Dataset Information

An interim report on the investigator-initiated phase 2 study of pembrolizumab immunological response evaluation (INSPIRE).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) demonstrate unprecedented efficacy in multiple malignancies; however, the mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance are poorly understood and predictive biomarkers are scarce. INSPIRE is a phase 2 basket study to evaluate the genomic and immune landscapes of peripheral blood and tumors following pembrolizumab treatment. METHODS:Patients with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that have progressed on standard therapy, or for whom no standard therapy exists or standard therapy was not deemed appropriate, received 200?mg pembrolizumab intravenously every three weeks. Blood and tissue samples were collected at baseline, during treatment, and at progression. One core biopsy was used for immunohistochemistry and the remaining cores were pooled and divided for genomic and immune analyses. Univariable analysis of clinical, genomic, and immunophenotyping parameters was conducted to evaluate associations with treatment response in this exploratory analysis. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled from March 21, 2016 to June 1, 2017, and 129 tumor and 382 blood samples were collected. Immune biomarkers were significantly different between the blood and tissue. T cell PD-1 was blocked (?98%) in the blood of all patients by the third week of treatment. In the tumor, 5/11 (45%) and 11/14 (79%) patients had T cell surface PD-1 occupance at weeks six and nine, respectively. The proportion of genome copy number alterations and abundance of intratumoral 4-1BB+?PD-1+ CD8 T cells at baseline (P

SUBMITTER: Clouthier DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6417194 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An interim report on the investigator-initiated phase 2 study of pembrolizumab immunological response evaluation (INSPIRE).

Clouthier Derek L DL Lien Scott C SC Yang S Y Cindy SYC Nguyen Linh T LT Manem Venkata S K VSK Gray Diana D Ryczko Michael M Razak Albiruni R A ARA Lewin Jeremy J Lheureux Stephanie S Colombo Ilaria I Bedard Philippe L PL Cescon David D Spreafico Anna A Butler Marcus O MO Hansen Aaron R AR Jang Raymond W RW Ghai Sangeet S Weinreb Ilan I Sotov Valentin V Gadalla Ramy R Noamani Babak B Guo Mengdi M Elston Sawako S Giesler Amanda A Hakgor Sevan S Jiang Haiyan H McGaha Tracy T Brooks David G DG Haibe-Kains Benjamin B Pugh Trevor J TJ Ohashi Pamela S PS Siu Lillian L LL

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer 20190313 1

<h4>Background</h4>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) demonstrate unprecedented efficacy in multiple malignancies; however, the mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance are poorly understood and predictive biomarkers are scarce. INSPIRE is a phase 2 basket study to evaluate the genomic and immune landscapes of peripheral blood and tumors following pembrolizumab treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that have progressed on standard therapy ...[more]

PMID: 30867072

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:In children many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed off-label due to a lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a multicenter RCT in the Netherlands to compare levetiracetam and valproic acid as monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 2 years, we had to stop this investigator-initiated trial prematurely because the inclusion rate was too low. We analyzed the reasons for this failure, assessed the various issues involved in performing RCTs in children, and now give recommendations for future studies. Methods:A questionnaire was completed by all investigators involved in the study. It included questions about the motivation to participate and the perceived reasons for recruitment failure. We also studied literature about financial, logistic, legal, and ethical aspects of RCTs in children. Results:Main reasons for recruitment failure were overestimation of the number of eligible AED-naive children referred by general pediatricians; personal preferences of investigators for specific antiepileptic drugs; and the extensive administrative load due to extra regulations and guidelines for children. Fundraising for investigator-initiated trials is difficult and the majority of RCTs concerning AEDs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Involving children requires balancing between protection and participation; the randomization procedure and obtaining informed consent are complex for both children and parents. Significance:Performing RCTs with AEDs in children is important but complicated by logistic, regulatory, legal, and ethical restrictions. Based on our recent experience, our advice to colleagues who are planning a similar trial would be to perform a feasibility pilot study; to set up intensive collaboration with referring pediatricians; to arrange support of a clinical trials unit and a local research nurse during the complete trial period; and to incorporate the possibility of extending the recruitment period. Major investments, both financially from governmental organizations and in time, are imperative for independent RCTs in children.

Project description:RATIONALE:While checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of melanoma, it is not known whether switching from one monoclonal antibody drug to another one would be justified in the case of a treatment failure. Herein, we report a case illustrating a durable response to pembrolizumab after a failure with nivolumab. PATIENT CONCERNS:A 76-year-old white male noticed an enlarging papular lesion on his neck. DIAGNOSIS:Malignant melanoma. INTERVENTIONS:The patient underwent surgery in December 2013 and was found to have a B-Rapidly Accelerated Fibrosarcoma (BRAF) V600E mutated melanoma. Treatment with BRAF and MAPK/Erk kinase (MEK) inhibitors along with radiation was initiated. After 1 year, the disease progressed, and the treatment was switched to the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blocking antibody, ipilimumab. As the tumor did not respond, the treatment was changed to programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) blockers: nivolumab followed by pembrolizumab. Since the initial diagnosis, the tumor response was monitored by computed tomography (CT) scans. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was also used for the assessment of programmed death ligand 1 PD-L1) expression in the neck, lung, and spleen lesions. OUTCOMES:The patient had an initial mixed response to nivolumab, but the disease ultimately progressed as evidenced by new metastases to the spleen, thus the treatment was switched to pembrolizumab. After 46 cycles of treatment, all sites of metastases disappeared, including a substantial shrinkage of the splenic metastasis. To gain understanding about the pharmacological differences between nivolumab and pembrolizumab, the PD-1-ligands interactions and conformational dynamics responsible for the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade were investigated. The higher affinity of pembrolizumab might likely arise from a unique and large patch of interactions engaging the C'D loop of PD-1, thus forcing an important motion across the PD-1 immunoreceptor. LESSONS:In this case report, we described the tolerance and response of a melanoma patient to a sequence of various agents, including ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first clinical report highlighting differences between PD-1 blockers, as shown by the unexpected and durable response of the tumor to pembrolizumab, after a treatment failure with nivolumab.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.Design: Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.Setting: Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.Interventions: Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI?2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results: 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.Conclusions: All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registration: EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Dataset Information

An interim report on the investigator-initiated phase 2 study of pembrolizumab immunological response evaluation (INSPIRE).

Publications

An interim report on the investigator-initiated phase 2 study of pembrolizumab immunological response evaluation (INSPIRE).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure