Advertisement


Neil D. Gross, MD, on Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Recent Findings on Cemiplimab

ESMO Congress 2022

Advertisement

Neil D. Gross, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses data from a phase II study, which showed that neoadjuvant cemiplimab-rwlc in patients with stage II–IV (M0) resectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is active and may enable function-preserving surgery in some cases (Abstract 789O).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
In this confirmatory, multicenter trial, we investigated new adjuvant Cemiplimab in 79 patients with resectable stage II to IV cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The impetus for this trial was a pilot study that we conducted among patients with stage III and IV disease at a single institution, MD Anderson, where we found an extraordinary pathologic complete response rate, 55% among 20 patients. The long term follow up from that study was presented at ASCO in 2022 and demonstrated three-year longterm survival. So the impetus for this trial was to confirm those results. We investigated 79 patients over 20 centers in the US, Australia, and Europe. We enrolled patients over about a year and a half timeframe during COVID. What we found in this study was that 50.6% of patients, so 40 out of 79 patients, also had a complete pathologic response to new adjuvant therapy with four doses of Cemiplimab. Another 10 patients had a major pathologic response, so less than or equal to 10% residual viable tumor cells in the specimen, after neoadjuvant therapy. We found 20 patients that had a less complete pathologic response. And there were some patients who were not a valuable, some patients who refused surgery because of dramatic clinical responses. There were also some patients who progressed, although that was the minority. This was a first part of the study, the initial portion. So just looking at the primary endpoint of pathologic, complete response, we do not have longterm follow up data yet, or quality of life outcomes data. These are maturing and look forward to presenting these, but the data so far presented demonstrate significant pathologic responses that we think will be durable. And because of this, we're excited about the longterm follow up. This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and we're excited that it offers an opportunity for patients, a new approach, a novel approach to treating this aggressive disease. In the future, we hope that patients may be selected for less aggressive treatments based on their response to neoadjuvant treatment. There may be patients who don't need radiation after surgery. There may be patients who don't need surgery at all. Hopefully, we'll be able to find biomarkers to help predict responses to treatment better in the future. In the current study, we collected circulating tumor DNA as part of the study, and that can be informative, we hope in the future. But at this point it's still premature to say, who will and who will not respond to this approach, that includes both tumor mutational burden and PDL1 status, both of which we investigated and was not informative in selecting patients for response to treatment.

Related Videos

Prostate Cancer

Neal D. Shore, MD, on Prostate Cancer: Biomarker Analysis, Enzalutamide, and Active Surveillance

Neal D. Shore, MD, of Carolina Urologic Research Center/Genesis Care, discusses new data from the ENACT trial, which showed that patients with prostate cancer and the RNA biomarkers PAM50 and AR-A were likely to have better outcomes with enzalutamide treatment. The results suggest that such RNA biomarkers may help to identify patients who may benefit from enzalutamide treatment compared with active surveillance (Abstract 1385P).

Skin Cancer

John B.A.G. Haanen, MD, PhD, on Melanoma: Phase III Data on Treatment With Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes vs Ipilimumab

John B.A.G. Haanen, MD, PhD, of The Netherlands Cancer Institute, discusses recent phase III findings, which show that tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) improve progression-free survival compared with ipilimumab by 50% in patients with advanced melanoma after not responding to anti–PD-1 treatment. Around 50% of TIL-treated patients had a response, and 20% had a complete response (Abstract LBA3).

Lung Cancer
Immunotherapy

Gérard Zalcman, MD, PhD, on Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Phase III Trial Findings on Nivolumab and Ipilimumab

Gérard Zalcman, MD, PhD, of France’s Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, discusses phase III results from the IFCT-1701 trial, which explored the questions of whether to administer nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 6 months or whether to prolong the treatment in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (Abstract 972O).

Kidney Cancer
Immunotherapy

Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, on RCC: Recent Phase III Data on Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Ipilimumab From the COSMIC-313 Trial

Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of France’s Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, discuss phase III findings showing that cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma of IMDC (the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium) intermediate or poor risk. However, the combination of cabozantinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab vs nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit to patients (Abstract LBA8).

Breast Cancer
Survivorship

Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, on Oncofertility Care for Young Women With Breast Cancer

Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of the University of Genova and Policlinico San Martino Hospital, talks about why oncofertility counseling should now be considered mandatory in the care of young women with breast cancer. Among the treatments he recommends offering are oocyte/embryo cryopreservation (or ovarian tissue cryopreservation in those not eligible for gamete cryopreservation); ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during chemotherapy; and long-term follow-up to improve the management of gynecology-related issues faced by these women.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement