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

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

Twitter

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

Yeon Hee Park, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea. 

Yeon Hee Park, MD, discusses the unmet needs in among premenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Considering Unmet Needs of Premenopausal Patients With Breast Cancer

Yeon Hee Park, MD, discusses the data supporting the FDA’s accelerated approval of fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received ≥2 prior anti–HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

PFS Data Support Approval of Fam-Trastuzumab Deruxtecan-nxki for HER2+ Breast Cancer

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

Polatuzumab vedotin ± rituximab ± bendamustine

What therapies would you consider for a patient like this? ​

Who is involved in the decision making?​

 More than half of you would think about tafasitamab [Monjuvi] plus lenalidomide [Revlimid] and then a little bit more than a third would consider the polatuzumab [Polivy] combination [with bendamustine and rituximab (Rituxan)], and some would consider a gemcitabine-based regimen.

It sounds like nearly all of you would treat this patient within the context of your practice …while waiting for cell therapy as opposed to referring for a clinical trial or [stem cell] transplant. I’d love to hear from somebody who chose the polatuzumab option. It gives you a lot of plus/minuses there. Would you add rituximab or bendamustine to this [regimen], and how would you use that combination?

 I voted for that. What I’ve seen our transplanters prefer is to do polatuzumab/rituximab without the bendamustine pending collection.

 So you base that on your prior experience with the CAR T-cell therapy group that you work with and that being their preference. What’s your experience with using that? How comfortable are you with it? How well does it work to control disease?

 It’s reasonably tolerated. It’s not clear that the bendamustine adds much besides toxicity. In my limited experience, it’s helped people and it’s gotten people to CAR T-cell therapy. It’s been OK.

 It does what you’re expecting it to do.

 Let’s go on to someone who uses a tafasitamab/lenalidomide regimen; does anyone want to comment on your experience with that?

 I’ve used tafasitamab/lenalidomide in this setting. The main reason is because I find it easy to manage in terms of adverse events. It mostly seems to be driven by the lenalidomide which we can easily dose modify, and we’re used to doing that with not just lymphoma but myeloma, etc.

 What dose of lenalidomide do you find you end up giving most of those patients?

 I feel like my patients don’t tolerate the lenalidomide as well as what I see typically in the trials. I’m often going down to 10 mg for a lot of my patients…that’s what I’ve been seeing.

 There is nothing [unusual] about your practice. Patients don’t tolerate lenalidomide at the starting dose [of 25 mg] that they’re using in most of the trials.

 I agree with Dr Arjunan. Lenalidomide is the 1 I always adjust. I’m using [closer to] 15 mg lenalidomide. Ten milligrams is even better [tolerated] but I push 15 mg.

 I agree with my colleagues. I like the idea that you can give tafasitamab for a limited period of time and then continue on lenalidomide. There’s a lot of familiarity with lenalidomide from other malignancies, and we know how to dose adjust and what to monitor for.

 Does anybody worry about giving a CD19-directed therapy with tafasitamab before giving a CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy?

 I’ve talked to my transplant specialists and CAR T cell specialists about it…and they seem comfortable. I don’t know why, but they feel very comfortable with tafasitamab/lenalidomide prior to CAR T-cell therapy as a bridging therapy.

 That’s true. There was some concern about the CD19, but I don’t think they’re worried about it.

 There has been a continual concern about giving CD19-directed therapy before another CD19-directed therapy in either direction, giving CAR T-cell therapy before tafasitamab/lenalidomide or giving tafasitamab/lenalidomide or loncastuximab tesirine [Zylonta] before giving CAR T-cell therapy.

There have been retrospective observational studies presented at national meetings that show it can be done successfully, and that you can still get good responses from the second CD19 therapy in both directions.

 In those patients who relapse on the lenalidomide/tafasitamab combination, have they looked at what their CD19 status is?

 The studies that I’ve mentioned are all small studies and in relatively few patients that have gone on to subsequent therapy. CD19 as an antigen is tricky to look at, too, because there are multiple ways that you can have CD19 loss in terms of the ways it affects its expression. We know about CAR T-cell therapy and CAR T-cell failure and that CD19-low is one of the pathways for CAR T-cell failure in about 25% to 30% of patients.

 And there’s a concern that if you give a CD19 therapy before another CD19 therapy that you might have CD19 loss as a mechanism, but that pathway has not been studied.

: In the trial, bridging chemotherapy was forbidden. So I don’t know how one would apply those data if you’re going to use some chemotherapy, which sometimes we end up having to do if steroids don’t seem to be enough. But those are usually patients who have a very aggressive disease with high lactate dehydrogenase and so on. So what is your assessment of that, what we do in the community as opposed to what was done in the trial?

 You are correct, there are some challenges there. One is the practicality of getting a patient to CAR T-cell therapy; getting all the insurance approvals can be challenging and making sure that those are in place, so the patients can go on to therapy. There oftentimes is a need for therapy to get a patient to the CAR T cells. There are patients who can get the CAR T cells more quickly or can have just simple steroids as a therapy.

I think 1 of the things that we did have concerns about early on is that if you gave steroids, that they would inhibit the ability of CAR T cells to work. We now know that’s not true and that bridging with steroids was a reasonable and effective approach in the axicabtagene ciloleucel [Yescarta] randomized trials, the ZUMA-7 trial [NCT03391466], and in other studies.

We’ve also found from our University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center group led by Chelsea C. Pinnix, MD, PhD, that bridging radiation can be quite an effective therapy, particularly when the disease is in a relatively limited area.

Those are the kinds of approaches that we think about when you want to limit what’s given for bridging therapy. But, oftentimes, you do need to pursue another regimen. What I typically recommend is the use of polatuzumab without bendamustine as an off-label approach for being able to treat patients and to get them to CAR T-cell therapy [without] giving a CD19-directed therapy. But we have also seen that people get regimens like tafasitamab/lenalidomide as a bridging therapy or get a chemoimmunotherapy regimen as a bridging therapy. I think all of those are potential approaches in real life that can get people to CAR T-cell therapy.

1. Thapa B, Caimi PF, Ardeshna KM, et al. CD19 antibody-drug conjugate therapy in DLBCL does not preclude subsequent responses to CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy. 

 2020;4(16):3850-3852. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002587

2. Caimi PF, Ardeshna KM, Reid E, et al. The antiCD19 antibody drug immunoconjugate loncastuximab achieves responses in DLBCL relapsing after antiCD19 CAR-T cell therapy. 

 2022;22(5):e335-e339. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2021.11.005

3. Jacobson CA, Hunter BD, Redd R, et al. Axicabtagene Ciloleucel in the Non-Trial Setting: Outcomes and Correlates of Response, Resistance, and Toxicity. 

 2020;38(27):3095-3106. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.02103

4. Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. 

2022;386(7):640-654. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

5.Pinnix CC, Gunther JR, Dabaja BS, et al. Bridging therapy prior to axicabtagene ciloleucel for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. 

2020;4(13):2871-2883. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001837

During a Targeted Oncology case-based roundtable event, Christopher R. Flowers, MD, MS, discussed the choice of bridging therapy for a patient with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who may receive CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) T-cell therapy. 

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

Bridging Options for CAR T-Cell Therapy in R/R DLBCL

Adagrasib (Krazati), compared with docetaxel, provided significantly better results for patients with previously treated 

 G12C-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), even when they had existing brain metastases (BM). These findings are consistent with the overall benefits observed in all patients participating in the phase 3 KRYSTAL-12 trial (NCT04685135).

The findings, which were presented at the 

, demonstrated that among patients with baseline brain metastases, the median intracranial time to progression was 18.6 months (95% CI, 9.6-not evaluable [NE]) in the adagrasib arm and NE (95% CI, 4.2-NE) in the docetaxel arm (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.26-1.40). Additionally, the intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio for patients with brain metastases was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.50-1.73).

 G12C–mutated locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC who had been previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti–PD-(L)1 therapy and who were randomized 2:1 to receive 600 mg of oral adagrasib twice daily or 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel every three weeks intravenously.

Patients with treated, neurologically stable brain metastases at baseline were eligible for participation, and 114 patients (25.2%) had baseline brain metastases (78 in the adagrasib arm, 36 in the docetaxel arm).

At a median follow-up of 7.2 months, median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.1-5.8) in the adagrasib arm and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.0-6.2) in the docetaxel arm among patients with brain metastases; 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.8-7.2) in the adagrasib arm and 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.4-5.6) in the docetaxel arm in patients without brain metastases.

Furthermore, the objective response rate (ORR) was higher in the adagrasib vs docetaxel arm among patients both with (26.9% vs 2.8%) and without (33.6% vs 11.2%) baseline brain metastases, as was the median duration of response (DOR) for patients with (7.4 vs 5.4 months) and without (8.3 vs 5.4 months) baseline brain metastases.

Treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) were also reported to be comparable across treatment arms and irrespective of the presence of baseline brain metastases. Among patients with brain metastases, 94% of patients in the adagrasib arm and 86% of patients in the docetaxel arm experienced a TRAE, while among patients without brain metastases 94% and 87% of patients in the adagrasib and docetaxel arms, respectively, experienced a TRAE. There were 5 total treatment-related deaths, 4 among patients in the adagrasib arm without brain metastases and 1 in the docetaxel arm with brain metastases.

“Adagrasib demonstrated an improved intracranial efficacy over docetaxel in patients with treated, neurologically stable baseline brain metastases,” Professor Fabrice Barlesi, MD, PhD, thoracic oncologist, Paris Saclay University and chief executive officer of Gustave Roussy Institute, in France, said in a presentation of the findings. “Systemic overall response rate, duration of response and PFS were numerically greater with adagrasib compared to docetaxel, regardless of the presence of brain metastases, the safety profiles of adagrasib and docetaxel were comparable in patients with and without brain metastasis, and were consistent with all randomized patients. Overall, these results clearly reinforce adagrasib as an efficacious treatment option for patients including with baseline brain metastasis with previously treated 

Barlesi F, Yao W, Duruisseaux M, et al. Adagrasib (ADA) vs docetaxel (DOCE) in patients (pts) with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC and baseline brain metastases (BM): Results from KRYSTAL-12. Presented at: 2024 ESMO Congress; September 13-17, 2024; Barcelona, Spain. Abstract LBA57.

Adagrasib demonstrated superior outcomes to docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer, even among those with baseline brain metastases.

Conference News

Canonical

Adagrasib Outperforms Docetaxel for Pretreated KRAS G12C-Mutant Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

The patient is a 62-year-old man in Florida.

He presented to his primary care physician (PCP) with symptoms of fatigue, night sweats, and increased bruising.

During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, James M. Rossetti, DO, discussed the role of risk scoring and stratification tools and treatment for a patient with declining hemoglobin and platelet counts due to primary myelofibrosis. 

Yeon Hee Park, MD

Articles

Latest Updated Articles