Dataset Information

Immunotherapy of HBV-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with short-term HBV-specific TCR expressed T cells: results of dose escalation, phase I trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Immunotherapy with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-specific TCR redirected T (HBV-TCR-T) cells in HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HBV-HCC) patients after liver transplantation was reported to be safe and had potential therapeutic efficacy. We aim to investigate the safety of HBV-TCR-T-cell immunotherapy in advanced HBV-HCC patients who had not met the criteria for liver transplantation.

Methods

We enrolled eight patients with advanced HBV-HCC and adoptively transferred short-lived autologous T cells expressing HBV-specific TCR to perform an open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation study (NCT03899415). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the safety of HBV-TCR-T-cell therapy according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) during the dose-escalation process. The secondary endpoint was to assess the efficacy of HBV-TCR-T-cell therapy by evaluating the anti-tumor responses using RECIST criteria (version 1.1) and the overall survival.

Results

Adverse events were observed in two participants among the 8 patients enrolled. Only one patient experienced a Grade 3 liver-related adverse event after receiving a dose of 1 × 10⁵ HBV-TCR-T cells/kg, then normalized without interventions with immunosuppressive agents. Among the patients, one achieved a partial response lasting for 27.7 months. Importantly, most of the patients exhibited a reduction or stabilization of circulating HBsAg and HBV DNA levels after HBV-TCR-T-cell infusion, indicating the on-target effects.

Conclusions

The adoptive transfer of HBV-TCR-T cells into advanced HBV-HCC patients were generally safe and well-tolerated. Observations of clinical efficacy support the continued development and eventual application of this treatment strategy in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.

Clinical trials registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03899415).

SUBMITTER: Meng F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8651587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated impressive clinical benefits in multiple tumor types. TQB2450, a novel monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death ligand 1, has shown safety and efficacy in preclinical studies.ObjectivesThis first-in-human study aimed to evaluate the safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, and preliminary antitumor activity of TQB2450 in patients with advanced malignant tumors.Design and methodsIn this phase I study, eligible patients with advanced malignant tumors received intravenous TQB2450 once every 3 weeks. This study consisted of a 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase (1-30 mg/kg) and a specific dose-expansion phase (1200 mg). The primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and safety. The secondary endpoints were PK, immunogenicity, and investigator-assessed response rate.ResultsBetween April 2018 and February 2020, 40 patients were enrolled (22 in the dose-escalation phase and 18 in the dose-expansion phase). No DLT was reported and the MTD was not reached. Grade ⩾3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 11 (27.50%) patients, with the most frequent being aspartate aminotransferase increased (5.00%), leukopenia (5.00%), and anemia (5.00%). Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in six patients, the most common of which was decompensated liver function (5.00%). No treatment-related death was reported. The maximum serum concentration of TQB2450 increased in a dose-proportional manner. Treatment-induced anti-drug antibodies were detected in 31.58% (12/38) of patients. The investigator assessed the objective response rate as 5.00% and the disease control rate was 52.50%, including 2 partial responses and 19 stable diseases. The median progression-free survival was 2.69 (95% confidence interval, 2.07-6.14) months.ConclusionTQB2450 has a manageable safety profile with favorable PK and immunogenicity and has shown early evidence of clinical activity in advanced malignant tumors.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03460457.

Project description:BackgroundPemigatinib is an oral, potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 inhibitor. FIGHT-101, a three-part, open-label, first-in-human, phase I/II study (NCT02393248), evaluated pemigatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. In parts 1 and 2, pemigatinib monotherapy had a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in FGFR-altered tumors. Part 3 (pemigatinib combination therapies) results are presented here.Patients and methodsPatients received 9, 13.5, or 20 mg oral once-daily pemigatinib on continuous or intermittent schedules with gemcitabine and cisplatin (pemi/gem/cis), docetaxel (pemi/doc), trastuzumab (pemi/tras), pembrolizumab (pemi/pembro), or retifanlimab (pemi/reti) irrespective of whether the tumor was confirmed as FGFR altered. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed tumor objective response rates (ORRs) and pharmacokinetics (PK).ResultsOf 65 enrolled patients (pemi/gem/cis, n = 8; pemi/doc, n = 7; pemi/tras, n = 6; pemi/pembro, n = 26; pemi/reti, n = 18), all discontinued. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were generally consistent with individual drug AEs. Serious and grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 0%-85.7% and 33.3%-100.0% of patients across treatment groups, respectively. All pemigatinib combinations demonstrated steady-state PK comparable to monotherapy. Pharmacodynamic effects in all pemigatinib combinations, except pemi/gem/cis, were consistent with monotherapy. Less inhibition of FGFR2α phosphorylation was observed with this combination. ORRs (95% confidence interval) were 37.5% [8.5% to 75.5% (pemi/gem/cis)], 14.3% [0.4% to 57.9% (pemi/doc)], 0% (pemi/tras), 26.9% [11.6% to 47.8% (pemi/pembro)], and 11.1% [1.4% to 34.7% (pemi/reti)]. All groups had instances of tumor shrinkage. ORRs in assessable patients with FGFR rearrangements and mutations were 50% and 33%, respectively.ConclusionsPemigatinib combination therapy showed no unexpected toxicities. PK and pharmacodynamics were mostly consistent with pemigatinib monotherapy. Pemi/gem/cis (37.5%) and pemi/pembro (26.9%) had the highest ORR; most responders had FGFR alterations.

Project description:ImportanceCombination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has markedly improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, these therapies pose a considerable financial burden to both patients and the health care system. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated comparable progression-free and overall survival for patients with response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with standard of care (SOC).ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab discontinuation for patients with interim imaging-confirmed tumor response in the treatment of advanced melanoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from the ADAPT-IT (follow-up of 33 months) and CheckMate 067 (follow-up of 6.5 years) trials, as well as published literature over the ADAPT-IT trial duration of 33 months. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a US-payer perspective, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A total of 355 patients with previously untreated melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma) were included.ExposureResponse-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with SOC therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes of the CheckMate trial were overall survival and progression-free survival, while that of ADAPT-IT was objective response. This informed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs associated with both strategies. Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio were assessed. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to account for variability in trials and input parameters.ResultsOf the 355 patients included in the analysis, 41 patients were from the ADAPT-IT trial (median age, 65 years; 28 [68%] male) and 314 patients from the CheckMate 067 trial (median age, 61 years; 206 [66%] male). Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94.0% of scenarios based on Monte Carlo simulations, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and an incremental net monetary benefit of $28 849 compared with SOC therapy. Cost savings were estimated at $19 891 per patient compared with SOC. In scenario analyses, current SOC was only considered as a cost-effective option under best survival assumptions and if the willingness-to-pay threshold exceeded $630 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation demonstrated that response-adapted treatment de-escalation in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings in health care costs and could represent the most cost-effective strategy across various resource settings. Future trials should aim to provide further evidence on noninferiority.