Moyal, E.C.J.; ... ; ESMO Guidelines Comm 2021
Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with mesenchymal lineage differentiation. The discovery of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions as tissue-agnostic oncogenic... Show moreSarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with mesenchymal lineage differentiation. The discovery of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions as tissue-agnostic oncogenic drivers has led to new personalized therapies for a subset of patients with sarcoma in the form of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors. NTRK gene rearrangements and fusion transcripts can be detected with different molecular pathology techniques, while TRK protein expression can be demonstrated with immunohistochemistry. The rarity and diagnostic complexity of NTRK gene fusions raise a number of questions and challenges for clinicians. To address these challenges, the World Sarcoma Network convened two meetings of expert adult oncologists and pathologists and subsequently developed this article to provide practical guidance on the management of patients with sarcoma harboring NTRK gene fusions. We propose a diagnostic strategy that considers disease stage and histologic and molecular subtypes to facilitate routine testing for TRK expression and subsequent testing for NTRK gene fusions. Show less
Background: The impact of rituximab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in primary central nervous system lymphoma patients is not well known. We determined the impact of rituximab added to... Show moreBackground: The impact of rituximab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in primary central nervous system lymphoma patients is not well known. We determined the impact of rituximab added to standard high-dose methotrexate-based treatment on HRQoL in patients in a large randomised trial.Patients and methods: Patients from a large phase III trial (HOVON 105/ALLG NHL 24), randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy with or without rituximab and followed by 30 Gy whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in patients <= 60 years, completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 questionnaires before and during treatment, and up to 24 months of follow-up or progression. Differences between treatment arms over time in global health status, role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, and motor dysfunction were assessed. Differences >= 10 points were deemed clinically relevant. The effect of WBRT on HRQoL was analysed in irradiated patients.Results: A total of 160/175 patients eligible for the HRQoL study completed at least one questionnaire and were included. Over time, scores improved statistically significantly and were clinically relevant in both arms. Between arms, there were no differences on any scale (range: -3.8 to +4.0). Scores on all scales were improved to a clinically relevant extent at 12 and 24 months compared with baseline in both arms, except for fatigue and motor dysfunction at 12 months -7.4 and -8.8, respectively). In irradiated patients (n = 59), scores in all preselected scales, except motor dysfunction, remained stable up to 24 months compared with shortly after WBRT, overall mean difference ranging between 0.02 and 4.570.Conclusion: Compared with baseline, treatment resulted in improved HRQoL scores. The addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy did not impact HRQoL over time. WBRT did not result in deterioration of HRQoL in the first 2 years. Show less
Background: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies (PD1) prolong recurrence-free survival in high-risk resected melanoma; however, approximately 25%-30% of patients recur within 1... Show moreBackground: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies (PD1) prolong recurrence-free survival in high-risk resected melanoma; however, approximately 25%-30% of patients recur within 1 year. This study describes the pattern of recurrence, management and outcomes of patients who recur with adjuvant PD1 therapy.Patients and methods: Consecutive patients from 16 centres who recurred having received adjuvant PD1 therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma were studied. Recurrence characteristics, management and outcomes were examined; patients with mucosal melanoma were analysed separately.Results: Melanoma recurrence occurred in 147 (17%) of ∼850 patients treated with adjuvant PD1. In those with cutaneous melanoma (n = 136), median time to recurrence was 4.6 months (range 0.3-35.7); 104 (76%) recurred during (ON) adjuvant PD1 after a median 3.2 months and 32 (24%) following (OFF) treatment cessation after a median 12.5 months, including in 21 (15%) who ceased early for toxicity. Fifty-nine (43%) recurred with locoregional disease only and 77 (57%) with distant disease. Of those who recurred locally, 22/59 (37%) subsequently recurred distantly. Eighty-nine (65%) patients received systemic therapy after recurrence. Of those who recurred ON adjuvant PD1, none (0/6) responded to PD1 alone; 8/33 assessable patients (24%) responded to ipilimumab (alone or in combination with PD1) and 18/23 (78%) responded to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Of those who recurred OFF adjuvant PD1, two out of five (40%) responded to PD1 monotherapy, two out of five (40%) responded to ipilimumab-based therapy and 9/10 (90%) responded to BRAF/MEK inhibitors.Conclusions: Most patients who recur early despite adjuvant PD1 develop distant metastases. In those who recur ON adjuvant PD1, there is minimal activity of further PD1 monotherapy, but ipilimumab (alone or in combination with PD1) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors have clinical utility. Retreatment with PD1 may have activity in select patients who recur OFF PD1. Show less
Heil, J.; Kuerer, H.M.; Pfob, A.; Rauch, G.; Sinn, H.P.; Golatta, M.; ... ; Peeters, M.J.V. 2020
In patients with operable early breast cancer, neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) is a standard approach. Indications have expanded from downstaging of locally advanced breast cancer to... Show moreIn patients with operable early breast cancer, neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) is a standard approach. Indications have expanded from downstaging of locally advanced breast cancer to facilitate breast conservation, to in vivo drug-sensitivity testing. The pattern of response to NST is used to tailor systemic and locoregional treatment, that is, to escalate treatment in nonresponders and de-escalate treatment in responders. Here we discuss four questions that guide our current thinking about 'response-adjusted' surgery of the breast after NST. (i) What critical diagnostic outcome measures should be used when analyzing diagnostic tools to identify patients with pathologic complete response (pCR) after NST? (ii) How can we assess response with the least morbidity and best accuracy possible? (iii) What oncological consequences may ensue if we rely on a nonsurgical-generated diagnosis of, for example, minimally invasive biopsy proven pCR, knowing that we may miss minimal residual disease in some cases? (iv) How should we design clinical trials on de-escalation of surgical treatment after NST? Show less