| Literature DB >> 35992783 |
Rachel Evans1, Kelvin Lee2, Paul K Wallace1, Mary Reid1, Jason Muhitch1, Askia Dozier1, Circe Mesa3, Patricia L Luaces3, Orestes Santos-Morales3, Adrienne Groman1, Carlos Cedeno1, Aileen Cinquino1, Daniel T Fisher1, Igor Puzanov1, Mateusz Opyrchal2, Christos Fountzilas1, Tong Dai1, Marc Ernstoff4, Kristopher Attwood1, Alan Hutson1, Candace Johnson1, Zaima Mazorra3, Danay Saavedra3, Kalet Leon3, Agustin Lage3, Tania Crombet3, Grace K Dy1.
Abstract
Background: CIMAvax-EGF is an epidermal growth factor (EGF)-depleting immunotherapy which has shown survival benefit as a switch maintenance treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary objective of this trial is to establish the safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of CIMAvax-EGF in combination with nivolumab as second-line therapy for NSCLC.Entities:
Keywords: immune checkpoint inhibitor; immunotherapy; lung cancer; non-small cell lung cancer; vaccine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992783 PMCID: PMC9382666 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.958043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Descriptive baseline statistics by dose level.
| DOSE LEVEL 1 | DOSE LEVEL 2 | OVERALL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OVERALL COUNT | N | 6 | 7 | 13 |
| AGE | MEAN | 59.1 | 62.6 | 61 |
| MEDIAN (RANGE) | 63 (45-68) | 63 (53-72) | 63 (45-72) | |
| SEX | MALE | 1 (17%) | 3 (43%) | 4 (31%) |
| FEMALE | 5 (83%) | 4 (57%) | 9 (69%) | |
| HISTOLOGY | SQUAMOUS | 2 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (15%) |
| ADENOCARCINOMA | 4 (47%) | 6 (86%) | 10 (77%) | |
| LARGE CELL | 0 (0%) | 1 (14%) | 1 (8%) | |
| SMOKING | FORMER | 5 (83%) | 6 (86%) | 11 (85%) |
| CURRENT | 1 (17%) | 1 (14%) | 2 (15%) | |
| NEVER | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| STAGE | IIIB | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| IV | 6 (100%) | 7 (100%) | 13 (100%) | |
| ECOG SCORE AT BASELINE | 0 | 3 (50%) | 3 (43%) | 6 (46%) |
| 1 | 3 (50%) | 4 (57%) | 7 (54%) | |
| BRAIN METS | PRESENT | 3 (50%) | 2 (29%) | 5 (38%) |
| ABSENT | 3 (50%) | 5 (71%) | 8 (62%) | |
| PRIOR RADIATION | THORAX/BONE | 1 (17%) | 3 (43%) | 4 (31%) |
| EGFR | WILDTYPE | 5 (83%) | 7 (100%) | 12 (92%) |
| MUTANT | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| UNKNOWN* | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | |
| ALK | WILDTYPE | 5 (83%) | 7 (100%) | 12 (92%) |
| MUTANT | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| UNKNOWN* | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | |
| KRAS | WILDTYPE | 3 (83%) | 5 (71%) | 8 (62%) |
| MUTANT | 1 (17%) | 2 (29%) | 3 (23%) | |
| UNKNOWN* | 2 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (15%) | |
| PD-L1 STATUS AT BASELINE | >50% | 0 (0%) | 1 (14%) | 1 (8%) |
| >1 <25% | 1 (17%) | 1 (14%) | 2 (15%) | |
| <1% | 2 (33%) | 5 (72%) | 7 (54%) | |
| UNKNOWN | 3 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (23%) |
*Unknown EGFR/ALK/ROS1/KRAS/PD-L1 status was in a patient with squamous histology. One patient with EGFR/ALK/ROS1 wildtype PD-L1 20% adenocarcinoma had insufficient tissue specimen for extended molecular testing.
Treatment-related toxicities in phase 1.
| Adverse event | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Any grade ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| injection site pain | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (38.5%) |
| Chills | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (30.8%) |
| Fatigue | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (30.8%) |
| Nausea | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (23.1%) |
| Pyrexia | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) |
| decreased appetite | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) |
| Vomiting | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) |
| Diarrhea | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Colitis | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Pruritus | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) |
| Rash | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Arthralgia | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| flu-like illness | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Hyperthyroidism | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Pneumonitis | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) |
| Myocarditis | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (7.7%) |
Figure 1Trend of patients dosing and achieving anti-EGF titer ≥1:4,000. Good anti-EGF antibody response (≥1:4,000) elicited at earlier time points in more patients receiving CIMAvax-EGF in combination with nivolumab compared to historical controls.
Figure 2Relationship between anti-EGF antibody titers and serum EGF. There is a significant inverse correlation between circulating serum EGF and antibody titers in patients receiving CIMAvax-EGF in combination with nivolumab.
Figure 3Hazard ratios and confidence intervals of cytokine association with overall survival. There is an association between many cytokines and overall survival based on analysis looking at cytokines as a continuous variable based on Luminex multiplex bead array assays. Hazard ratios (HRs) correspond to a standard deviation change in the cytokines.