BRAIN CANCER

HER2 Breast Cancer

BREAST CANCER

Bladder Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Renal Cell Carcinoma

GENITOURINARY CANCERS

Liquid Biopsies

GENOMIC TESTING

Colorectal Cancer

GIST

Gastric Cancer

GI CANCERS

Cervical Cancer

Endometrial Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

GYNECOLOGIC CANCERS

HEAD & NECK CANCERS

Bone Marrow & Stem Cell Transplant

HEMATOLOGY

CAR T-Cell Therapy

IMMUNOTHERAPY

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

LEUKEMIAS

Biomarker-Driven Lung Cancer

EGFR+ Lung Cancer

MET-Targeted Therapy

Small Cell Lung Cancer

LUNG CANCER

DLBCL

Follicular Lymphoma

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

LYMPHOMAS

MPNs

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

NTRK GENE FUSIONS

SARCOMA

Melanoma

SKIN CANCERS

THYROID CANCERS

NEWS

Special Reports

All News

FDA Briefs

Oncology Icons

The Targeted Pulse

Voices from the Field

CONFERENCES

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Data Dialogue with the Oncology Brothers

MEDIA

All Videos

Case-Based Peer Perspectives

Evolving Paradigms in Oncology

Expert Perspective Virtual Tumor Board

Interviews

Investigator Perspectives

Medical World News

Personalized Medicine

Pivotal Practice Views with the Oncology Brothers

Podcasts

Speaking Out

PUBLICATIONS

All Publications

Evolving Paradigms

Peers & Perspectives in Oncology

Targeted Therapies in Oncology

CASE-BASED ROUNDTABLE

PARTNERS

RESOURCES

CME/CE

Clinical Trials

Events

Precision Medicine Perspectives

Press Releases

Treatment Resources

SUBSCRIBE

Targeted Oncology connects oncology professionals with updates on immunotherapy, biomarkers, cancer pathways, and targeted precision medicine strategies.

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

CureToday.com

CancerNetwork.com

OncLive.com

OncNursingNews.com

Do Not Sell My Information

Privacy

Terms & Conditions

Editorial Board

Targeted Oncology - Immunotherapy, Biomarkers, and Cancer Pathways

Facebook

Linkedin

YouTube

Instagram

Featured Clinical Focus

BTK Inhibitors: In-Focus

Bone Marrow & SCT

EGFR-Positive Lung Cancer

Lung Cancer

Multiple Myeloma

Thyroid Cancers

Clinical Focus

Brain Cancer

Breast Cancer

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Genitourinary Cancers

Gynecologic Cancers

Head & Neck Cancers

Hematology

Leukemias

Lymphomas

Sarcoma

Skin Cancers

Spotlight

1rem

Authors

Anthony Mato, MD, MSCE, discusses an observational registry study of real-world prognostic biomarker testing, treatment patterns and treatment dosing in a pool of 1461 patients with either chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Limited Following of Best Practices for CLL Observed in the Real-World Setting

One year since the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) 

voted in favor of using minimal residual disease

 (MRD) as an end point to support accelerated approval of drugs, changes are taking place in ongoing clinical trials and cancer research.

The groundbreaking decision led to new trials designed with MRD end points from the start and amendments to existing trial protocols that will enable these trials to report results and submit to the FDA for approval much more quickly.

“If the study is successful in showing higher rates of MRD negativity for a new therapy, that treatment could be approved based on accelerated approval, so patients can get access to new drugs 10 years sooner than just waiting for the clinical outcome. That's a huge step forward for the field and for all the patients,” 

Landgren, professor of medicine and chief of the myeloma division and the Myeloma Institute at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, led the research efforts to support the use of MRD for over a decade.

Additionally, in the past year, the ODAC vote sparked new interest for using MRD more actively in other disease types and improving MRD assays for patients.

MRD serves as a surrogate for clinical outcomes and can be assessed much more rapidly than progression-free survival (PFS). Investigators in ongoing trials have amended their protocols to use both MRD negativity and PFS as coprimary end points for accelerated approval. Investigational therapies that could be evaluated based on MRD include cell therapies, T-cell engagers, antibody-drug conjugates, and small molecule compounds.

“We have also seen that all the companies that have ongoing trials that used to have only PFS as the primary end point have…negotiated with the FDA to revise or amend their protocols to also include MRD as a coprimary end point,” said Landgren. “Everything is ongoing has been updated, and all the new trials have been including [MRD].”

Landgren and other researchers have also presented data to the European Medicines Agency. He said it may take longer for other regulatory agencies to review the data and authorize MRD as an approval end point.

Additionally, researchers in other disease types such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and lymphoma have expressed interest in following the same path, though they will need to collect the data to support it.

Landgren and Sean M. Devlin, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, published a review in 

 outlining the long process of developing supporting evidence, which led to the acceptance of MRD by the FDA.

 Two research groups, one from the National Cancer Institute and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the a second made up of other researchers, developed studies that provided evidence for the use of MRD.

The review noted the utility of overall response rate [ORR] as a meaningful end point in myeloma has decreased as current standard therapies are showing high ORRs comparable to investigational agents with superior PFS. Evaluating MRD during trials provides an alternative that can still yield results more rapidly than mature PFS. MRD at 10

 sensitivity—detecting 1 malignant cell in 100,000 cells—is supported by the FDA as the minimum threshold for MRD analysis, with 10

 sensitivity also being evaluated in trials.

They provided a set of meta-analyses showing MRD negativity was associated with superior PFS and OS outcomes and described their methodology for making meta-analyses to establish it as a surrogate end point for PFS or OS using both trial-level data and patient-level data. Collecting individual patient data was necessary to demonstrate the association between MRD and long-term outcomes was established regardless of patient population, disease setting, or treatment history. This required researchers to gather individual patient data from industry-sponsored trials.

To emphasize the impact of using MRD vs PFS for approval, Landgren and Devlin showed a trial in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with a comparator arm that had an 84% 4-year PFS rate would require 11.5 years to read out a significant PFS difference with an HR of 0.7, as opposed to only 3.7 years to show a difference in MRD negativity.

There are more avenues to develop MRD in myeloma in the future. Landgren said there have been improvements in the use of bone marrow–based MRD assays as well as the development of blood-based assays and imaging-based technologies that could change how trials are performed.

Additionally, using MRD status to guide further treatment is another approach yielding results. The phase 3 ADVANCE trial (NCT04268498) is investigating the addition of daratumumab (Darzalex) to KRd (carfilzomib [Kyprolis], lenalidomide [Revlimid], and dexamethasone) in NDMM. Patients could receive autologous stem cell transplant if they were MRD-positive and otherwise go directly to maintenance therapy. This trial’s outcomes will be presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and European Hematology Association Congress.

Read the full interview with Dr Landgren on the changes taking place in myeloma research.

1. Cancer research in the wake of a key FDA decision on minimal residual disease. University of Miami. April 10, 2025. Accessed May 13, 2025. 

2. Landgren O, Devlin SM. Minimal residual disease as an early endpoint for accelerated drug approval in myeloma: a roadmap. 

. 2025;6(1):13-22. doi:10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-24-0292

In the last year, there has been excitement about the use of MRD in multiple myeloma trials and new approaches to assessing clinical outcomes in patients. 

Clinical

One Year After ODAC Decision: Myeloma Studies Move to Adopt MRD End Point

ASH 2024 Preview for Community Oncologists: The Show and After Show

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition aims to educate oncology providers across an array of hematologic malignancies, with a focus on novel agents, drugs across the FDA pipeline, and more.

, co-hosts Kristie L. Kahl and Andrew Svonavec offer a glimpse at some of the presentations guaranteed to spark one’s curiosity, spur debate, and enhance the field even further. Some key highlights include:

 Continued advancements in CAR T-cell therapy are expected to revolutionize the treatment of hematologic malignancies.

 Bispecific antibodies, such as Epcoritamab (Epkinly), offer a novel approach to target multiple antigens on cancer cells.

 The assessment of MRD is becoming increasingly important in predicting treatment response and overall survival.

Advances in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blinatumomab (Blincyto) in pediatric ALL:

 The addition of blinatumomab to chemotherapy has shown promise in improving disease-free survival in high-risk pediatric ALL. This combination therapy may offer a more effective treatment option for young patients.

Acalabrutinib (Calquence) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL):

 The FDA is set to review the approval of acalabrutinib with bendamustine or rituximab (Rituxan) for previously untreated MCL, based on data from the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840).

Asciminib (Scemblix) in chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML-CP):

 The FDA recently granted accelerated approval to asciminib for newly diagnosed CML-CP. This tyrosine kinase inhibitor has shown favorable safety and tolerability profiles.

 isn't just about data, as the duo also offers food recommendations, tourist attractions and fun activities to partake in, as well as interesting facts about San Diego.

This is just a taste of the wealth of information and inspiration waiting at the 2024 ASH Annual Meeting. Check back for future meeting previews with 

Targeted Oncology co-hosts Kristie L. Kahl and Andrew Svonavec highlight abstracts for community oncologists to look out for at the upcoming ASH Annual Meeting in San Diego, with some additional tidbits to round out the main event.

News

The biologics license application (BLA) of the subcutaneous formulation of nivolumab (Opdivo) coformulated with human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) has been accepted by the FDA.

Findings from the CheckMate -67T (NCT04810078) support this BLA of subcutaneous nivolumab as the trial met its coprimary pharmacokinetic end points and key secondary end point of overall response rate (ORR) vs intravenous (IV) nivolumab in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

The FDA has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date for December 29, 2024.

The FDA has accepted the BLA of the subcutaneous formulation of nivolumab coformulated with rHuPH20, also known as subcutaneous nivolumab, for all previously approved adult solid tumor indications of nivolumab as a monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance following completion of the combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or in combination with chemotherapy or cabozantinib (Cabometyx).

Results from the phase 3 CheckMate -67T trial of subcutaneous nivolumab support this application. In the trial, experts sought to evaluate subcutaneous nivolumab vs its intravenous (IV) formulation.

 Here, the subcutaneous form demonstrated noninferior pharmacokinetics and efficacy, as well as consistent safety compared with the IV formulation of nivolumab among patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have received prior systemic therapy.

A PDUFA goal date has been set for December 29, 2024. With this, subcutaneous nivolumab shows promise to become the first and only subcutaneously administered PD-1 inhibitor.

“We believe subcutaneous nivolumab has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients, which is reinforced by the FDA’s acceptance of our application,” said Gina Fusaro, PhD, vice president, global program lead, Bristol Myers Squibb, in a press release.

“[Nivolumab] is a foundational PD-1 inhibitor approved for many different types of cancer, and our continued investment in research that puts patients first remains a priority. If approved by the FDA, the subcutaneous administration of nivolumab would provide patients and their physicians with a new option that delivers the same well-known benefits as IV [nivolumab] but with the improved convenience of an injection administered in 3 to 5 minutes rather than a 30- to 60-minute infusion,” Fusaro continued.

The phase 3, randomized, open-label CheckMate -67T trial is exploring subcutaneous administration of nivolumab coformulated with rHuPH20 vs IV nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC who were previously treated with systemic therapy.

In the study, 495 patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab or IV nivolumab. Enrollment was open to patients with a histological confirmation of ccRCC, advanced RCC not amenable to curative or radiation therapy, metastatic RCC, those who received no more than 2 prior systemic therapies, those with intolerance or progression after last treatment regimen within 6 months of randomization, and those with a Karnofsky performance score ≥ 70 at screening.

Experts assessed the coprimary end points of time-averaged serum concentration over 28 days and trough serum concentration at steady-state of subcutaneous nivolumab vs IV nivolumab. A key secondary end point of the trial was ORR.

The study met its coprimary pharmacokinetic end points and key secondary end point of ORR with subcutaneous nivolumab in this patient population.

 Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior in regard to time-averaged nivolumab serum concentration over 28 days and steady-state trough serum concentration vs treatment with IV nivolumab. Additionally, subcutaneous nivolumab also demonstrated a noninferior ORR compared with IV nivolumab.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts Bristol Myers Squibb’s application for subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluronidase). News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. May 6, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

2. Phase 3 Check-Mate -67T trial of subcutaneous nivolumab (nivolumab and hyaluranisade) meets co-primary end points in advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. News release. Bristol Myers Squibb. October 19, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

3. A study of subcutaneous nivolumab versus intravenous nivolumab in participants with previously treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma that is advanced or has spread (CheckMate-67T). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated October 12, 2023. Accessed May 6, 2024. 

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04810078

The FDA is considering a subcutaneous nivolumab formulation for various solid tumors based on promising data from the phase 3 CheckMate -67T trial. A target action date has been set for December 29, 2024.

FDA Accepts BLA for Subcutaneous Nivolumab Across Various Solid Tumors

A 71-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician with rib pain after a fall and reported increasing shortness of breath and fatigue. She had no history of smoking. Imaging showed a right hilar mass, rib metastases, and adrenal metastases, but a brain MRI was negative for brain metastases. She had an ECOG performance score of 1 and was diagnosed with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma.

Molecular testing of lymph node tissue showed a 

 exon 14 skipping alteration. We have a lot of options but unfortunately not a lot of guidance in terms of sequencing. So what would you do next? Capmatinib [Tabrecta], or tepotinib [Tepmetko], or crizotinib [Xalkori] are the 3 available type 1 

 inhibitors; chemotherapy would be chemoimmunotherapy; an immune checkpoint inhibitor alone; or other, which we can assume is a clinical trial.

 The first in market, capmatinib, captured the largest share of the poll. That’s very interesting. Tepotinib has 2 votes and crizotinib has 2 votes, and none would use chemotherapy. Who would use the immune checkpoint inhibitor? It’s not wrong, but I’d just be just curious what the thought process was. Is it the label, is it that it’s not exclusive, like we had seen with the EGFR and other inhibitors?

 I voted for that because I didn’t know the other agents that well.

 That’s why we’re here, so that’s a good thing. Aside from a [billable] standpoint, MET, unlike EGFR and ALK [inhibitors]—there’s nothing that speaks against immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting, with or without chemotherapy. Looking at the guidelines, I think we had a pretty good distribution between the targeted inhibitors and the checkpoint inhibitor. Who voted for the crizotinib? Did you care to comment? Is it a sequencing approach, where you do crizotinib first and use one of the newer MET inhibitors second?

 Well, I voted for crizotinib, and the reason is that I’m familiar with the drug, and I’ve used it in other patients with other mutations. These patients that we’re discussing here are so uncommon that I’m not as familiar with the other agents as maybe I should be.

 Familiarity with the drug is certainly a big factor for treatment. Crizotinib has multiple approvals in the settings of 

 Exactly, so that probably drove my decision to use crizotinib.

 That sounds very reasonable. Any thoughts on capmatinib vs tepotinib?

 I chose capmatinib, like most of the people in the group, because based on the phase 2 trial, the first line and second line, the response rate of the first line was pretty high compared with a chemoimmunotherapy, if you take any trial of a chemoimmunotherapy. Based on that, and also [considering that] the PFS was higher, too, I chose capmatinib. Tepotinib could be a choice; I didn’t choose it because while there’s no [direct] comparison, I think tepotinib has a lower response rate numerically, whether the patient received prior chemotherapy or not, compared with capmatinib—a higher response rate in treatment-naive patients, around 70%. So that’s why I chose capmatinib.

 We’re fortunate to have, in a relatively small space, 3 approved agents for the mutation, 2 being highly selective with good response rates, and a very similar safety profile. There are some differences in terms of dosing and convenience, but from a performance standpoint, I think we have 2 very good choices.

 exon 14 skipping mutation discovered before first-line therapy, the 2 preferred agents [by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network] are capmatinib or tepotinib; crizotinib is an additional option.

 Then, basically in acknowledgment of the guidelines and the FDA labels, also the standard non-driver mutation regimens can be utilized in the first-line setting, with a recommendation upon progression to move back into one of the MET inhibitors. If you discovered the 

At a live virtual event, Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, discusses treatment options for a patient with non–small cell lung cancer when molecular testing shows a MET exon 14 skipping mutation. 

Anthony Mato, MD, MSCE

Articles

Latest Updated Articles