Faculty Bibliography

Macrophage activation syndrome is a life-threatening syndrome of uncontrolled immune activation with variable clinical presentation making early diagnosis difficult. It is often manifested by the development of multi-organ failure due to systemic inflammatory response. Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) on purine antimetabolites are at high risk for severe myelosuppression due to the mechanism of thiopurine toxicity which potentially contributes to the development of macrophage activation syndrome. We present a case of a 39-year-old woman with a 2-year history of UC previously treated with 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and recent COVID-19 infection, who was admitted to our emergency department for C. difficile infection and subsequently developed macrophage activation syndrome. This case report also raises the question of whether abrupt discontinuation of 6-MP may have contributed to the worsening of the patient's symptoms of underlying hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) and her rapid deterioration. Both macrophage activation syndrome and COVID-19 infection can produce a large number of pro-inflammatory cytokines termed "cytokine storm," but a pro-inflammatory cytokine panel breakdown helps to differentiate between the two. Our case report emphasizes the importance of close monitoring of patients on purine antimetabolite therapy who present with signs and symptoms of systemic toxicity.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

BACKGROUND:The phase 3 MYSTIC study of durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with tumor cell (TC) programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 25% did not meet its primary endpoints. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab, durvalumab + tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were assessed in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% using EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30/LC13. Changes from baseline (12 months) for prespecified PRO endpoints of interest were analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration (TTD) by stratified log-rank tests. RESULTS:There were no between-arm differences in baseline PROs (N = 488). Between-arm differences in MMRM-adjusted mean changes from baseline favored at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P < .01) for C30 fatigue: durvalumab (-9.5; 99% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to -2.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (-11.7; 99% CI, -19.4 to -4.1); and for C30 appetite loss: durvalumab (-11.9; 99% CI, -21.1 to -2.7). TTD was longer with at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P < .01) for global health status/quality of life: durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0); and for physical functioning: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30); as well as for the key symptoms of dyspnea: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0) (both LC13); fatigue: durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8); and appetite loss: durvalumab (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy reduced symptom burden and improved TTD of PROs, suggesting it had no detrimental effects on quality of life in metastatic NSCLC patients.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. METHODS:CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. RESULTS:Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. CONCLUSIONS:Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

Worldwide incidence and mortality due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is greatest in the United States, with the initial epicenter in New York. In Nassau County, New York, where we practice, our institution has had more than 2500 cases and has discharged from the hospital more than 1000 patients. As many academic and private institutions have swiftly shifted their clinical and research priorities to address the pandemic, data are emerging regarding both the impact of malignancy on COVID-19 outcomes as well as the challenges faced in assuring that cancer care remains unimpeded. Of concern, recent studies of cancer patients primarily in China and Italy have suggested that advanced malignancy is associated with increased susceptibility to severe COVID-19 infection. At present, more than 500 clinical trials are underway investigating the pathogenesis and treatment of COVID-19, including expanded use of oncology drugs, such as small molecular inhibitors of cytokine pathways. Here, we begin by reviewing the latest understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology and then focus our attention on the impact of this virus on hematologic and oncologic practice. Finally, we highlight ongoing investigational treatment approaches that are so relevant to the care of oncology patients during this extraordinary pandemic.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. Results/UNASSIGNED:Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:For patients with recurrent SCLC, topotecan remains the only approved second-line treatment, and the outcomes are poor. CheckMate 032 is a phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label study of nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in SCLC or other advanced/metastatic solid tumors previously treated with one or more platinum-based chemotherapies. We report results of third- or later-line nivolumab monotherapy treatment in SCLC. METHODS:In this analysis, patients with limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC and disease progression after two or more chemotherapy regimens received nivolumab monotherapy, 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS:Between December 4, 2013, and November 30, 2016, 109 patients began receiving third- or later-line nivolumab monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 28.3 months (from first dose to database lock), the objective response rate was 11.9% (95% confidence interval: 6.5-19.5) with a median duration of response of 17.9 months (range 3.0-42.1). At 6 months, 17.2% of patients were progression-free. The 12-month and 18-month overall survival rates were 28.3% and 20.0%, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11.9% of patients. Three patients (2.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab monotherapy provided durable responses and was well tolerated as a third- or later-line treatment for recurrent SCLC. These results suggest that nivolumab monotherapy is an effective third- or later-line treatment for this patient population.