Walter J. Urba

PURPOSE: Precision therapies and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer care, with novel genomic biomarker-associated therapies being introduced into clinical practice rapidly, resulting in notable gains in patient survival. Despite this, there is significant variability in the utilization of tumor molecular profiling that spans the timing of test ordering, comprehensiveness of gene panels, and clinical decision support through therapy and trial recommendations. METHODS: To standardize testing, we designed a pathologist-directed test ordering system at the time of diagnosis using a 523-gene DNA/RNA hybrid comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) panel and extensive clinical decision support tools. To comprehensively characterize the clinical impact of this protocol, we developed a novel natural language processing (NLP)–based approach to extract clinical features from physician chart notes. We assessed test actionability rates, therapy choice, and outcomes across a set of 3,216 patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: We observed 49% of patients had at least one actionable genomic biomarker-driven–approved and/or guideline-recommended targeted or immunotherapy (IO) and 53% of patients would have been eligible for a precision therapy clinical trial from three large basket trials. When assessing CGP versus an in silico 50-gene panel, 67% of tumors compared with 33% harbored actionable alterations including clinical trials. Among patients with 6 months or more of follow-up, over 52% received a targeted therapy (TT) or IO, versus 32% who received conventional chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, patients receiving TT had significantly improved overall survival compared with patients receiving chemotherapy alone ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall, these data represent a major shift in standard clinical practice toward molecularly guided treatments (targeted and immunotherapies) over conventional systemic chemotherapy. As guidelines continue to evolve and more precision therapeutics gain approval, we expect this gap to continue to widen.

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) with ERBB2/3 amplification, overexpression, or mutation treated with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced BTC, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, tumors with ERBB2/3 alterations, and a lack of standard treatment options. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16+ weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled from February 2017 to January 2022, and all had advanced BTC with an ERBB2/3 alteration. One patient was not evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, eight partial responses, and two SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 40% (90% CI, 27 to 100) and 32% (95% CI, 16 to 52), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was rejected ( P = .0015). Four patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to treatment: anemia, diarrhea, infusion-related reaction, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab met prespecified criteria to declare a signal of activity in patients with BTC and ERBB2/3 amplification, overexpression, or mutation.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket study evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. The results in a cohort of patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease of at least 16-weeks duration (SD16+). Low-accruing histology-specific cohorts with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power, .82; α, .10). The secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. Patients had tumors with BRAF V600E (n = 26), K601E (n = 2), or other (n = 3) mutations. Two patients with CR (breast and ovarian cancers; V600E), 14 with PR (13 V600E, one N581I), and three with SD16+ (two V600E, one T599_V600insT) were observed with a DC rate of 68% ( P < .0001; one-sided 90% CI, 54 to 100) and an OR rate of 57% (95% CI, 37 to 76). Nineteen patients experienced ≥one drug-related grade 3-5 adverse event or serious adverse event including one death attributed to treatment-related kidney injury. CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutations; additional study is warranted to confirm the antitumor activity in tumors with non-V600E BRAF mutations.

Summary: The authors of a recent study identified noncanonical peptides (NCP) presented by cancer cells’ HLA and observed lack of reactivity to these antigens by endogenous tumor-reactive T cells. In vitro sensitization generated NCP-reactive T cells that recognized epitopes shared by a majority of cancers tested, providing opportunities for novel therapies to shared antigens. See related article by Lozano-Rabella et al., p. 2250

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4–blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A ( P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B ( P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Background: The addition of anti-programmed death 1/ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/L1) improves progression-free survival when combined with chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive triple-negative MBC. However, novel combination therapies are needed to improve efficacy in hormone receptor positive (HR+) MBC, or in patients with PD-L1-negative disease. Dual ICB with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) has not been studied in depth in MBC despite its success in other solid tumors. Furthermore, MBCs often express the androgen receptor (AR), which can be targeted therapeutically. AR blockade agents have been shown to stimulate thymic production of naïve T-cell clones. It is proposed that ICB in conjunction with AR blockade may facilitate thymopoeisis and subsequent activation of novel, tumor-reactive T-cell clones. Trial design: This is a phase II, open-label trial investigating the combination of ICB (nivolumab 240mg IV q2w; ipilimumab 1mg/kg IV q6w) and AR blockade (bicalutamide, 150mg PO daily) in MBC. Two cohorts will be studied: AR-positive TNBC [ > 1% by IHC, constituting ~50% of TNBCs]; and HR+ MBC (of which the great majority are AR-positive). Eligibility: Patients must have RECIST1.1 measurable disease, ECOG performance score 0-1, and adequate hematological and hepatic function. Subjects may have received no more than 1 prior non-curative chemotherapy. Specific aims: Subjects will be assessed for clinical benefit by iRECIST criteria and safety by CTCAE v4.0, with clinical efficacy defined as >20% improvement in week 24 clinical benefit rate, over historical control (30% per EMBRACE clinical trial). Statistical analysis will be performed by a Simon 2-stage design to minimize futility (n = 46/cohort, stage I: n = 15). As exploratory aims, thymic generation of T-cells will be measured via quantitative deep sequencing of T-cell receptors (TcR, ImmunoSEQ assay), TcR excision circles (TRECs), and flow cytometry using markers of recent thymic emigration. Present accrual: As of 7/8/2021, n=19 subjects are enrolled (4 TNBC, 15 HR+). The trial is open at Providence Cancer Institute (Portland, OR) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY). Target accrual: stage I: n=15 per arm; a maximum of 138 patients (46 per cohort) may be enrolled in expansion cohorts. Contact: Dr. David Page (David.page2@providence.org) Clinicaltrials.gov#: NCT03650894 Citation Format: David B Page, Krystle L Collins, Brie Chun, Zhaoyu Sun, William L Redmond, Maritza Martel, Yaping Wu, Nicole Moxon, Staci L Mellinger, Walter J Urba, Tiffany A Traina, Ayca Gucalp. A phase II study of dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) plus bicalutamide to enhance thymic T-cell production and immunotherapy response in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-18-04.

Background A pilot study of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) followed by high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) showed a higher than anticipated objective response rate (ORR) among patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). We performed a prospective randomized study to determine if the ORR of SBRT + IL-2 was greater than IL-2 monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods Patients with MM who had adequate physiological reserve for IL-2 and at least one site suitable for SBRT were eligible. There was a 1:1 randomization to SBRT + IL-2 or IL-2 monotherapy. Patients received one or two doses of SBRT (20 Gy per fraction) with the last dose administered 3 days before starting the first cycle of IL-2. IL-2 (600,000 IU per kg via intravenous bolus infusion) was given every 8 hours for a maximum of 14 doses with a second cycle after a 2-week rest. Responding patients received up to six IL-2 cycles. Patients assigned to IL-2 monotherapy who exhibited progression of melanoma after cycle 2 were allowed to crossover and receive SBRT and additional IL-2. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria were applied to non-irradiated lesions for response assessment. Results 44 patients were included in the analysis. The ORR in the SBRT + IL-2 group was 54%: 21% complete response (CR), 33% partial response (PR), 21% stable disease (SD) and 25% progressive disease (PD). The ORR in patients receiving IL-2 monotherapy was 35%: 15% CR, 20% PR, 25% SD and 40% PD. Seven patients assigned to IL-2 subsequently received SBRT + IL-2. One CR and two PRs were observed in the crossover group. There was no difference in progression-free or overall survival (OS). At 5 years the OS was 26% in the SBRT + IL-2 group and 25% in the IL-2 monotherapy group. The disease control rate (DCR) was higher in the SBRT + IL-2 group (75% vs 60%, p=0.34). Conclusions SBRT + IL-2 induced more objective responses with a higher DCR compared to IL-2 monotherapy in MM. IL-2 monotherapy resulted in a significantly higher ORR than anticipated. Some patients in the crossover group also achieved objective responses. Trial registration number NCT01416831.

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, SITC (formerly the International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer, iSBTc), aims to improve cancer patient outcomes by advancing the science, development and application of biological therapy and immunotherapy. The society and its educational programs have become premier destinations for interaction and innovation in the cancer biologics community. For over a decade, the society has offered the Primer on Tumor Immunology and Biological Therapy of Cancer™ in conjunction with its Annual Scientific Meeting. This report summarizes the 2010 Primer that took place October 1, 2010 in Washington, D.C. as part of the educational offerings associated with the society's 25th anniversary. The target audience was basic and clinical investigators from academia, industry and regulatory agencies, and included clinicians, post-doctoral fellows, students, and allied health professionals. Attendees were provided a review of basic immunology and educated on the current status and most recent advances in tumor immunology and clinical/translational caner immunology. Ten prominent investigators presented on the following topics: innate immunity and inflammation; an overview of adaptive immunity; dendritic cells; tumor microenvironment; regulatory immune cells; immune monitoring; cytokines in cancer immunotherapy; immune modulating antibodies; cancer vaccines; and adoptive T cell therapy. Presentation slides, a Primer webinar and additional program information are available online on the society's website.