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

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 provides news, videos, and reviews on the rapidly evolving world of targeted therapies and immunotherapy for oncologists treating patients in a community setting.

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

Nicolas Gazeau, MS, discusses next steps and unmet needs following a positive retrospective study of anakinra for the management of neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome in patients who received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Unmet Needs for Managing CRS and ICANS Due to CAR T-Cell Therapy

Nicolas Gazeau discusses a retrospective study of anakinra for the management of neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome in patients who have received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Anakinra Manages ICANS/CRS Toxicity Induced by CAR T-Cell Therapy

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.

Clinical

FDA Accepts BLA for Subcutaneous Nivolumab Across Various Solid Tumors

Peers & Perspectives in Oncology: What are the NCCN recommendations for frontline testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)?

The guidelines for nonsquamous NSCLC in this era strongly recommend that you do biomarker testing for genomic biomarkers prior to administering immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

 [There are at least 9] known targetable drivers that we have. For most of us, the way to get at these 9 targets is through broad-based panel next-generation sequencing and some commercial companies: Caris, Tempus, and others are doing whole-exome sequencing, so you end up with much more data than that. Historically, we were doing DNA-based testing that is not as sensitive and specific for fusions, so a lot of the commercial assays now include RNA, and that is going to be a better assay for fusion testing that tends to be done universally for tissue-based assays but is more variable for blood-based assays, including some of the rapid assays. Just know what your test will or won’t be detecting. We are now doing concurrent tissue and plasma.

We at [The University of Texas] MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston] have in-house panels, but our in-house blood panel is essentially the old Guardant panel and our tissue panels are a variant of the FoundationOne panel. But Tempus and Caris are very attractive these days because they do whole-exome [sequencing], they do whole transcriptome, and all those data are sitting there. Even if there’s a biomarker that becomes available in 2 years, they can look back. I think they’re pushing the forefront a little bit there. 

[In] patients with metastatic lung cancer who have a targetable driver oncogene, for most of these targets, the standard of care should be the targeted therapy, not immunotherapy [IO]. There are some nuances to this. KRAS [inhibitors] are approved in the second line, and BRAF is provider specific whether you start with your immunotherapy and then go to your BRAF inhibitors vs the other way around. We’re looking at some retrospective data to see what the outcomes are, and in that first look retrospectively, it looks like if you start with the IO and then move to the targeted therapy, they may do better, but guidelines are flexible for those. But for 

, very clear standard of care should be to start with the targeted therapy for those because IO doesn’t work that well. There’s always the concern that you’ll have a higher rate of toxicity if you go from IO to the targeted therapy compared with the other way around.

Are liquid biopsies reliable for measuring tumor mutational burden (TMB) if there is insufficient tissue for biopsy?

They’re comparable. If you look at some of the correlation plots, there’s a nice linear correlation, but it just depends on your cutoff. You’re going to have some patients who fall [on] either side, particularly if you have a blood-based assay that includes germline sequencing that’s probably going to be better than one that does not. Some of the germline correction still leads to an overcall on your TMB. But if you have a very high TMB on blood [testing results], you can count that. If you have a very low TMB on blood [testing results] but your tumor shed is reasonable, you can count [on the fact] that the patients who are in the middle are probably not going to be great immunotherapy responders anyway, because they’re in that middle of the TMB [range]. That tells you what you need to know.

All patients with metastatic lung cancer should have 

 The most important exons are 18 through 21. Those are going to be the regions of the protein that lead to activating change. All patients should get these. Our most common activating 

mutations are exon 19 deletion and [exon 21] L858R. There’s a lot of nuance, particularly with the exon 19 deletions. There’s a lot of work being done to characterize how some of these more complicated insertions and deletions affect the binding of the drugs to the target. There are some good papers to look at that. If I see a noncanonical exon 19 deletion, I have started to look up those papers and see how the osimertinib binding changes. I’m putting a marker on that; that’s coming in the future. But for now, these are the buckets that we think about for 

We’ve been talking about barriers to biomarker testing in the lung cancer field for the past 5 to 10 years. Despite all the progress, a lot of these issues still apply. 

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer studied this a couple of years ago and put together a report highlighting some broad categories where there can be barriers, including timing, lack of awareness, access, quality, and cost.

Could you summarize the outcomes of the key trials in 

The FLAURA trial [NCT02296125] is osimertinib [Tagrisso] vs first-generation [EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)]. Osimertinib [was also the comparator arm] for FLAURA2 [NCT04035486] and for MARIPOSA [NCT04487080].

Across all these contexts, the osimertinib arm is performing comparably [

]. You have 14 months’ median PFS in the L858R groups [for osimertinib in both FLAURA and FLAURA2] and then the central nervous system disease [CNS] groups [ranging from 15 to 25 months], and then you have 18 to 21 months in the exon 19 group.

 For osimertinib/chemotherapy, median PFS is in the mid-20–month [ranges] across all these different categories. For amivantamab [Rybrevant] plus lazertinib [Lazcluze], the overall median PFS is 23.7 months, so very comparable to osimertinib/ chemotherapy [from FLAURA2].

 But within the subgroups, those subgroups are not necessarily capturing that best PFS group. The other thing is that the osimertinib in the L858R group overperformed relative to any of the other arms, so it looks like in the L858R group, amivantamab/lazertinib didn’t do as well. I think it’s certainly within range here of the other numbers, but it doesn’t seem to be adding a lot of value for the L858R group, which we know does a little worse. Within these categories and certainly within the category of CNS disease, we’re seeing a longer PFS in the osimertinib/chemotherapy group.

The way that I’m assimilating these data personally is for the front line. The choice for me is osimertinib vs osimertinib/chemotherapy. At our institution, we do a lot of local consolidation as well, so we’ll treat with an induction period and then we’ll irradiate residual disease sites or even operate sometimes, and that’s...something that can be thrown into the mix. I think amivantamab/lazertinib is a good option. There are data for giving amivantamab after osimertinib progression. The way I think about it is osimertinib vs osimertinib/chemotherapy in the front line, and then we can do amivantamab/lazertinib in the second or third line.

If a patient has cardiac dysfunction with osimertinib, can they have the same issue with amivantamab? Do you rechallenge after stopping treatment?

Yes, there can be [that issue] in those patients. I would probably give them a chemotherapy washout and then recheck their echocardiogram and then potentially rechallenge. I do echocardiograms every 6 months and check, and then I do ECGs [electrocardiograms] every 3 months also for the QTc [corrected QT interval prolongation], but I haven’t had it happen.

I’ve had 2 cases of pneumonitis. I had 1 patient die of pneumonitis from osimertinib. I had 1 patient who had a mild case, and then we switched to gefitinib [Iressa] because there were better data for pneumonitis for that, and he did very well on that. But it depends on how bad the pneumonitis is, because you can still get pneumonitis with the first-generation TKIs.

How do you proceed after disease progression in the first line?

After progression, if somebody starts on osimertinib monotherapy, then you have chemotherapy, you have chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, and you have amivantamab/lazertinib. Those are my standards of care. I tend not to give IO at progression, but part of it is because I’m saving them for clinical trials, because we do have a lot of these IO clinical trials coming, none of which have [had] positive [findings] so far, but we have to keep trying. Amivantamab/lazertinib is a nice option. The response rates aren’t high [in later lines], but they’re comparable to docetaxel.

We do have some trials. We have a trial [NCT06083857] that we’re just opening that’s amivantamab plus a MET inhibitor, tepotinib [Tepmetko], so we’re trying to do that. We previously had the ORCHARD trial [NCT03944772], which also used a MET inhibitor. If there’s no clinical trial, then I usually put them on EGFR TKI with a MET inhibitor. We usually continue [the EGFR therapy] because theoretically, you don’t want the 

to grow back. I wouldn’t say it works for that long, but it can still buy you half a year.

Do any data support the combination of osimertinib with IO?

Osimertinib plus IO was looked at in the late 2010s, and the toxicity was high, in particular pneumonitis, so all those trials were stopped early and there wasn’t any benefit from the IO.

 The combination is going to be hard. There were a lot of early IO trials that looked at combination ALK inhibitors, and all had toxicity. Although the pneumonitis was very osimertinib specific, there was more transaminitis with some of the other TKIs. What we are doing now is different IO strategies in the second line. We had the phase 3 HARMONi trial [NCT06396065], which is an ivonescimab plus chemotherapy trial that enrolled very quickly and is now being read out. We have a trial [NCT05704634] of an IL-6 [receptor antibody] plus cemiplimab [Libtayo]. We’re doing some T-cell engager trials and others like that. So we have different IO strategies but not the TKI combination, just because of safety.

Are you able to continue using maintenance pemetrexed in patients with low glomerular filtration rate?

I tend to pull it, particularly if it’s the context [of the FLAURA2 trial], where they’re on another drug. If it’s single agent and I’m not confident that I have anything better for them, then I will push it to that threshold, but then after that, I stop it because it does make me nervous. I also feel like I’m cutting them out of trials. 

Vokes previously reported receiving research funding to her institution: Mirati and Circulogene; and receives consultant fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, and Oncocyte.

NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Non–small cell lung cancer, version 3.2025. Accessed January 29, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/56akmfyn

Passaro A, Leighl N, Blackhall F, et al. ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. 

. 2022;33(5):466-487. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.02.003

Smeltzer MP, Wynes MW, Lantuejoul S, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer global survey on molecular testing in lung cancer. 

. 2020;15(9):1434-1448. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2020.05.002

Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. 

. 2018;378(2):113-125. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713137

Cho BC, Lu S, Felip E, et al. Amivantamab plus lazertinib in previously untreated 

During a Community Case Forum event in partnership with the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Natalie Vokes, MD, discussed trials of targeted agents for EGFR-mutant lung cancer. 

Nicolas Gazeau

Articles

Latest Updated Articles