BRAIN CANCER

HER2 Breast Cancer

BREAST CANCER

Bladder Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Renal Cell Carcinoma

GENITOURINARY CANCERS

Liquid Biopsies

GENOMIC TESTING

Colorectal Cancer

GIST

Gastric Cancer

GI CANCERS

Cervical Cancer

Endometrial Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

GYNECOLOGIC CANCERS

HEAD & NECK CANCERS

Bone Marrow & Stem Cell Transplant

HEMATOLOGY

CAR T-Cell Therapy

IMMUNOTHERAPY

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

LEUKEMIAS

Biomarker-Driven Lung Cancer

EGFR+ Lung Cancer

MET-Targeted Therapy

Small Cell Lung Cancer

LUNG CANCER

DLBCL

Follicular Lymphoma

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

LYMPHOMAS

MPNs

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

NTRK GENE FUSIONS

SARCOMA

Melanoma

SKIN CANCERS

THYROID CANCERS

NEWS

All News

FDA Briefs

Oncology Icons

Special Reports

The Targeted Pulse

Voices from the Field

CONFERENCES

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Data Dialogue with the Oncology Brothers

MEDIA

All Videos

Case-Based Peer Perspectives

Expert Perspective Virtual Tumor Board

Interviews

Investigator Perspectives

Medical World News

Pivotal Practice Views with the Oncology Brothers

Podcasts

Precision Medicine

Speaking Out

PUBLICATIONS

All Publications

Evolving Paradigms

Peers & Perspectives in Oncology

Targeted Therapies in Oncology

CASE-BASED ROUNDTABLE

PARTNERS

RESOURCES

CME/CE

Clinical Trials

Precision Medicine Perspectives

Press Releases

Treatment Resources

SUBSCRIBE

Targeted Oncology provides news, videos, and reviews on the rapidly evolving world of targeted therapies and immunotherapy for oncologists treating patients in a community setting.

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

CureToday.com

CancerNetwork.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

Do Not Sell My Information

Privacy

Terms & Conditions

Targeted Oncology - Immunotherapy, Biomarkers, and Cancer Pathways

Facebook

Linkedin

YouTube

Instagram

Featured Clinical Focus

BTK Inhibitors: In-Focus

Bone Marrow & SCT

EGFR-Positive Lung Cancer

Lung Cancer

Multiple Myeloma

Thyroid Cancers

Clinical Focus

Brain Cancer

Breast Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Gynecologic Cancers

Head & Neck Cancers

Hematology

Leukemias

Lymphomas

Sarcoma

Skin Cancers

Spotlight

1rem

Authors

Matthew Kurian, MD, is a staff oncologist at St Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Kentucky, and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Northern Kentucky Campus.

Training at a major academic center offers firsthand exposure to groundbreaking 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment for advanced prostate cancer. 

Expanding 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 Use in the Community

The biologics license application (BLA) of the subcutaneous formulation of nivolumab (Opdivo) coformulated with human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) has been accepted by the FDA.

Findings from the CheckMate -67T (NCT04810078) support this BLA of subcutaneous nivolumab as the trial met its coprimary pharmacokinetic end points and key secondary end point of overall response rate (ORR) vs intravenous (IV) nivolumab in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

The FDA has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date for December 29, 2024.

The FDA has accepted the BLA of the subcutaneous formulation of nivolumab coformulated with rHuPH20, also known as subcutaneous nivolumab, for all previously approved adult solid tumor indications of nivolumab as a monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance following completion of the combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or in combination with chemotherapy or cabozantinib (Cabometyx).

Results from the phase 3 CheckMate -67T trial of subcutaneous nivolumab support this application. In the trial, experts sought to evaluate subcutaneous nivolumab vs its intravenous (IV) formulation.

 Here, the subcutaneous form demonstrated noninferior pharmacokinetics and efficacy, as well as consistent safety compared with the IV formulation of nivolumab among patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have received prior systemic therapy.

A PDUFA goal date has been set for December 29, 2024. With this, subcutaneous nivolumab shows promise to become the first and only subcutaneously administered PD-1 inhibitor.

“We believe subcutaneous nivolumab has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients, which is reinforced by the FDA’s acceptance of our application,” said Gina Fusaro, PhD, vice president, global program lead, Bristol Myers Squibb, in a press release.

“[Nivolumab] is a foundational PD-1 inhibitor approved for many different types of cancer, and our continued investment in research that puts patients first remains a priority. If approved by the FDA, the subcutaneous administration of nivolumab would provide patients and their physicians with a new option that delivers the same well-known benefits as IV [nivolumab] but with the improved convenience of an injection administered in 3 to 5 minutes rather than a 30- to 60-minute infusion,” Fusaro continued.

The phase 3, randomized, open-label CheckMate -67T trial is exploring subcutaneous administration of nivolumab coformulated with rHuPH20 vs IV nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC who were previously treated with systemic therapy.

In the study, 495 patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab or IV nivolumab. Enrollment was open to patients with a histological confirmation of ccRCC, advanced RCC not amenable to curative or radiation therapy, metastatic RCC, those who received no more than 2 prior systemic therapies, those with intolerance or progression after last treatment regimen within 6 months of randomization, and those with a Karnofsky performance score ≥ 70 at screening.

Experts assessed the coprimary end points of time-averaged serum concentration over 28 days and trough serum concentration at steady-state of subcutaneous nivolumab vs IV nivolumab. A key secondary end point of the trial was ORR.

The study met its coprimary pharmacokinetic end points and key secondary end point of ORR with subcutaneous nivolumab in this patient population.

 Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior in regard to time-averaged nivolumab serum concentration over 28 days and steady-state trough serum concentration vs treatment with IV nivolumab. Additionally, subcutaneous nivolumab also demonstrated a noninferior ORR compared with IV nivolumab.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts Bristol Myers Squibb’s application for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 6, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

2. Phase 3 Check-Mate -67T trial of subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluranisade) meets co-primary end points in advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. October 19, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

3. A study of subcutaneous nivolumab versus intravenous nivolumab in participants with previously treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma that is advanced or has spread (CheckMate-67T). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated October 12, 2023. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04810078

The FDA is considering a subcutaneous nivolumab formulation for various solid tumors based on promising data from the phase 3 CheckMate -67T trial. A target action date has been set for December 29, 2024.

News

Clinical

FDA Accepts BLA for Subcutaneous Nivolumab Across Various Solid Tumors

A 52-year-old, postmenopausal woman had a history of grade 2, node-negative invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).

Estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and progesterone receptor positive (PR+); HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 0; Ki-67 20%​ of the right breast; 21-gene recurrence score, 27

Initial therapy included chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and 5 years of adjuvant anastrozole.

Three years after completing anastrozole​, metastatic progression was discovered, including symptomatic bone involvement (multiple vertebrae and bilateral iliac crests).

Bone marrow aspiration confirmed ER+/PR+, HER2 IHC 0, stage IV IDC.

The patient started letrozole and ribociclib (Kisqali) with denosumab (Xgeva), with good clinical response and marked improvement in her pain​.

Required 1 dose reduction to 400 mg ribociclib due to neutropenia.

Twenty months after starting therapy, routine staging scans showed new FDG-avid sclerotic and lytic bone lesions​.

She noted mild increase in lower back pain​.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis confirmed an 

Fulvestrant + a different CDK 4/6 inhibitor 

 Using fulvestrant plus a different CDK4/6 inhibitor would not be an unreasonable choice if the patient didn't have an 

 mutation. Fulvestrant alone isn’t a [definite] option for a patient like this. I probably wouldn't use exemestane plus everolimus [Afinitor] here because I don't think this patient has definitively endocrine-resistant disease. Likewise, I probably wouldn't give single-agent chemotherapy. So I would agree with the participants and give elacestrant [Orserdu].

 I absolutely agree. I think elacestrant would be a preferred option.

 But there are some other circumstances where somebody doesn't have access to elacestrant. The 

 mutation would drive me towards a selective estrogen receptor degrader over an aromatase inhibitor combination. So thinking about fulvestrant is also a reasonable option, but I think elacestrant [is a recommended] option.

 The patient received ribociclib in the first-line setting—if she got palbociclib [Ibrance], would you consider, if she didn't have any sort of mutation, fulvestrant plus ribociclib based on the MAINTAIN trial [NCT02632045]?

 I think [we take into account] the MAINTAIN data.

 They are certainly compelling. I have done that very thing in patients who lack other targetable mutations, had a good run on first-line palbociclib, and just have a small amount of progression. We did see data that ribociclib plus fulvestrant was better than fulvestrant alone in that population. I would consider that, remembering that phase 2 hypothesis-generating study.

 mutation, what comes first? How do you deal with that?

 It's a very good question. It's a data-free zone, but I think given the toxicity profile, I probably would lean towards elacestrant.

 I think this depends on the patient in front of you and the volume of their disease. Are they symptomatic, and are we feeling comfortable with single-agent endocrine therapy knowing that we still have the ability to target the PIK3CA pathway at the subsequent progression? I think in the absence of data, it's an art-of-medicine decision. I think there's a place for single-agent endocrine therapy, given the constellation of risk-benefit balance.

 When you look at SOLAR-1 [NCT02437318], the benefit with alpelisib [Piqray] was pretty significant.

 We just don't know the answer right now. And I think you're absolutely right, it depends on the patient.

1. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast cancer; version 2.2024. Accessed June 6, 2024. 

2. Kalinsky K, Accordino MK, Chiuzan C, et al. Randomized phase II trial of endocrine therapy with or without ribociclib after progression on cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer: MAINTAIN trial. 

. 2023;41(24):4004-4013. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.02392

3. André F, Ciruelos EM, Juric D, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from SOLAR-1. 

. 2021;32(2):208-217. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.11.011

During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Ruth M. O'Regan, MD, looks at options for a patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and an ESR1 mutation in the second article of a 2-part series.

Second-Line Targeted Options Considered in ESR1-Mutated Breast Cancer

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM ADITYA BARDIA, MD, MPH​, FASCO

Trastuzumab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan can be given to patients with metastatic HER2-low breast cancer after endocrine therapy and chemotherapy.

Progression-free survival and overall survival favor trastuzumab deruxtecan over chemotherapy in HER2-low disease.

The DESTINY-Breast06 trial showed similar outcomes for HER2-low and HER2-ultralow disease.

A 52-year-old postmenopausal woman underwent breast-conserving surgery plus radiation therapy for pT2 N1 invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast, grade 2, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, progesterone receptor–positive, HER2 1+ by immunohistochemistry (IHC); 21-gene recurrence score: 27​.

She received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and completed 10 years of tamoxifen.​

Five years later, she presented with disease recurrence in the liver, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-low, no actionable mutations on tissue next-generation sequencing​.

She received first-line letrozole plus ribociclib​ (Kisqali).

​She went on to receive ​fulvestrant for 6 months to disease progression in the bone and liver, then everolimus plus exemestane for 4 months to disease progression, followed by capecitabine for 6 months until disease progression.

Repeat circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing at each progression showed no actionable alteration.

Targeted Oncology: Do you consider this patient with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) to be eligible for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy)?

If you look at the label of sacituzumab govitecan, it says 2 prior lines of systemic therapy; it does not say which kind, so you can make a case that the endocrine-based treatment was also systemic therapy.

 But the TROPiCS-02 trial [NCT03901339], which led to approval, required 2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Purely from a trial perspective, you should give 2 lines of chemotherapy, but in routine clinical practice, after capecitabine, that's when we consider trastuzumab deruxtecan [T-DXd] and sacituzumab govitecan.

Can you use T-DXd and sacituzumab one after another?

You can use them in sequence. There have been studies looking at the efficacy of one after the next,

 and there is some cross-resistance between these agents because they have similar payloads. In sacituzumab govitecan, SN38 is a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. With T-DXd, deruxtecan is also a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. But in some patients, it does work, and maybe in that setting, the disease progression is more because of the antigen, and so you're using a different antibody that works. But in some patients, you would see cross resistance.

If you look at our guidelines, you have both these drugs, T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan. The guidelines would suggest T-DXd should be preferred for HER2-low disease.

 But if a patient is not a candidate for T-DXd, that's when you use sacituzumab. That could be either contraindication to T-DXd, or if a patient has HER2 IHC 0 mBC in that setting, you can use sacituzumab, and you can use them in sequence. If you start with one, you can use the other drug after that.

What data support the use of T-DXd in patients with HER2-low status?

This was based on DESTINY-Breast04 [NCT03734029], which looked at T-DXd vs standard chemotherapy for HER2-low, ER-positive breast cancer. It showed impressive improvement in both progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]. We saw updated results last year, and essentially continue to see benefit with T-DXd vs a standard chemotherapy with median OS of about 24 months [vs 17.6 months for chemotherapy; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87].

 That's 2 years in the second line [and beyond] setting.

At least in DESTINY-Breast04, HER2 IHC 1+ vs 2+ didn't matter. We saw similar results, and in DESTINY-Breast04, any prior HER2-low specimen was allowed. That could be primary breast cancer. It could be the first metastatic [biopsy] specimen. Any prior specimen that was HER2-low was allowed, and they saw similar benefit. In terms of safety, the main adverse events [AEs] with T-DXd are neutropenia, alopecia, nausea, and then pneumonitis.

What is the significance of the DESTINYBreast06 trial (NCT04494425) in mBC?

DESTINY-Breast06 also included HER2-ultralow, which is IHC 0+, so just some cells with HER2 expression. The other big difference was it did not require prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The comparator was capecitabine, which was 60% in this trial, or taxanes.

It showed results somewhat similar to DESTINY-Breast04, maybe a bit less in terms of HR, but still meaningful [in the HER2-low subgroup]. The HR was 0.62 [95% CI, 0.51-0.74; 

 < .0002] and a 5-month improvement in PFS [median, 13.2 months vs 8.1 months with chemotherapy].

Then if we combine both HER2-low and -ultralow, in the intent-to-treat population, there were very similar results [PFS HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; 

 < .0001]. In terms of OS, there was a trend towards improvement in OS [HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.05] but the results are not mature at this time.

If we just look at HER2-ultralow, there were very similar results, improvement in PFS with a delta of about 5 months [median, 13.2 months vs 8.3 months for chemotherapy; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.21], and a trend towards improvement in OS as well [HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.29].

During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Aditya Bardia, MD, MS, FASCO, discussed data from the DESTINY-Breast04 and DESTINY-Breast06 trials for HER2-low breast cancer in the second article of a 2-part series.

Matthew Kurian, MD

Articles

Latest Updated Articles