Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry is a predictive biomarker for anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It is not a reliable predictor of clinical benefit with non-invasive imaging providing a potential solution. We present the PECan study, the aim of which to assess the relationship of [99mTc]-labeled anti-PD-L1 single-domain antibody (NM-01) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT with metabolic response to anti-PD-(L)1.

PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) measured using SP263 assay. [99mTc]NM-01 SPECT/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT performed before and 9-weeks following pembrolizumab with/without chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Tumor (T) to blood pool (BP) maximum region of interest (ROImax) measurements performed in primary and metastatic lesions using SPECT/CT images.

Fifteen patients were included (median age 63 years, 9 male). Intertumoural heterogeneity evident in 10(67%) patients. Mean [99mTc]NM-01 T:BP demonstrated moderate correlation with PD-L1 TPS (r = 0.45, p < 0.05). Depth of [18F]FDG PET/CT metabolic response at 9-weeks (n = 13), correlated strongly with baseline [99mTc]NM-01 T:BP (r = -0.73, p < 0.05), but only moderately with PD-L1 TPS (r = -0.46, p = 0.06).

[99mTc]NM-01 SPECT/CT allows non-invasive quantification of PD-L1 in primary tumour and metastases in NSCLC. [99mTc]NM-01 uptake moderately correlates with PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, determines heterogeneity, and is associated with early metabolic response to anti-PD-1 pembrolizumab.

PD-L1 Expression in Cancer (PECan) study (NCT04436406), registered 18 June 2020 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04436406.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of patients with cancer. Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1(PD-L1) interaction using monoclonal antibodies has emerged as a prominent focus in tumor therapy with rapid advancements. However, the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment is hindered by primary or acquired resistance, limiting the effectiveness of single-drug approaches. Moreover, combining PD-1/PD-L1 with other immune drugs, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy significantly enhances response rates while exacerbating adverse reactions. Multispecific antibodies, capable of binding to different epitopes, offer improved antitumor efficacy while reducing drug-related side effects, serving as a promising therapeutic approach in cancer treatment. Several bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) targeting PD-1/PD-L1 have received regulatory approval, and many more are currently in clinical development. Additionally, tri-specific antibodies (TsAbs) and tetra-specific antibodies (TetraMabs) are under development. This review comprehensively explores the fundamental structure, preclinical principles, clinical trial progress, and challenges associated with bsAbs targeting PD-1/PD-L1.

Fanastomig (also known as EMB-02) is a bispecific antibody targeting programmed cell death protein-1(PD-1) and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3), developed for the treatment of advanced solid tumors. A first-in-human (FIH) Phase I study (NCT04618393) evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy of Fanastomig in patients with advanced solid tumors. To determine the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), population pharmacokinetics (PopPK), and exposure and response analysis (E-R) were conducted. The PopPK model, demonstrating good performance, showed no clinically meaningful relationship between areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC) or maximum concentration (Cmax) of Fanastomig and selected covariates of interest. A nonlinear Emax model was fitted to Fanastomig PD-1 receptor occupancy (RO) in the peripheral blood compartment. The estimated half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) was 0.084 μg/mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0369-0.131). Assuming a threefold lower exposure in tumor tissue compared to that in serum, a target trough concentration of Fanastomig at ~2.27 μg/mL would be needed for 90% PD-1 RO in the tumor. Modeling and simulation indicated that a weekly dosing (QW) of 360 mg would achieve full peripheral blood RO in approximately 90% of patients. The incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) for Fanastomig was high (95.7%, 44/46), with a negative correlation between the ADA titer and dose levels; meanwhile, ADA minimally impacted PK exposure and efficacy. An inverse trend was observed between anaphylaxis and PK exposure. Fanastomig was well tolerated and had acceptable safety profiles up to 900 mg QW. Based on these findings, two dosing regimens have been selected for further clinical development. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04618393.

Tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated improved survival over the standard of care for multiple cancers. However, tislelizumab's effectiveness across different racial/ethnicity groups warrants further evaluation. This clinical pharmacology overview includes tislelizumab's pharmacokinetic properties, correlations with efficacy and safety, and immunogenicity, with a focus on racial impact. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted using data from Asian and White patients enrolled in BGB-A317-001 and BGB-A317-102. Population pharmacokinetic analyses used pooled data from 12 clinical studies to evaluate the impact of intrinsic/extrinsic factors on tislelizumab's pharmacokinetic properties, including race effect. Exposure-efficacy/exposure-safety relationships and immunogenicity assessments were evaluated for the phase III BGB-A317-302/-303 studies. Tislelizumab exhibited dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, and there were no clinically meaningful differences in tislelizumab's pharmacokinetic parameters at 200 mg once every 3 weeks between BGB-A317-001 (n = 12, 83% White patients) and BGB-A317-102 (n = 20, 100% Chinese patients); race was not a significant covariate. No clinically relevant exposure-efficacy/-safety relationships were observed in BGB-A317-302/-303. Incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) was similar between Asian and White patients. The presence of ADAs was not clinically relevant for tislelizumab's pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, or safety. There were no differences in tislelizumab's pharmacokinetic or ADA characteristics between Asian and White patients with advanced cancer and no clinically relevant exposure-efficacy/-safety dependency or impact of immunogenicity on efficacy and safety. Data from the extensive clinical program of tislelizumab support the use of tislelizumab across broad patient populations with relevant tumor types.

Clinical trials of cancer immunotherapy (IO) were historically based on a drug development paradigm built for chemotherapies. The remarkable clinical activity of programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 blockade, chimeric antigen receptor-T cells, and T cell engagers yielded new insights into how the mechanistic underpinnings of IO are reflected in the clinic. These insights and the sheer number of novel immunotherapies currently in the pipeline have made it clear that our strategies and tools for IO drug development must adapt. Recent innovations like engineered T cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes demonstrate that immune-based treatments may rely on real-time manufacturing programs rather than off-the-shelf drugs. We now recognize adoptively transferred cells as living drugs. Progression criteria have been redefined due to the unique response patterns of IO. Harnessing the power of both biomarkers and the neoadjuvant setting earlier in drug development is of broad interest. The US Food and Drug Association is increasingly impacting the design of trials with respect to dose optimization and clinical endpoints. The use of novel endpoints such as pathologic complete/major response, treatment-free survival, and minimal residual disease is becoming more common. There is growing acceptance of using patient-reported outcomes as trial endpoints to better measure the true clinical benefit and impact of novel IO agents on quality of life. New opportunities created by modern data science and artificial intelligence to inform and accelerate drug development continue to emerge. The importance of streamlining the clinical research ecosystem and enhancing clinical trial access to facilitate the enrollment of diverse patient populations is broadly recognized. Patient advocacy is critical both to drive the science of IO, and to promote patient satisfaction. To capitalize on these opportunities, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has established a goal of at least 100 new, unique IO approvals over the next 10 years. Accordingly, SITC has developed initiatives designed to integrate the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders and galvanize the field in further adapting clinical trials to the unique features of IO, moving us closer to our ultimate goal of using IO to cure and prevent cancer.

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, one-dose-fits-all maximalist regimens have been considered the standard of care, with ICBs administered at flat doses regardless of patients' weight. Treatment duration with ICBs is often arbitrary across stages, ranging from a fixed time point to until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ICBs differ significantly from those of traditional cytotoxic drugs and the approved and selected doses on the basis of the maximum tolerated dose are often overestimated as there is limited evidence supporting a direct relationship between therapeutic intensity and outcomes. This can lead to overtreatment of patients, resulting in an increased risk of toxicity without enhanced efficacy. In addition, the use of these drugs is associated with significant costs that burden the global health care system and exacerbate disparities in access to care. De-escalating treatment by reducing the dose, duration, and frequency of administration of ICBs could optimize treatment efficacy, reduce toxicities, improve patients' quality of life, and even decrease costs. Ultimately, de-escalation strategies may help to reduce treatment inequalities and to improve drug access worldwide. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the main issues and challenges regarding the de-escalation of ICBs in patients with NSCLC, focusing on dose-intensity reduction and treatment duration selection. Moreover, we assess the economic impact of implementing de-escalation approaches.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy represents a ground-breaking paradigm in cancer treatment, harnessing the immune system to combat malignancies by targeting checkpoints such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). The use of ICI therapy generates distinctive immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including cardiovascular toxicity, necessitating targeted research efforts. This comprehensive review explores preclinical models dedicated to ICI-mediated cardiovascular complications including myocarditis. Tailored preclinical models of ICI-mediated myocardial toxicities highlight the key role of CD8+ T cells, emphasizing the profound impact of immune checkpoints on maintaining cardiac integrity. Cytokines and macrophages were identified as possible driving factors in disease progression, and at the same time, initial data on possible cardiac antigens responsible are emerging. The implications of contributing factors including thoracic radiation, autoimmune disorder, and the presence of cancer itself are increasingly understood. Besides myocarditis, mouse models unveiled an accelerated progression of atherosclerosis, adding another layer for a thorough understanding of the diverse processes involving cardiovascular immune checkpoint signalling. This review aims to discuss current preclinical models of ICI cardiotoxicity and their potential for improving enhanced risk assessment and diagnostics, offering potential targets for innovative cardioprotective strategies. Lessons from ICI therapy can drive novel approaches in cardiovascular research, extending insights to areas such as myocardial infarction and heart failure.

Time-dependent pharmacokinetics (TDPK) is a frequent confounding factor that misleads exposure-response (ER) analysis of therapeutic antibodies, where a decline in clearance results in increased drug exposure over time in patients who respond to therapy, causing a false-positive ER finding. The object of our simulation study was to explore the influence of clinical trial designs on the frequency of false-positive ER findings. Two previously published population PK models representative of slow- (pembrolizumab) and fast-onset (rituximab) TDPK were used to simulate virtual patient cohorts with time-dependent clearance and the frequency of false-positive ER findings. The impact of varying the number of dose groups, dose range, and sample size was evaluated over time. Study designs with a single tested dose level showed a high probability of showing a false-positive ER finding. When TDPK has a slow onset, use of exposure measures from early timepoints in ER analysis significantly reduces the risk of a false-positive, while with fast onset it did not. Randomization of patients to two dose levels greatly reduced the risk, with a threefold or greater dose range offering the greatest benefit. The likelihood of false-positive increases with a larger sample size, where greater care should be taken to identify confounding factors. Clinical trial simulation supports that appropriate clinical study design and analysis with adequate dose exploration can reduce but cannot entirely eliminate the risk of misleading ER findings.

Immunotherapy has improved outcomes in many advanced solid tumors. In resource-constrained settings, less than 2% of patients can afford standard dose immunotherapy. A recent phase II study showed the efficacy of low-dose immunotherapy in this setting. We used low-dose immunotherapy on a compassionate basis in patients who had progressed on available standard treatment options and standard dose immunotherapy was not feasible.

We retrospectively collected data from the medical oncology department for consecutive patients who had initially received standard lines of therapy followed by low-dose immunotherapy (nivolumab 40 mg) on a compassionate basis. The demographic details, histology, prior treatment, clinical and radiological response, date of disease progression, date of death, and toxicity data were collected.

A total of 54 consecutive patients, who received low-dose immunotherapy with nivolumab from January 1, 2018 to February 14, 2020, were included in this analysis; 4 patients were not radiologically evaluable. The median age was 50.4 years (range 35-74 years), male:female ratio was 6:1. The most common comorbidities were hypertension and diabetes seen in 12 (22.2%) and 6 (11.1%) patients, respectively. The majority of the patients (70.4%) were of head and neck cancer. The median follow-up was 4.5 months (range 0.5-11.7). Clinical benefit was observed in 18 (33.3%) patients. Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 9 (16.7%) and 5 (9.3%) patients, respectively. Median survival was not reached for these patients. Six months progression-free survival and overall survival were 100 versus 8.7% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.36; p  = 0.003) and 100 versus 29.7% (HR 0.03, 95% CI: 0.00-0.95; p  = 0.047), respectively, for responders and nonresponders. The side effects were manageable.

In resource-constrained settings, low-dose immunotherapy with nivolumab seems to be an effective treatment option. Further studies are warranted to evaluate this approach.

Available cancer immunotherapies are currently restricted to extracellular targets, while chemotherapy is the only option for intracellular targets, such as mutant KRAS. Antibodies are serum immunoglobulins, each having high binding specificity against particular antigens. Patients produce antibody responses against abnormally expressed self-proteins and neoantigens presented by the cancer cells. However, despite their infiltration into the tumor beds, many times the magnitude of the antitumor antibodies produced by spontaneously infiltrated B lymphocytes remains insufficient to control tumor growth. Recent work has established that dimeric IgA antibodies can target intracellular targets inside cancer cells expressing the polymeric immunoglobulin receptor (pIgR). Here, we thoroughly discuss the entire process of recombinant production of intracellular antigen-specific dimeric IgA antibodies that could be utilized for targeting oncodrivers inside tumor cells.

Up to one-third of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are not responsive to first-line therapy or eventually relapse. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been successfully employed to treat relapsed/refractory cHL (r/r cHL) but place patients at risk of financial toxicity. Early-phase trials and observational data suggest that low doses of ICIs may achieve similar results to those obtained with high doses. In this study, we report a single-center experience using low-dose nivolumab (LD-Nivo) in different combinations for r/r cHL, including monotherapy, LD-Nivo plus brentuximab vedotin (BV), and LD-Nivo plus chemotherapy. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy of LD-nivo in patients with r/r cHL. We included 23 consecutive patients (median age 27 years; 57% female). LD-Nivo was prescribed in 40, 100, and 140 mg fixed doses Q2W. Survival analysis was performed employing the Kaplan-Meier method. 73% of patients achieved an overall response, 43% complete response, and 30% partial response. One-year overall survival was 94.4% (95% CI, 0.84-1), and the 1-year progression-free survival was 89.4% (95% CI, 0.77-1). OS and PFS were similar accross combinations. The median dose of nivolumab was 0.78 mg/kg (range, 0.62-1.11), and the median number of cycles until a response was documented was 6 (range, 2-9). During follow-up, 18 patients received transplantation (11 autologous, 6 allogeneic). No statistically significant differences in survival or response were detected between nivolumab combinations or doses. Adverse events were observed in 61% of the patients, with none grade 3-4. LD-Nivo demonstrated promising results in relapsed/refractory HL, highlighting its potential as a cost-effective treatment option. Further research is needed to validate these findings and guide clinical practice.

Blockade of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint (ICB) is revolutionizing cancer therapy, but little is known about the mechanisms governing its expression on CD8 T cells. Because PD-1 is induced during activation of T cells, we set out to uncover regulators whose inhibition suppresses PD-1 abundance without adversely impacting on T cell activation.

To identify PD-1 regulators in an unbiased fashion, we performed a whole-genome, fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)-based CRISPR-Cas9 screen in primary murine CD8 T cells. A dual-readout design using the activation marker CD137 allowed us to uncouple genes involved in PD-1 regulation from those governing general T cell activation.

We found that the inactivation of one of several members of the TMED/EMP24/GP25L/p24 family of transport proteins, most prominently TMED10, reduced PD-1 cell surface abundance, thereby augmenting T cell activity. Another client protein was cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), which was also suppressed by TMED inactivation. Treatment with TMED inhibitor AGN192403 led to lysosomal degradation of the TMED-PD-1 complex and reduced PD-1 abundance in tumor-infiltrating CD8 T cells (TIL) in mice, thus reversing T cell dysfunction. Clinically corroborating these findings, single-cell RNA analyses revealed a positive correlation between TMED expression in CD8 TIL, and both a T cell dysfunction signature and lack of ICB response. Similarly, patients receiving a TIL product with high TMED expression had a shorter overall survival.

Our results uncover a novel mechanism of PD-1 regulation, and identify a pharmacologically tractable target whose inhibition suppresses PD-1 abundance and T cell dysfunction.

Nivolumab is approved at various doses, including 3 mg/kg, 240 mg and 480 mg flat doses at various dosing intervals. The concept of low-dose immunotherapy is gaining traction in recent years. However, there is a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes at lower doses.

Patients were either administered 40 mg flat dose or 3 mg/kg Q2W/Q3W, depending on affordability as per prevailing hospital practice. All patients were hospitalized on day 1 and pharmacokinetic samples were collected at 0, 0.5, 1.0, 6.0, 24.0, 72.0 h and day 14 following administration of the first dose of nivolumab. Plasma nivolumab levels were measured by ELISA. Patients were followed up for response and toxicity.

Twenty five patients were included in the study. Fourteen received nivolumab at conventional dose (3 mg/kg), while 11 patients received low-dose (40 mg flat). The geometric means of dose normalized Cmax and AUC0-t were comparable between those who received conventional dose and low-dose of nivolumab (0.28 versus 0.23 µg/mL/mg and 0.0014 versus 0.0011 d/mL respectively). Nineteen patients were evaluable for response. ORR among patients who received conventional dose was 5/11 (45.5%) whereas it was 4/9 (44.4%) in the low-dose cohort. All 14 (100%) patients in conventional dosing group and 7/11 patients (63.64%) in low-dose group had treatment emergent adverse events. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were observed in 4/14 patients in conventional dose group and none in low-dose group.

Low-dose nivolumab leads to lower exposure in patients as compared with conventional dose, but low-dose was better tolerated, while response rates were comparable to conventional dose.

Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of different forms of cancer. The subcutaneous formulation of atezolizumab has recently received approval. However, treatment with atezolizumab continues to be expensive, and the number of patients needing treatment with this drug continues to increase.

We propose two alternative dosing regimens for subcutaneous atezolizumab to reduce drug expenses while ensuring effective exposure; one may be directly implemented in the clinic.

We developed two alternative dose interval prolongation strategies based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation. The first dosing regimen was based on patients' weight while maintaining equivalent systemic drug exposure by adhering to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for in silico dose adjustments. The second dosing regimen aimed to have a minimum atezolizumab concentration above the 6 µg/mL threshold, associated with 95% intratumoral PD-L1 receptor saturation for at least 95% of all patients.

We found that, for the weight-based dosing regimen, the approved 3-week dosing interval could be extended to 5 weeks for patients < 50 kg and 4 weeks for patients weighing 50-65 kg. Besides improving patient convenience, these alternative dosing intervals led to a predicted 7% and 12% cost reduction for either the USA or European population. For the second dosing regimen, we predicted that a 6-week dosing interval would result in 95% of the patients above the 6 µg/mL threshold while reducing costs by 50%.

We have developed and evaluated two alternative dosing regimens that resulted in a cost reduction. Our weight-based dosing regimen can be directly implemented and complies with FDA guidelines for alternative dosing regimens of PD-L1 inhibitors. For the more progressive alternative dosing regimen aimed at the intratumoral PD-L1 receptor threshold, further evidence on efficacy and safety is needed before implementation.

Dose optimization is a critical challenge in drug development. Historically, dose determination in oncology has followed a divergent path from other non-oncology therapeutic areas due to the unique characteristics and requirements in Oncology. However, with the emergence of new drug modalities and mechanisms of drugs in oncology, such as immune therapies, radiopharmaceuticals, targeted therapies, cytostatic agents, and others, the dose-response relationship for efficacy and toxicity could be vastly varied compared to the cytotoxic chemotherapies. The doses below the MTD may demonstrate similar efficacy to the MTD with an improved tolerability profile, resembling what is commonly observed in non-oncology treatments. Hence, alternate strategies for dose optimization are required for new modalities in oncology drug development. This paper delves into the historical evolution of dose finding methods from non-oncology to oncology, highlighting examples and summarizing the underlying drivers of change. Subsequently, a practical framework and guidance are provided to illustrate how dose optimization can be incorporated into various stages of the development program. We provide the following general recommendations: 1) The objective for phase I is to identify a dose range rather than a single MTD dose for subsequent development to better characterize the safety and tolerability profile within the dose range. 2) At least two doses separable by PK are recommended for dose optimization in phase II. 3) Ideally, dose optimization should be performed before launching the confirmatory study. Nevertheless, innovative designs such as seamless II/III design can be implemented for dose selection and may accelerate the drug development program.

Standard-dose immune checkpoint inhibitors (SD-ICIs) are the standard of care as initial therapy in microsatellite instable-high (MSI-H) advanced/metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas (mCRC), but there are preclinical data to suggest that low-dose ICIs (LD-ICI) might also have similar efficacy.

A retrospective study of patients with MSI-H mCRC receiving ICIs between June 2017 and January 2023 was conducted. The primary end point of the study was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS), which was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

A total of 65 patients were available for analysis during the study period. Sixty patients (92%) received nivolumab, whereas the remaining received pembrolizumab. First-line ICIs were received by 18 patients (28%), whereas 47 patients (72%) received ICIs during later lines. Thirty patients (47%) received LD-ICIs (all received nivolumab), with the remaining receiving SD-ICIs (53%). At a median follow-up of 16.5 (95% CI, 11.8 to 21.2) months, median PFS was not reached in the entire cohort. The 12-month PFS rate in the LD-ICI cohort was 90%, whereas it was 75.8% in the SD-ICI cohort. There were no statistical differences in patients receiving ICIs as first-line therapy (12 months PFS-94.4%) or during later lines of therapy (12-month PFS-77.9%; P = .56).

ICIs in the current study show survivals which are similar to those seen in seminal trials in patients with MSI-H mCRC. Low-dose ICIs appear to work in MSI-H mCRC and should be explored prospectively in clinical trials. Patients with MSI-H status should be exposed to ICIs, whether initially or later during treatment, whenever feasible.

Real-world safety outcomes between the two flat-dose nivolumab regimens demonstrated to be similar in a study of adjuvant nivolumab recipients for melanoma. However, this study was limited by a single oncology patient population, a small sample size, and insufficient study power. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) between nivolumab regimens with differing dosing patterns in various solid tumor patient populations.

Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients with solid tumor malignancies who received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W, or who were transitioned from 240 mg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W from March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2022 were selected for analysis from an electronic health record generated report. The primary endpoint evaluated was the incidence of irAEs. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of significant irAEs and reasons for treatment discontinuation. These endpoints were compared by univariate analysis between all three cohorts. A multivariate analysis was then conducted for the primary endpoint.

Nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of colitis whereas the 480 mg Q4W regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of pruritis. The incidence of irAEs was not different between the three cohorts, while the incidence of significant irAEs was higher in the 240 mg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W cohorts.

Clinicians ought to be aware of differences in the irAE profiles between nivolumab regimens with differing dosing patterns.

Traditional approaches in dose-finding trials, such as the continual reassessment method, focus on identifying the maximum tolerated dose. In contemporary early-phase dose-finding trials, especially in oncology with targeted agents or immunotherapy, a more relevant aim is to identify the lowest dose level that maximises efficacy whilst remaining tolerable. Backfilling, defined as the practice of assigning patients to dose levels lower than the current highest tolerated dose, has been proposed to gather additional pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and biomarker data to recommend the most appropriate dose to carry forward for subsequent studies. The first formal framework [5] for backfilling proposed randomising backfill patients with equal probability among those doses below the dose level where the study is currently at. Here, we propose to use Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation to backfill patients. This patient-oriented approach to backfilling aims to allocate more patients to dose levels in the backfill set with higher expected efficacy based on emerging data. The backfill set constitutes of the doses below the dose the dose-finding algorithm is at. At study completion, collective patient data inform the dose-response curve, suggesting an optimal dose level balancing toxicity and efficacy. Our simulation study across diverse clinical trial settings demonstrates that a backfilling strategy using Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation can result in a patient-oriented patient assignment procedure which simultaneously enhances the likelihood of correctly identifying the most appropriate dose level. This contribution offers a methodological framework and practical implementation for patient-oriented backfilling, encompassing design and analysis considerations in early-phase trials.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus with the aim of shifting the paradigm of dose-finding and selection toward identifying the optimal biological dose that offers the best balance between benefit and risk, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, achieving dose optimization is a challenging task that involves a variety of factors and is considerably more complicated than identifying the maximum tolerated dose, both in terms of design and implementation. This article provides a comprehensive review of various design strategies for dose-optimization trials, including phase 1/2 and 2/3 designs, and highlights their respective advantages and disadvantages. In addition, practical considerations for selecting an appropriate design and planning and executing the trial are discussed. The article also presents freely available software tools that can be utilized for designing and implementing dose-optimization trials. The approaches and their implementation are illustrated through real-world examples.

Reducing nivolumab dose intensity could increase patients' life quality and decrease the financial burden while maintaining efficacy. The aims of this study were to develop a population PK model of nivolumab based on data from unselected metastatic cancer patients and to simulate extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain minimal effective plasma concentrations (MEPC).

Concentration-time data (992 plasma nivolumab concentrations, 364 patients) were modeled using a two-compartment model with linear elimination clearance in Monolix software. Extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain steady-state trough concentrations (Cmin,ss) above the MEPC of 2.5 mg/L or 1.5 mg/L in >90% of patients were simulated.

Increasing 3-times the dosing interval from 240 mg every two weeks (Q2W) to Q6W and 2-times from 480 mg Q4W to Q8W resulted in Cmin,ss above 2.5 mg/L in 95.8% and 95.4% of patients, respectively. 240 mg Q8W and 480 mg Q10W resulted in Cmin,ss above 1.5 mg/L in 91.0% and 91.8% of patients, respectively. Selection of a 240 mg Q6W regimen would decrease by 3-fold the annual treatment costs compared to standard regimen of 240 mg Q2W (from 78,744€ to 26,248€ in France).

Clinical trials are warranted to confirm the non-inferiority of extended-interval compared to standard regimen.

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the cancer treatment landscape. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved overall survival in 20-40% of patients with malignancies that were previously refractory. Due to the uniqueness in biology, modalities and patient responses, drug development strategies for IO differed from that traditionally used for cytotoxic and target therapies in oncology, and quantitative pharmacology utilizing modeling approach can be applied in all phases of the development process. In this review, we used case studies to showcase how various modeling methodologies were applied from translational science and dose selection through to label change, using examples that included anti-programmed-death-1 (anti-PD-1), anti-programmed-death ligand-1 (anti-PD-L1), anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), and anti-glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related protein (anti-GITR) antibodies. How these approaches were utilized to support phase I-III dose selection, the design of phase III trials, and regulatory decisions on label change are discussed to illustrate development strategies. Model-based quantitative approaches have positively impacted IO drug development, and a better understanding of the biology and exposure-response relationship may benefit the development and optimization of new IO therapies.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eighth most common cancer worldwide. In view of biology and anatomical restrictions, multimodality treatment strategies have been developed for EC. However, the prognosis of patients with advanced EC remains especially poor. Immunotherapy, such as PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4/B7 blockade, has emerged as a potent treatment for many types of cancer and has been approved in many countries. Based on the results of the ATTRACTION-3 trial, nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved by the US FDA for patients with platinum-resistant, unresectable, recurrent or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The CheckMate 648 trial demonstrated that the combination of nivolumab with platinum-based fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy and combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with doublet chemotherapy. This review focuses on nivolumab-containing treatments for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated improved survival benefits over standard of care for multiple cancer indications. We present the clinical rationale and data supporting tislelizumab dose recommendation in patients with advanced tumors. The phase I, first-in-human, dose-finding BGB-A317-001 study (data cutoff [DCO]: August 2017) examined the following tislelizumab dosing regimens: 0.5-10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w), 2-5 mg/kg q2w or q3w, and 200 mg q3w. Similar objective response rates (ORRs) were reported in the 2 and 5 mg/kg q2w or q3w cohorts. Safety outcomes (grade ≥3 adverse events [AEs], AEs leading to dose modification/discontinuation, immune-mediated AEs, and infusion-related reactions) were generally comparable across the dosing range examined. These results, alongside the convenience of a fixed q3w dose, formed the basis of choosing 200 mg q3w as the recommended dosing regimen for further clinical use. Pooled exposure-response (E-R) analyses by logistic regression using data from study BGB-A317-001 (DCO: August 2020) and three additional phase I/II studies (DCOs: 2018-2020) showed no statistically significant correlation between tislelizumab pharmacokinetic exposure and ORR across multiple solid tumor types or classical Hodgkin's lymphoma, nor was exposure associated with any of the safety end points evaluated over the dose range tested. Hence, tislelizumab showed a relatively flat E-R relationship. Overall, the totality of data, including efficacy, safety, and E-R analyses, together with the relative convenience of a fixed q3w dose, provided clinical rationale for the recommended dosing regimen of tislelizumab 200 mg q3w for multiple cancer indications.

Body size has historically been considered the primary source of difference in the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) between children aged greater than or equal to 2 years and adults. The contribution of age-associated differences (e.g., ontogeny) beyond body-size differences in the pediatric PKs of mAbs has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, the population PK of two mAbs (nivolumab and ipilimumab) in pediatric oncology patients were characterized. The effects of age-related covariates on nivolumab or ipilimumab PKs were assessed using data from 13 and 10 clinical studies, respectively, across multiple tumor types, including melanoma, lymphoma, central nervous system tumors (CNSTs), and other solid tumors. Clearance was lower in pediatric patients (aged 1-17 years) with solid tumors or CNST than in adults after adjusting for other covariates, including the effect of body size. In contrast, clearance was similar in pediatric patients with lymphoma to that in adults with lymphoma. The pediatric effects characterized have increased the accuracy of the predictions of the model, facilitating its use in subsequent exposure comparisons between pediatric and adult patients, as well as for exposure-response analyses to inform pediatric dosing. This study approach may be applicable to the optimization of pediatric dosing of other mAbs and possibly other biologics.

Chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1) is a secreted glycoprotein that mediates inflammation, macrophage polarization, apoptosis, and carcinogenesis. The expression of CHI3L1 is strongly upregulated by various inflammatory and immunological diseases, including several cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and atherosclerosis. Several studies have shown that CHI3L1 can be considered as a marker of disease diagnosis, prognosis, disease activity, and severity. In addition, the proinflammatory action of CHI3L1 may be mediated via responses to various proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, and interferon-γ. Therefore, CHI3L1 may contribute to a vast array of inflammatory diseases. However, its pathophysiological and pharmacological roles in the development of inflammatory diseases remain unclear. In this article, we review recent findings regarding the roles of CHI3L1 in the development of inflammatory diseases and suggest therapeutic approaches that target CHI3L1.

Exposure-response (ER) analysis is used to optimize dose and dose regimens during clinical development. Characterization of relationships between drug exposure and efficacy or safety outcomes can be utilized to make dose adjustments that improve patient response. Therapeutic antibodies typically show predictable pharmacokinetics (PK) but can exhibit clearance that decreases over time due to treatment. Moreover, time-dependent changes in clearance are frequently associated with drug response, with larger decreases in clearance and increased exposure seen in patients who respond to treatment. This often confounds traditional ER analysis, as drug response influences exposure rather than the reverse. In this review, we survey published population PK analyses for reported time-dependent drug clearance effects across 158 therapeutic antibodies approved or in regulatory review. We describe the mechanisms by which time-dependent clearance can arise, and evaluate trends in frequency, magnitude, and time scale of changes in clearance with respect to indication, mechanistic interpretation of time-dependence, and PK modeling techniques employed. We discuss the modeling and simulation strategies commonly used to characterize time-dependent clearance, and examples where time-dependent clearance has impeded ER analysis. A case study using population model simulation was explored to interrogate the impact of time-dependent clearance on ER analysis and how it can lead to spurious conclusions. Overall, time-dependent clearance arises frequently among therapeutic antibodies and has spurred erroneous conclusions in ER analysis. Appropriate PK modeling techniques aid in identifying and characterizing temporal shifts in exposure that may impede accurate ER assessment and successful dose optimization.

Sabatolimab is a novel immunotherapy with immuno-myeloid activity that targets T-cell immunoglobulin domain and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3) on immune cells and leukemic blasts. It is being evaluated for the treatment of myeloid malignancies in the STIMULUS clinical trial program. The objective of this analysis was to support the sabatolimab dose-regimen selection in hematologic malignancies. A population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model was fit to patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, which included acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome (including intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk per Revised International Prognostic Scoring System), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. The PopPK model, together with a predictive model of sabatolimab distribution to the bone marrow and binding to TIM-3 was used to predict membrane-bound TIM-3 bone marrow occupancy. In addition, the total soluble TIM-3 (sTIM-3) kinetics and the pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure-response relationship in patients with hematologic malignancies were examined. At intravenous doses above 240 mg Q2w and 800 mg Q4w, we observed linear PK, a plateau in the accumulation of total sTIM-3, and a flat exposure-response relationship for both safety and efficacy. In addition, the model predicted membrane-bound TIM-3 occupancy in the bone marrow was above 95% in over 95% of patients. Therefore, these results support the selection of the 400 mg Q2w and 800 mg Q4w dosing regimens for the STIMULUS clinical trial program.

Dose-response analysis is often applied to the quantification of drug-effect especially for slowly responding disease end points where a comparison is made across dose levels after a particular period of treatment. It has long been recognized that exposure - response is more appropriate than dose-response. However, trials necessarily are designed as dose-response experiments. Second, a wide range of functional forms are used to express relationships between dose and response. These considerations are also important for clinical development because pharmacokinetic (PK; and variability) plus pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling may allow one to anticipate the shape of the dose-response curve and so the trial design. Here, we describe how the location and steepness of the dose response is determined by the PKs of the compound being tested and its exposure-response relationship in terms of potency (location), efficacy (maximum effect) and Hill coefficient (steepness). Thus, the location (50% effective dose [ED50 ]) is dependent not only on the potency (half-maximal effective concentration) but also the compound's PKs. Similarly, the steepness of the dose response is shown to be a function of the half-life of the drug. It is also shown that the shape of relationship varies dependent on the assumed time course of the disease. This is important in the context of drug-discovery where the in vivo potencies of compounds are compared as well as when considering an analysis of summary data (for example, model-based meta-analysis) for clinical decision making.

The introduction of T-cell targeted immunomodulators blocking the PD-1 and PD-L1 axis is unquestionably one of the most notable advancements in the treatment of advanced or metastatic solid malignancies, including bladder cancer. Immune checkpoint antibodies are now widely utilized as monotherapies or in combination with other systemic therapies in the first or subsequent lines of treatment in approximately 50 cancer types. Deep and durable responses and long tails of survival curves are hallmarks of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, treatment can have negative impacts, including serious treatment-related side effects as well as a high financial burden to individual patients and the healthcare system. There is increasing data that the benefit of immune checkpoint treatment may persist after treatment is discontinued for reasons other than progressive disease, particularly in patients who have achieved a durable complete response. However, the optimal treatment duration and activity after treatment reinitiation remains undefined and will likely be influenced by disease biology (histology and genomics), treatment (monotherapy or combination therapy), and disease context (depth and duration of response). Well-designed prospective clinical trials and the development and validation of biomarkers that predict outcomes after treatment cessation are needed to move the field forward.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have transformed the treatment landscape for hematological malignancies. However, CAR T cells are less efficient against solid tumors, largely due to poor infiltration resulting from the immunosuppressive nature of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Here, we assessed the efficacy of Lewis Y antigen (LeY)-specific CAR T cells in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models of prostate cancer. In vitro, LeY CAR T cells directly killed organoids derived from androgen receptor (AR)-positive or AR-null PDXs. In vivo, although LeY CAR T cells alone did not reduce tumor growth, a single prior dose of carboplatin reduced tumor burden. Carboplatin had a pro-inflammatory effect on the TME that facilitated early and durable CAR T cell infiltration, including an altered cancer-associated fibroblast phenotype, enhanced extracellular matrix degradation and re-oriented M1 macrophage differentiation. In a PDX less sensitive to carboplatin, CAR T cell infiltration was dampened; however, a reduction in tumor burden was still observed with increased T cell activation. These findings indicate that carboplatin improves the efficacy of CAR T cell treatment, with the extent of the response dependent on changes induced within the TME.

This analysis was conducted to inform dose selection of a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the treatment of sorafenib-experienced patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CheckMate 040 is an open-label, multicohort, phase I/II trial in adults with advanced HCC that evaluated nivolumab monotherapy (0.1-10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks [q2w]) and the following three combinations of nivolumab plus ipilimumab: (1) nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w (arm A); (2) nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg q3w for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w (arm B); and (3) nivolumab 3 mg/kg q2w plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks continuously (arm C). Exposure-response relationships (efficacy and safety) were characterized using nivolumab and ipilimumab concentrations after the first dose (Cavg1) as the exposure measure. Objective tumor response (OTR) and overall survival (OS) improvements were associated with increased ipilimumab exposure (OTR: odds ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.86; OS: hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98), but not nivolumab exposure (OTR: odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02; OS: hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32). Hepatic treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events were more common in arm A than in arms B or C. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w for four doses, followed by nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg q2w had the most favorable benefit:risk profile in patients with advanced HCC.

As a new means of oncology treatment, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can improve survival rates in patients with resistant or refractory tumors. However, there are obvious inter-individual differences in the unsatisfactory response rate, drug resistance rate and the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAE). These questions have sparked interest in researchers looking for a way to screen sensitive populations and predict efficacy and safety. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a way to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medication by measuring the concentration of drugs in body fluids and adjusting the medication regimen. It has the potential to be an adjunctive means of predicting the safety and efficacy of ICIs treatment. In this review, the author outlined the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of ICIs in patients. The feasibility and limitations of TDM of ICIs were discussed by summarizing the relationships between the pharmacokinetic parameters and the efficacy, toxicity and biomarkers.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, a class of drugs used in approximately forty unique cancer indications, are a sizable component of the economic burden of cancer care in the US. Instead of personalized weight-based dosing, immune checkpoint inhibitors are most commonly administered at "one-size-fits-all" flat doses that are higher than necessary for the vast majority of patients. We hypothesized that personalized weight-based dosing along with common stewardship efforts at the pharmacy level, such as dose rounding and vial sharing, would lead to reductions in immune checkpoint inhibitor use and lower spending. Using data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare drug prices, we estimated reductions in immune checkpoint inhibitor use and spending that would be associated with pharmacy-level stewardship strategies, in a case-control simulation study of individual patient-level immune checkpoint inhibitor administration events. We identified baseline annual VHA spending for these drugs of approximately $537 million. Combining weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing would generate expected annual VHA health system savings of $74 million (13.7 percent). We conclude that adoption of pharmacologically justified immune checkpoint inhibitor stewardship measures would generate sizable reductions in spending for these drugs. Combining these operational innovations with value-based drug price negotiation enabled by recent policy changes may improve the long-term financial viability of cancer care in the US.

Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide.

We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses.

We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development.

We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure.

Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice.