Paul B. Robbins

Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume II — clinical validation and regulatory considerations

There is growing recognition that immunotherapy is likely to significantly improve health outcomes for cancer patients in the coming years. Currently, while a subset of patients experience substantial clinical benefit in response to different immunotherapeutic approaches, the majority of patients do not but are still exposed to the significant drug toxicities. Therefore, a growing need for the development and clinical use of predictive biomarkers exists in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Predictive cancer biomarkers can be used to identify the patients who are or who are not likely to derive benefit from specific therapeutic approaches. In order to be applicable in a clinical setting, predictive biomarkers must be carefully shepherded through a step-wise, highly regulated developmental process. Volume I of this two-volume document focused on the pre-analytical and analytical phases of the biomarker development process, by providing background, examples and “good practice” recommendations. In the current Volume II, the focus is on the clinical validation, validation of clinical utility and regulatory considerations for biomarker development. Together, this two volume series is meant to provide guidance on the entire biomarker development process, with a particular focus on the unique aspects of developing immune-based biomarkers. Specifically, knowledge about the challenges to clinical validation of predictive biomarkers, which has been gained from numerous successes and failures in other contexts, will be reviewed together with statistical methodological issues related to bias and overfitting. The different trial designs used for the clinical validation of biomarkers will also be discussed, as the selection of clinical metrics and endpoints becomes critical to establish the clinical utility of the biomarker during the clinical validation phase of the biomarker development. Finally, the regulatory aspects of submission of biomarker assays to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as regulatory considerations in the European Union will be covered.

Preliminary results for avelumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (JAVELIN Renal 100): an open-label, dose-finding and dose-expansion, phase 1b trial

BACKGROUND The combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF pathway inhibitor to treat patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma might increase the clinical benefit of these drugs compared with their use alone. Here, we report preliminary results for the combination of avelumab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody against the programmed cell death protein ligand PD-L1, and axitinib, a VEGF receptor inhibitor approved for second-line treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS The JAVELIN Renal 100 study is an ongoing open-label, multicentre, dose-finding, and dose-expansion, phase 1b study, done in 14 centres in the USA, UK, and Japan. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) and had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced renal-cell carcinoma with clear-cell component, life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, received no previous systemic treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma, and had a resected primary tumour. Patients enrolled into the dose-finding phase received 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by combination therapy with 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks and 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily. Based on the pharmacokinetic data from the dose-finding phase, ten additional patients were enrolled into the dose-expansion phase and assigned to this regimen. The other patients in the dose-expansion phase started taking combination therapy directly. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities in the first 4 weeks (two cycles) of treatment with avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and antitumour activity analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02493751. FINDINGS Between Oct 30, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, we enrolled six patients into the dose-finding phase and 49 into the dose-expansion phase of the study. One dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 proteinuria due to axitinib was reported among the six patients treated during the dose-finding phase. At the cutoff date (April 13, 2017), six (100%, 95% CI 54-100) of six patients in the dose-finding phase and 26 (53%, 38-68) of 49 patients in the dose-expansion phase had confirmed objective responses (32 [58%, 44-71] of all 55 patients). 32 (58%) of 55 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, the most frequent being hypertension in 16 (29%) patients and increased concentrations of alanine aminotransferase, amylase, and lipase, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome in four (7%) patients each. Six (11%) of 55 patients died before data cutoff, five (9%) due to disease progression and one (2%) due to treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. At the end of the dose-finding phase, the maximum tolerated dose established for the combination was avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and axitinib 5 mg twice daily. INTERPRETATION The safety profile of the combination avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma seemed to be manageable and consistent with that of each drug alone, and the preliminary data on antitumour activity are encouraging. A phase 3 trial is assessing avelumab and axitinib compared with sunitinib monotherapy. FUNDING Pfizer and Merck.

PD-L1 diagnostic tests: a systematic literature review of scoring algorithms and test-validation metrics

BackgroundThe programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) protein is a cell-surface receptor on certain lymphocytes that, with its ligand programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), helps to down-regulate immune responses. Many cancer types express PD-L1 and evade immune recognition via the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction. Precision therapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have the potential to improve response and thereby offer a novel treatment avenue to some patients with cancer. However, this new therapeutic approach requires reliable methods for identifying patients whose cancers are particularly likely to respond. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review assessing evidence on test validation and scoring algorithms for PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests that might be used to select potentially responsive patients with bladder/urothelial cell, lung, gastric, or ovarian cancers for immunotherapy treatment.Methods and resultsTo identify evidence on commercially available PD-L1 IHC assays, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant studies published between January 2010 and September 2016 and appraised abstracts from recent oncology conferences (January 2013 to November 2016). Publications that met the predefined inclusion criteria were extracted and key trends summarized.In total, 26 eligible primary studies were identified, all of which reported on the test validation metrics associated with PD-L1 IHC tests in lung cancer, most using immunohistochemistry testing. There was significant heterogeneity among the available tests for PD-L1. Specifically, no definitive cutoff for PD-L1 positivity was identifiable, with more than one threshold being reported for most antibodies. Studies also differed as to whether they evaluated tumor cells only or tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells. However, all of the tests developed and validated to support a therapeutic drug in the context of phase 2–3 clinical trials reported more than 90% inter-reader concordance. In contrast, other PD-L1 antibodies identified in the literature reported poorer concordance.ConclusionsPublished validation metric data for PD-L1 tests are mainly focused on immunohistochemistry tests from studies in lung cancer. The variability in test cutoffs and standards for PD-L1 testing suggests that there is presently no standardized approach. This current variability may have implications for the uptake of precision treatments.

Expression of PD-L1 and other immunotherapeutic targets in thymic epithelial tumors

Introduction The thymus is a critical organ for the development of the adaptive immune system and thymic epithelial tumors (TETs; thymomas and thymic carcinomas) are often associated with auto-immune paraneoplastic conditions. However, the immunobiology of TETs is not well described. An evaluation of the tumor microenvironment, with particular focus on expression of immunotherapeutic targets, may facilitate and prioritize development of immunotherapy strategies for patients with TETs. Methods Tumor tissues from 23 patients with WHO Type B2/B3 thymoma (n = 12) and thymic carcinoma (n = 11) were identified and clinical outcomes were annotated. The expression of membranous PD-L1 on tumor cells, CD3+ and CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), co-stimulatory (CD137, GITR, ICOS), and co-inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules (PD-1, CTLA-4, TIM-3) were assessed semi-quantitatively using immunohistochemistry. Results PD-L1 positivity (≥ 25% of tumor membrane expression) was frequent in TETs (15/23, 65%), more common in thymomas compared to thymic carcinomas (p<0.01), and was associated with longer overall survival (p = 0.02). TIM-3 and GITR were expressed in all TETs, including 18/23 and 12/23 with at least moderate/high expression, respectively. Moderate/high CD137 expression correlated with CD8+ (p = 0.01) and moderate/high GITR expression co-associated with PD-1 (p = 0.043). Conclusions TETs are characterized by frequent PD-L1 expression and PD-L1 is associated with improved survival, suggesting PD-L1 signaling may be biologically important in TETs. Robust expression of markers of immune activation and immunotherapeutic target molecules in TETs emphasizes the potential for development of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies.