Explore the vast range of titles available.

Women with advanced endometrial cancer that progressed during platinum-containing therapy were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). The median progression-free survival was 7.2 months with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 3.8 months with chemotherapy; the median overall survival was 18.3 months and 11.4 months, respectively.

Despite the success of monotherapies based on blockade of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) in human melanoma, most patients do not experience durable clinical benefit. Pre-existing T-cell infiltration and/or the presence of PD-L1 in tumours may be used as indicators of clinical response; however, blood-based profiling to understand the mechanisms of PD-1 blockade has not been widely explored. Here we use immune profiling of peripheral blood from patients with stage IV melanoma before and after treatment with the PD-1-targeting antibody pembrolizumab and identify pharmacodynamic changes in circulating exhausted-phenotype CD8 T cells (T ex cells). Most of the patients demonstrated an immunological response to pembrolizumab. Clinical failure in many patients was not solely due to an inability to induce immune reinvigoration, but rather resulted from an imbalance between T-cell reinvigoration and tumour burden. The magnitude of reinvigoration of circulating T ex cells determined in relation to pretreatment tumour burden correlated with clinical response. By focused profiling of a mechanistically relevant circulating T-cell subpopulation calibrated to pretreatment disease burden, we identify a clinically accessible potential on-treatment predictor of response to PD-1 blockade. The clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 antibody treatment is dependent on the extent to which exhausted CD8 T cells are reinvigorated in relation to the tumour burden of the patient. Blood biomarkers of blockade therapy response Only a small proportion of patients with advanced melanoma currently experience a long-term clinical benefit from therapeutic PD-1 blockade. Until now, blood-based profiling has not been widely explored as a means to understand the mechanisms of PD-1 blockade. In this study, Alexander Huang et al . analyse CD8 T cells in the blood and show that the clinical benefit of PD-1 blockade depends on the extent to which it reinvigorates exhausted CD8 T cells in relation to the pre-treatment tumour burden. Identifying the ratio of tumour burden to CD8 T-cell reinvigoration may help to predict how well a patient will respond to PD-1-blocking therapy.

Immunologic responses to anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients occur rapidly with pharmacodynamic T cell responses detectable in blood by 3 weeks. It is unclear, however, whether these early blood-based observations translate to the tumor microenvironment. We conducted a study of neoadjuvant/adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy in stage III/IV melanoma. We hypothesized that immune reinvigoration in the tumor would be detectable at 3 weeks and that this response would correlate with disease-free survival. We identified a rapid and potent anti-tumor response, with 8 of 27 patients experiencing a complete or major pathological response after a single dose of anti-PD-1, all of whom remain disease free. These rapid pathologic and clinical responses were associated with accumulation of exhausted CD8 T cells in the tumor at 3 weeks, with reinvigoration in the blood observed as early as 1 week. Transcriptional analysis demonstrated a pretreatment immune signature (neoadjuvant response signature) that was associated with clinical benefit. In contrast, patients with disease recurrence displayed mechanisms of resistance including immune suppression, mutational escape, and/or tumor evolution. Neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment is effective in high-risk resectable stage III/IV melanoma. Pathological response and immunological analyses after a single neoadjuvant dose can be used to predict clinical outcome and to dissect underlying mechanisms in checkpoint blockade. Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in patients with resectable melanoma followed by adjuvant maintenance results in early immunological effects driving clinical benefit and reveals transcriptional and genomic mechanisms of response.

ObjectivesKEYNOTE-C93/GOG-3064/ENGOT-en15 (NCT05173987) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label study evaluating first-line pembrolizumab versus carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with dMMR advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC).MethodsPatients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed stage III/IV recurrent EC including carcinosarcoma (mixed Mullerian tumor), radiographically evaluable disease (measurable or nonmeasurable per RECISTv1.1), no prior systemic therapy (prior radiation with or without radiosensitizing chemotherapy >2 weeks before first dose or prior hormonal therapy ≥1 week before randomization is permitted), and ECOG PS ≤1 are eligible. Patients must have central confirmation of dMMR status. ~350 patients will be randomized 1:1 to pembrolizumab 400 mg IV Q6W for 18 cycles (~2 years) or carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 mg/mL/min IV Q3W and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 IV Q3W for 6 cycles (with option for >6 cycles). Trastuzumab is permitted for patients in the chemotherapy arm with HER2+ serous EC. Randomization is stratified by disease status (newly-diagnosed advanced EC vs recurrent EC) and histology (endometrioid vs nonendometrioid). Treatment will continue for the specified number of cycles or until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Patients in the chemotherapy arm can receive pembrolizumab following confirmed PD by BICR. Dual primary endpoints are PFS per RECISTv1.1 by BICR and OS. Secondary endpoints are ORR, DCR, and DOR per RECISTv1.1 by BICR; PFS per RECISTv1.1 by investigator review; PFS2; safety; and PROs. Enrollment is ongoing.ResultsTrial in progress: there are no available results at the time of submission.ConclusionsTrial in progress: there are no available conclusions at the time of submission.

Targeting intracellular protein turnover by inhibiting the ubiquitin–proteasome pathway as a strategy for cancer therapy is a new addition to our chemotherapeutic armamentarium, and has seen its greatest successes against multiple myeloma. The first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, was initially approved for treatment of patients in the relapsed/refractory setting as a single agent, and was recently shown to induce even greater benefits as part of rationally designed combinations that overcome chemoresistance. Modulation of proteasome function is also a rational approach to achieve chemosensitization to other antimyeloma agents, and bortezomib has now been incorporated into the front-line setting. Bortezomib-based induction regimens are able to achieve higher overall response rates and response qualities than was the case with prior standards of care, and unlike these older approaches, maintain efficacy in patients with clinically and molecularly defined high-risk disease. Second-generation proteasome inhibitors with novel properties, such as NPI-0052 and carfilzomib, are entering the clinical arena, and showing evidence of antimyeloma activity. In this spotlight review, we provide an overview of the current state of the art use of bortezomib and other proteasome inhibitors against multiple myeloma, and highlight areas for future study that will further optimize our ability to benefit patients with this disease.

In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1–2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3–6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1–21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7–59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8–not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6–39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43–0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached–not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7–not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53–0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. Janssen Research & Development.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 103 cells per mm3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1–21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00644228. Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·712, 96% CI 0·56–0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524–0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 82% (176/216) in the VRd group and 72% (153/214) in the Rd group, and 16% (34/216) and 8% (18/214) of patients who were assessable for response in these respective groups had a complete response or better. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 198 (82%) of 241 patients in the VRd group and 169 (75%) of 226 patients in the Rd group; 55 (23%) and 22 (10%) patients discontinued induction treatment because of adverse events, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Rd group, and two in the VRd group. In patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit profile. NIH, NCI, NCTN, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology Company, and Celgene Corporation.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

Oral mezigdomide is a cereblon-modifying agent that results in degradation of transcription factors essential for myeloma cell survival. Given with dexamethasone, it induced responses in 40% of heavily pretreated patients.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1–8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing. Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5–23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8–37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1–not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83–1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death). The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs. US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen.