No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Because cancer drugs given in combination have the potential for increased tumorcell killing, finding the best combination partners for programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitors could improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer.OBJECTIVE To identify optimal strategies for combining PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors with other cancer therapies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study compiled 319 results from 98 clinical trials testing PD-1 pathway inhibitors alone or in combination with other agents among 24 915 patients with metastatic cancer. All clinical trials had a primary completion EXPOSURES Patients with metastatic cancer were treated with PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or with other cancer therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinical activity was measured as objective response rates (ORRs). Combination measures included fold change from monotherapy to combination ORR, comparison of observed combination ORRs with estimated combination ORRs based on independent additivity, and a computational model to assess clinical synergy. To assess whether theORRs of various combinations may be greater than the independent contribution of each agent, a Bliss independent activity model was used to analyze observed combination ORRs, and a Z score, measuring the difference between observed and calculated ORRs, was generated. RESULTSIn 319 results from 98 clinical trials among 24 915 patients, ORRs for monotherapy were compared with combination data by indication and line of therapy, demonstrating an increased ORR in 105 of 127 results (82.7%) where ORRs were available for both PD-1 pathway inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy. A few combinations showed increases above the Blissestimated activity, possibly identifying limited clinical synergy. The mean (SD) Z score for all trials was 0.0430 (0.0243). The mean (SD) Z score was 0.0923 (0.0628) for platinum chemotherapy regimen combinations, 0.0547 (0.0821) for vascular endothelial growth factor or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations, 0.0893 (0.086) for indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase inhibitor combinations, and 0.0558 (0.0849) for cytotoxic T-lymphocyteassociated protein 4 inhibitor combinations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional study, most combination trials showed the expected benefit of combining 2 active anticancer agents, but few combination trials showed clinical synergy according to the Bliss independent activity model. Question What therapies are best combined with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitors to improve outcomes for patients with cancer who do not respond to PD-1 pathway inhibitor monotherapy? Findings This cross-sectional study of 98 clinical trials, which included 24 915 patients with metastatic cancer, compared objective response rates of PD-1 checkpoint immunotherapies used alone and in combination. Most combinations succeeded, given that the fold change from monotherapy ORR to combination ORR increased in 82.7% ...

Purpose: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely unresponsive to checkpoint inhibitors. Blockade of the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis increases intratumoral trafficking of activated T cells while restraining immunosuppressive elements. This study evaluates dual blockade of CXCR4 and PD1 with chemotherapy in PDAC. Patients and Methods: Multicenter, single-arm, phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of motixafortide and pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in patients with de novo metastatic PDAC and disease progression on front-line gemcitabine-based therapy (NCT02826486). Subjects received a priming phase of motixafortide daily on days 1–5, followed by repeated cycles of motixafortide twice a week; pembrolizumab every 3 weeks; and nanoliposomal irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin every 2 weeks (NAPOLI-1 regimen). The primary objective was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), safety, and tolerability. Results: A total of 43 patients were enrolled. The ORR according to RECISTv1.1 was 21.1% with confirmed ORR of 13.2%. The DCR was 63.2% with median duration of clinical benefit of 5.7 months. In the intention-to-treat population, median PFS was 3.8 months and median OS was 6.6 months. The triple combination was safe and well tolerated, with toxicity comparable with the NAPOLI-1 regimen. Notably, the incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and infection was 7%, lower than expected for this chemotherapy regimen. Conclusions: Triple combination of motixafortide, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy was safe and well tolerated, and showed signs of efficacy in a population with poor prognosis and aggressive disease.

3584 Background: Patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on ≥2 prior therapies have limited treatment options, with median OS ranging from 6-9 months (mo). In the dose-escalation phase of this first-in-human multicohort study (NCT02720068), the anti-lymphocyte activation gene (LAG)-3 antibody favezelimab (fave) was well tolerated alone and with pembrolizumab (pembro) across all dose levels (Lakhani, SITC, 2018, abstract O26). Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of fave alone or in combination with pembro in pts with advanced MSS CRC from the dose confirmation phase. Methods: Eligible pts with MSS PD-1/PD-L1-treatment-naïve mCRC that progressed on prior standard-of-care (3L+) were enrolled (cohort A) to receive the RP2D of 800 mg fave alone (Arm 1), 800 mg fave + 200 mg pembro (Arm 2C), or 800 mg fave + 200 mg pembro (MK-4280A) co-formulation (Arm 5), all Q3W. Treatment continued for 35 cycles or until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or investigator/pt decision. Pts with confirmed progression per irRECIST v1.1 on fave alone could crossover to 800 mg fave + pembro. Safety was assessed in all treated pts; efficacy in the full analysis set (FAS) of all treated pts with baseline scan. Objectives included safety (primary), ORR (RECIST v1.1 by investigator [secondary]), and DOR, PFS, and OS (exploratory). Interim analysis data cut-off was: Oct. 23, 2020. Results: A total of 20 pts received fave (Arm 1); 89 pts (including 9 crossover) received fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5); 12 pts (Arm 1) and 36 pts (Arms 2C+5), had PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors. At data cut-off, median follow-up was 5.8 months (mo) in Arm 1 and 6.2 mo in Arms 2C+5. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were 65% with fave (Arm 1) and 65.2% with fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5). Grade ≥3 TRAEs were 15% (Arm 1), and 20% [Arms 2C+5]). No grade 5 TRAEs were reported. Common TRAEs (≥15%) included fatigue (20.0%), nausea (15%) with fave, and fatigue (16.9%) with fave + pembro. Confirmed ORR was 6.3% (4PR, 1CR) with fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5). No pt receiving fave alone responded. In Arms 2C+5, median DOR was 10.6 mo (range, 5.6-12.7). ORR, OS and PFS by PD-L1 status are reported in the Table. Conclusions: Favezelimab alone or in combination with pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile, with no treatment-related deaths. Promising antitumor activity was observed with combination therapy, including with MK-4280A, compared with monotherapy most notably in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02720068. [Table: see text]