Sabran J Masoud1, Janice B Hu1, Georgia M Beasley2, John H Stewart3, Paul J Mosca4. 1. School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. paul.mosca@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the first injectable oncolytic viral therapy approved for in-transit melanoma metastasis, with a reported overall response rate (ORR) of 25% and complete response rate (CRR) of 10%. To ascertain the role of patient selection on outcomes in routine practice, we evaluated the impact of patient, lesion, and treatment factors on clinical response. METHODS: Medical records were extracted for patients with recurrent stage IIIB-IV melanoma completing T-VEC at Duke University Medical Center between 1 January 2016 and 1 September 2018. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed time to response and survival, while logistic regression measured associations of clinicopathologic status, lesion burden, T-VEC dosing, and use of prior and concurrent therapy with ORR and CRR. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, an objective response was observed in 11 (40.7%), including one patient with partial response (3.7%) and 10 with complete response (37.0%). Time to complete response and overall response was a median 22 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-41.9 weeks and 15.8-28.2 weeks, respectively), and median progression-free survival was 17 weeks (95% CI 0-36 weeks). Logistic regression demonstrated each millimeter increase in maximum lesion diameter predicted decreased ORR (odds ratio [OR] 0.866, 95% CI 0.753-0.995; p = 0.04). Stage IV disease (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.74; p = 0.031) and programmed death-1 inhibitor treatment (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.74; p = 0.028) also predicted reduced clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates recent data suggesting response rates to T-VEC may be higher than reported in clinical trials, arising in part from patient selection. T-VEC lesion diameter was persistently associated with clinical response and is a readily assessed predictor of successful T-VEC therapy.
BACKGROUND: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the first injectable oncolytic viral therapy approved for in-transit melanoma metastasis, with a reported overall response rate (ORR) of 25% and complete response rate (CRR) of 10%. To ascertain the role of patient selection on outcomes in routine practice, we evaluated the impact of patient, lesion, and treatment factors on clinical response. METHODS: Medical records were extracted for patients with recurrent stage IIIB-IV melanoma completing T-VEC at Duke University Medical Center between 1 January 2016 and 1 September 2018. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed time to response and survival, while logistic regression measured associations of clinicopathologic status, lesion burden, T-VEC dosing, and use of prior and concurrent therapy with ORR and CRR. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, an objective response was observed in 11 (40.7%), including one patient with partial response (3.7%) and 10 with complete response (37.0%). Time to complete response and overall response was a median 22 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-41.9 weeks and 15.8-28.2 weeks, respectively), and median progression-free survival was 17 weeks (95% CI 0-36 weeks). Logistic regression demonstrated each millimeter increase in maximum lesion diameter predicted decreased ORR (odds ratio [OR] 0.866, 95% CI 0.753-0.995; p = 0.04). Stage IV disease (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.74; p = 0.031) and programmed death-1 inhibitor treatment (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.74; p = 0.028) also predicted reduced clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates recent data suggesting response rates to T-VEC may be higher than reported in clinical trials, arising in part from patient selection. T-VEC lesion diameter was persistently associated with clinical response and is a readily assessed predictor of successful T-VEC therapy.
Authors: Emma H A Stahlie; Viola Franke; Charlotte L Zuur; Willem M C Klop; Bernies van der Hiel; Bart A Van de Wiel; Michel W J M Wouters; Yvonne M Schrage; Winan J van Houdt; Alexander C J van Akkooi Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Anne Fröhlich; Dennis Niebel; Simon Fietz; Eva Egger; Andrea Buchner; Judith Sirokay; Jennifer Landsberg Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Alexander C J van Akkooi; Sebastian Haferkamp; Sophie Papa; Viola Franke; Andreas Pinter; Carsten Weishaupt; Margit A Huber; Carmen Loquai; Erika Richtig; Priya Gokani; Katarina Öhrling; Karly S Louie; Peter Mohr Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2020-12-26 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Josep Malvehy; Igor Samoylenko; Dirk Schadendorf; Ralf Gutzmer; Jean-Jacques Grob; Joseph J Sacco; Kevin S Gorski; Abraham Anderson; Cheryl A Pickett; Kate Liu; Helen Gogas Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Johannes Kleemann; Manuel Jäger; Eva Valesky; Stefan Kippenberger; Roland Kaufmann; Markus Meissner Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Ifeanyi Kingsley Uche; Natalie Fowlkes; Luan Vu; Tatiane Watanabe; Mariano Carossino; Rafiq Nabi; Fabio Del Piero; Jared S Rudd; Konstantin G Kousoulas; Paul J F Rider Journal: J Virol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 6.549