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

Events

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

Sarah K. Tasian, MD, discusses what she finds most interesting about Philadelphia chromosome (Ph-like) acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Areas Under Investigation in Ph-Like ALL

ASH 2024 Preview for Community Oncologists: The Show and After Show

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition aims to educate oncology providers across an array of hematologic malignancies, with a focus on novel agents, drugs across the FDA pipeline, and more.

, co-hosts Kristie L. Kahl and Andrew Svonavec offer a glimpse at some of the presentations guaranteed to spark one’s curiosity, spur debate, and enhance the field even further. Some key highlights include:

 Continued advancements in CAR T-cell therapy are expected to revolutionize the treatment of hematologic malignancies.

 Bispecific antibodies, such as Epcoritamab (Epkinly), offer a novel approach to target multiple antigens on cancer cells.

 The assessment of MRD is becoming increasingly important in predicting treatment response and overall survival.

Advances in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blinatumomab (Blincyto) in pediatric ALL:

 The addition of blinatumomab to chemotherapy has shown promise in improving disease-free survival in high-risk pediatric ALL. This combination therapy may offer a more effective treatment option for young patients.

Acalabrutinib (Calquence) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL):

 The FDA is set to review the approval of acalabrutinib with bendamustine or rituximab (Rituxan) for previously untreated MCL, based on data from the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840).

Asciminib (Scemblix) in chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML-CP):

 The FDA recently granted accelerated approval to asciminib for newly diagnosed CML-CP. This tyrosine kinase inhibitor has shown favorable safety and tolerability profiles.

 isn't just about data, as the duo also offers food recommendations, tourist attractions and fun activities to partake in, as well as interesting facts about San Diego.

This is just a taste of the wealth of information and inspiration waiting at the 2024 ASH Annual Meeting. Check back for future meeting previews with 

Targeted Oncology co-hosts Kristie L. Kahl and Andrew Svonavec highlight abstracts for community oncologists to look out for at the upcoming ASH Annual Meeting in San Diego, with some additional tidbits to round out the main event.

News

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.

Clinical

FDA Accepts BLA for Subcutaneous Nivolumab Across Various Solid Tumors

A 48-year-old woman with T1N1 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) received adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with paclitaxel (ddAC-paclitaxel), which she tolerated well. Eight months after completion of adjuvant therapy, she reported worsening fatigue. ​Laboratory results showed 1.5 times elevated levels of alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase above the upper limit of normal, and a CT scan showed 1 liver lesion and 2 left lung lesions. A biopsy of the liver lesion confirmed recurrent metastatic TNBC. A brain MRI was negative for brain metastases.

Genetic panel testing was negative for all detectable mutations. PD-L1 expression on immune cells was 0%. The patient was otherwise healthy with no significant comorbidities and had an ECOG performance score of 0.

Following recurrence at 8 months from treatment, the patient received first-line gemcitabine plus carboplatin with a documented partial response lasting 6 months​. After 6 months of therapy, she reportd worsening fatigue. Imaging revealed disease progression in the liver with new and enlarging metastases​. Her ECOG performance score is now 1.

Microtubule inhibitor (eribulin, vinorelbine)

Which therapeutic option would you seriously consider? ​

If you chose chemotherapy or other in the polling question, what agent/regimen are you most likely to recommend? ​

 I was thinking about doublet chemotherapy. I think more about the degree of transaminitis and thinking about whether we need to debulk faster.

But it sounded like her symptom burden was minimal, and the degree of elevation was mild. I don’t think it’s wrong to give this person a single agent and escalate if needed if you’re not seeing control pretty quickly.

A practical question that often comes up is if you’re going to give a single agent is how [closely] do you want to follow the patient? We have weekly regimens versus some that are every 2, or 3, or 4 weeks. In a patient like this, if I was going to give a weekly regimen, or if I was going to give a single agent, I’d want to watch her closer. You don’t want her cut loose for 3 weeks at a time if you don’t know what direction her liver dysfunction’s going to go. So, maybe this is a good person, if you’re going to get a single agent, to give weekly paclitaxel, vinorelbine [Navelbine], or something like that.

 Yes, I think there might be a little pushback for weekly paclitaxel if she’s recurred within 8 months of getting her adjuvant paclitaxel.

 I mean some weekly agent where you’re going to be seeing her laboratory results with some degree of regularity as opposed to a patient who’s doing really well, who has minimal disease, whose laboratory results look good, [or] who has maybe radiographic progression. Something that’s every 3 or every 4 weeks, from a quality-of-life [perspective], may be more appealing in that scenario.

 Yes, I agree. Does anybody else want to give some general thoughts about how they approach these patients with an early recurrence?

 I had picked carboplatin/gemcitabine in this scenario, even though it was a doublet. But [I favor] the idea of bringing a platinum agent; it’s a different agent. I’m not a big fan of capecitabine in TNBC, unless it was about an [issue with] the toxicity profile or the idea of taking it orally. I think I would jump on to sacituzumab govitecan [Trodelvy] after carboplatin/gemcitabine.

Please discuss your experiences with sacituzumab govitecan​ including toxicity and management.

 I had a patient that I inherited from another provider who received neoadjuvant ddAC-paclitaxel, and progressed through that. I was able to get sacituzumab approved for her; I was able to convince the insurance company that because she progressed through both doxorubicin and then a taxane, that was essentially 2 regimens for metastatic disease. She went on sacituzumab and did extremely well for about a year. So, I was incredibly impressed with it as my first time out, notwithstanding some of the issues in terms of the alopecia. She was…responding to something in a situation where we have seen other patients like this crash and burn fairly quickly in that setting.

 I have a patient on it that has been doing very well for over a year. She interacts with other women who are on the drug, she’s aware of how other patients are doing, and she is clearly among the better ones. As long as it works, I think it’s very well tolerated. The diarrhea can be easily managed, in this case, with diet. I am pleased to have this, and I’ll be interested to see if this has applications in the estrogen receptor–positive population, where there are studies going on right now.

 It’s been generally well tolerated. We’ve definitely run into problematic challenges with cytopenia more than anything else, particularly in patients that have been heavily pretreated. But with regard to some of the other things that we’ve been talking about, I think it’s been fairly easy to manage.

 How do you counsel your patients receiving sacituzumab, with respect to adverse events [AEs] that they might experience? Dr Donnelly, it sounds like you are optimistic; what do you tell your patients they might anticipate?

 The diarrhea’s an issue, and my first patient ended up having constipation because of the anti-emetic drugs that she received. Fortunately, it was in the summertime, and I went back to some of the dietary recommendations [such as] using fresh fruits and vegetables from the farm stands, which turned out to [make it] be a lot more palatable than a lot of drugs. So, by using those kinds of things, I think the diarrhea is manageable. Neutropenia can be an issue, but I have not found it to be overwhelming.

Please discuss the outcomes of the phase 3 ASCENT trial (NCT02574455) in the context of other therapies that have been most commonly used in the setting of relapsed/refractory mTNBC.​

 [For] the outcomes of the phase 3 ASCENT trial…my first thought was, “Wow, the efficacy of sacituzumab is so much better than chemotherapy.” It is chemotherapy, but [better than] other agents. How do you think this fits in with the game-changing treatments we’ve seen in TNBC over the last couple years?

 I find the control arm essentially showing how pathetic the options are for this group and keeping a low bar for sacituzumab to do better. It’s an antibody-drug conjugate [ADC], and hopefully in every cancer we’ll have more ADCs. Although, this one does work like chemotherapy, and the AEs are somewhat like chemotherapy would be: cytopenias and diarrhea. But, in general, I would second everyone’s comments about it being generally well tolerated. We are able to manage and fine-tune these AEs.

But, to the progression-free survival, I’m more impressed by the overall survival [OS], which is significantly better.

 That OS, as Dr Donnelly mentioned about her patient who has been receiving it for a year, is very reflective of how those who do respond tend to have the durability of response, and that’s what I’m excited about.

1. Bardia A, Hurvitz SA, Tolaney SM, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. 

 2021;384(16):1529-1541. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2028485

During a live virtual event, Elizabeth Ann Mittendorf, MD, PhD, discussed the case of a patient with triple-negative breast cancer whose disease progressed following adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with paclitaxel, then frontline gemcitabine and carboplatin. 

This is the second of 2 articles based on this live event. 

Exploring Sacituzumab Govitecan and Other Second-Line TNBC Therapies

A 48-year-old woman with T1N1 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) received adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with paclitaxel (ddAC-paclitaxel), which she tolerated well. Eight months after completion of adjuvant therapy, she reported worsening fatigue. ​Laboratory results showed 1.5 times elevated levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) above the upper limit of normal, and a CT scan showed 1 liver lesion and 2 left lung lesions. A biopsy of the liver lesion confirmed recurrent metastatic TNBC. A brain MRI was negative for brain metastases.

Would your choice of treatment differ for progression after 24 months versus 8 months? Why?

 Does she has liver dysfunction from her disease?

 Yes, her AST and ALT were 1.5 times the upper limit of normal.

 I think that’s the more challenging aspect, to some extent, rather than the duration. Does she have end organ dysfunction, and some degree of impending visceral crisis? In my mind, that is driving more than the elapsed time in terms of how we would want to think about this.

I think it’s hard in practice; it’s easy to say, “If somebody has visceral crisis, we’re going to use aggressive combination chemotherapy.” It’s sometimes more challenging to define what exactly that means. So, if a patient is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, and has some mild transaminase elevation or something like that, is that enough to trigger you to think about treating more aggressively? It’s easier if the patient is having a lot of symptoms, or in more distress; but I think to some degree you worry about a patient who already has some organ dysfunction here, if you miss your window and you can’t debulk the disease fairly quickly, that you’re going to run into some serious problems pretty soon.

That, to me, in this case, is more important than 8 versus 24 months.I don’t know if anyone else feels strongly about the degree of liver elevation here as not being so worrisome because it’s relatively mild elevation; I think that you could argue that point, as well.

 [Based on] 1.5 times upper limit of normal, I did not myself classify this patient as having severe liver dysfunction. But your point is well taken. Let’s say it’s not severe liver dysfunction, and she seems to otherwise be doing OK. Is there anybody who, based on the difference in the disease-free interval, would go back to a taxane for the 24 months?

 I would be very tempted to do so if she didn’t have any significant neuropathy, and we could get a long duration. It could be something we could continue for a prolonged period of time.

 I agree. In that context, if you’re not worried about the liver, then it would make more sense with the duration to maybe go back to something that was well tolerated and effective previously.

 We don’t know if it was effective previously, because this was given in the adjuvant setting.We don’t know if she responded to paclitaxel or not. This is someone who’s going to die of metastatic breast cancer. Some patients tolerate oral capecitabine and respond for what seems to be low-burden disease, in this case, and especially if it’s at 24 months. I think this is a marathon, not a sprint. Certainly, for someone with a crisis where you need a rapid response, that might not be the best agent, but we don’t know if she responded to any of these other things. I would try to think of this as what could potentially maintain her disease for a longer haul with better quality of life. I think taxane will catch up with patients for neuropathy, and it’s always there later.

 I agree with you. I would give capecitabine for 24 months, and I’d reserve a taxane for the next drug. I think you usually maintain quality of life better.

 The carboplatin and gemcitabine combination is somewhat better than a single-agent taxane in this situation. I’m assuming this patient has not seen a carboplatin for TNBC.…And then, as a taxane, I would use eribulin [Halaven] in preference to paclitaxel.

 Was the PD-L1 testing done on the liver disease, or on the original? They should repeat that, right?

 Yes, it didn’t specifically say. But as we commented on before, liver is the least likely metastatic site to express PD-L1. So, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that they went back and looked at the primary tumor. I think we have to accept that it was PD-L1 negative.

 One question I am just now debating in my mind is, if we were using pembrolizumab [Keytruda] in the neoadjuvant setting, and then followed by adjuvant therapy, where does its role stand in the metastatic disease setting? That will be a question to be decided. How will we use IO [immuno-oncology] in patients with TNBC who have already seen IO in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting?

During a Targeted Oncology case-based roundtable event, Elizabeth Ann Mittendorf, MD, discussed with participants their choice of treatment after progression for a patient with triple-negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with paclitaxel.

This is the first of 2 articles based on this event. 

Sarah K. Tasian, MD

Articles

Latest Updated Articles