Umair Mahmood1, Andrew Bang2, Yu-Hui Chen3, Raymond H Mak2, Jochen H Lorch1, Glenn J Hanna1, Mizuki Nishino4, Claire Manuszak5, Emily M Thrash5, Mariano Severgnini5, Matthew Sanborn1, Vishwajith Sridharan1, Danielle N Margalit2, Roy B Tishler2, Paul M Busse6, Henning Willers6, Harvey J Mamon2, Hyung-Jin Yoo7, Sara I Pai8, Lori J Wirth9, Robert I Haddad1, Nicole G Chau1, Jonathan D Schoenfeld10. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Center for Immuno-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: jonathan_schoenfeld@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) ± radiation therapy (RT) in a phase 2 study among patients with progressive, metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had metastatic ACC with progression within the last year and ≥1 measurable lesion. Patients were randomized to pembro alone or with RT to 30 Gy in 5 fractions (pembroRT). The primary endpoint was objective response rate outside the RT field. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and local RT responses. RESULTS: We randomized 20 patients (10 per arm) from 2017 to 2018. We did not observe objective response outside of the radiation treatment field; stable disease (SD) was the best response in 12 (60%) patients and was not different per arm (7 pembro, 5 pembroRT, P = .65). A tumor growth rate decrease (TGR) of >25% was noted among 7 of 12 patients and >75% in 4 patients. There were local responses in the irradiated field among all evaluable pembroRT patients. Median PFS and OS were 4.5/not reached for pembroRT and 6.6 / 27.2 months for pembro patients. One patient developed grade 3 liver enzyme elevation after 27 cycles of therapy. Correlative analyses confirm low levels of programmed death-ligand 1 expression (PD-L1), and CD8 infiltrating T-cells. We identified associations between local response and both MYB/NFIB translocation and PD-L1 expression and between changes in systemic immune populations and RT. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab and pembroRT were well tolerated. We observed no objective responses, but 60% of patients with PD before the study achieved SD, the majority with decreased TGR and half (n = 10) with clinical benefit (SD >6 months). We observed favorable local responses within the RT field. Additional strategies are needed to further delay progression and effect response.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) ± radiation therapy (RT) in a phase 2 study among patients with progressive, metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had metastatic ACC with progression within the last year and ≥1 measurable lesion. Patients were randomized to pembro alone or with RT to 30 Gy in 5 fractions (pembroRT). The primary endpoint was objective response rate outside the RT field. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and local RT responses. RESULTS: We randomized 20 patients (10 per arm) from 2017 to 2018. We did not observe objective response outside of the radiation treatment field; stable disease (SD) was the best response in 12 (60%) patients and was not different per arm (7 pembro, 5 pembroRT, P = .65). A tumor growth rate decrease (TGR) of >25% was noted among 7 of 12 patients and >75% in 4 patients. There were local responses in the irradiated field among all evaluable pembroRT patients. Median PFS and OS were 4.5/not reached for pembroRT and 6.6 / 27.2 months for pembro patients. One patient developed grade 3 liver enzyme elevation after 27 cycles of therapy. Correlative analyses confirm low levels of programmed death-ligand 1 expression (PD-L1), and CD8 infiltrating T-cells. We identified associations between local response and both MYB/NFIB translocation and PD-L1 expression and between changes in systemic immune populations and RT. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab and pembroRT were well tolerated. We observed no objective responses, but 60% of patients with PD before the study achieved SD, the majority with decreased TGR and half (n = 10) with clinical benefit (SD >6 months). We observed favorable local responses within the RT field. Additional strategies are needed to further delay progression and effect response.
Authors: Brian H Lee; Geoffrey Kelly; Shermineh Bradford; Melanie Davila; Xinzheng V Guo; El-Ad David Amir; Emily M Thrash; Michael D Solga; Joanne Lannigan; Brian Sellers; Julian Candia; John Tsang; Ruth R Montgomery; Stanley J Tamaki; Tara K Sigdel; Minnie M Sarwal; Lewis L Lanier; Yuan Tian; Cheryl Kim; Denise Hinz; Bjoern Peters; Alessandro Sette; Adeeb H Rahman Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Sandra Demaria; Noriko Kawashima; Anne Marie Yang; Mary Louise Devitt; James S Babb; James P Allison; Silvia C Formenti Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Maximilian Linxweiler; Fengshen Kuo; Nora Katabi; Mark Lee; Zaineb Nadeem; Martin G Dalin; Vladimir Makarov; Diego Chowell; Snjezana Dogan; Ian Ganly; A Ari Hakimi; Richard J Wong; Nadeem Riaz; Alan L Ho; Timothy A Chan; Luc G T Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: William C Spanos; Paul Nowicki; Dong Wook Lee; Andrew Hoover; Bruce Hostager; Anjali Gupta; Mary E Anderson; John H Lee Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2009-11
Authors: Heather M McGee; Megan E Daly; Sohelia Azghadi; Susan L Stewart; Leslie Oesterich; Jeffrey Schlom; Renee Donahue; Jonathan D Schoenfeld; Qian Chen; Shyam Rao; Ruben C Fragoso; Richard K Valicenti; Robert J Canter; Emmanual M Maverakis; William J Murphy; Karen Kelly; Arta M Monjazeb Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-04-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sana D Karam; James W Snider; Hongkun Wang; Margaux Wooster; Christopher Lominska; John Deeken; Kenneth Newkirk; Bruce Davidson; K William Harter Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-02-19
Authors: Rohan R Katipally; Sean P Pitroda; Aditya Juloori; Steven J Chmura; Ralph R Weichselbaum Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 65.011
Authors: Sarina K Mueller; Marlen Haderlein; Sebastian Lettmaier; Abbas Agaimy; Florian Haller; Markus Hecht; Rainer Fietkau; Heinrich Iro; Konstantinos Mantsopoulos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Lauren E Miller; Vivienne Au; Tara E Mokhtari; Deborah Goss; Daniel L Faden; Mark A Varvares Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Johannes Doescher; Moritz Meyer; Christoph Arolt; Alexander Quaas; Jens Peter Klußmann; Philipp Wolber; Agnes Bankfalvi; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Tobias Bastian; Stephan Lang; Simon Laban; Patrick J Schuler; Cornelia Brunner; Thomas K Hoffmann; Stephanie E Weissinger Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.639