Abstract: Nivolumab was the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for use in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This noninterventional, prospective cohort study investigates real-world effectiveness of nivolumab in pretreated NSCLC patients in Germany (Enlarge-Lung/CA209-580). Patients with squamous (SQ) or nonsquamous (NSQ) NSCLC previously treated for locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) disease received nivolumab according to the current Summary of Product Characteristics. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Of 907 patients enrolled, 660 patients who were followed for at least 12 months across 79 study centers in Germany, were analyzed. Median OS was 11.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.1–12.9]; outcomes for the 418 patients with NSQ histology [13.1 mo (95% CI, 10.6-15.6)] were more favorable than outcomes for the 242 patients with SQ histology [8.9 mo (95% CI, 6.4-11.3)]. Patients’ age, presence of distant or brain me tastases, or line of therapy did not affect outcomes; however, patients with poor performance status (ECOG-PS ≥2, n=80) had shorter median OS [4.7 mo (95% CI, 3.1–5.4)]. This study represents one of the largest real-world cohorts providing outcomes of nivolumab in pretreated NSCLC. The results match well with the published evidence from pivotal clinical trials and demonstrate clinical effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced NSCLC.

Abstract: The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real‐world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression‐free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good ( 〈 3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%‐CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4‐8.6] , median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8‐3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1‐17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6‐9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4‐7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3‐5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0‐3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4‐2.8] months) were longer. Patient‐reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ‐5D‐5L, PRO‐CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI‐related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health‐related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

Abstract: Primary objective of this non‐interventional, post‐authorisation safety study was to provide real‐world safety data [incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs)/serious adverse events (SAEs)] on adult patients with myelofibrosis exposed/or not exposed to ruxolitinib. Key secondary objectives included the incidence/outcome of events of special interest (bleeding events, serious/opportunistic infections, second primary malignancies, and deaths). Overall, 462 patients were included [prevalent users = 260, new users = 32, non‐exposed = 170 (inclusive of ruxolitinib‐switch, n  = 57)]. The exposure‐adjusted incidence rates (per 100 patient‐years) of ADRs (19·3 vs. 19·6) and SAEs (25·2 vs. 25·0) were comparable amongst new‐users versus prevalent‐users cohorts, respectively; most frequent ADRs across all cohorts included thrombocytopenia, anaemia, epistaxis, urinary tract infection, and herpes zoster. Anaemia, pneumonia, general physical health deterioration, sepsis, and death were the most frequent SAEs across all cohorts. Incidence rates of bleeding events (21·6) and serious/opportunistic infections (34·5) were higher in ruxolitinib‐switch cohort versus other cohorts. The incidence rate of second primary malignancies was higher in the prevalent‐users cohort (10·1) versus other cohorts. The observed safety profile of ruxolitinib in the present study along with the safety findings from the COMFORT/JUMP/EXPAND studies support the use of ruxolitinib for long‐term treatment of patients with myelofibrosis.

Abstract: This article reports on the long-term impact of radiotherapy adapted to stage, histology, and previous resection in a large cohort of patients with intestinal lymphoma (iL) treated with definitive or adjuvant curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) ± chemotherapy (CHOP, MCP, or COP). Patients and Methods In two consecutive prospective study designs, 134 patients with indolent (stage IE–IIE) or aggressive (stage IE–IVE) iL were referred to 61 radiotherapeutic institutions between 1992 and 2003. Patients with indolent iL received extended field (EF) 30 Gy (+10 Gy boost in definitive treatment); patients with aggressive iL received involved field (IF) (EF) 40 Gy by means of stage-, histology-, and operation-adapted radiation fields. Results The patients had median age 58 years and were predominantly male (2:1). Histology showed aggressive prevalence (1.6:1), stage IE–to–stage IIE ratio of iL 1.04:1, and localized stages–to–advanced stages ratio of aggressive lymphoma 23:1. Median follow-up was in total 11.7 years: 10.0 years in the first study, GIT (GastroIntestinal-Tract) 1992, and 11.8 years in the second study, GIT 1996. Lymphoma involvement was predominantly a single intestinal lesion (82.1%). Decrease of radiation field size from EF to IF in stage I aggressive iL from GIT 1992 to GIT 1996 resulted in a nonsignificant partial reduction of chronic toxicity while maintaining comparable survival rates (5-year overall survival 87.9 vs. 86.7%, 10-year overall survival 77.4 vs. 71.5%) with nonsignificant difference in event-free survival (5-year event-free survival 82.6 vs. 86.7%, 10-year event-free survival 69.7 vs. 71.5%) and lymphoma-specific survival (5-year lymphoma-specific survival 90.1 vs. 91.9%, 10-year lymphoma-specific survival 87.6% vs. 91.9%). Comparative dose calculation of two still available indolent duodenal lymphoma computed tomography scans revealed lower radiation exposure to normal tissues from applying current standard involved site RT (ISRT) 30 Gy in both cases. Conclusion RT adapted to stage, histology, and resection in multimodal treatment of iL, despite partially decreasing field size (EF to IF), achieves excellent local tumor control and survival rates. The use of modern RT technique and target volume with ISRT offers the option of further reduction of normal tissue complication probability. Implications for Practice Although patients with intestinal lymphoma (iL) are heterogeneous according to histology and subtype, they benefit from radiotherapy. Prospective study data from 134 patients with indolent iL (stage IE–IIE) or aggressive iL (stage IE–IVE) show 100% tumor control after definitive or adjuvant curative-intent radiation therapy ± chemotherapy. Radiation treatment was applied between 1992 and 2003. Median follow-up in total was 11.7 years. No radiotherapy-associated death occurred. Relapse developed in 15.7% of the entire cohort; distant failure was more frequent than local (4:1). Normal tissue complication probability can be further improved using modern involved site radiation therapy techniques.

Abstract: Besides its central functional role in coagulation, TF has been described as being operational in the development of malignancies and is currently being studied as a possible therapeutic tool against cancer. One of the avenues being explored is retargeting TF or its truncated extracellular part (tTF) to the tumor vasculature to induce tumor vessel occlusion and tumor infarction. To this end, multiple structures on tumor vascular wall cells have been studied at which tTF has been aimed via antibodies, derivatives, or as bifunctional fusion protein through targeting peptides. Among these targets were vascular adhesion molecules, oncofetal variants of fibronectin, prostate-specific membrane antigens, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and co-receptors, integrins, fibroblast activation proteins, NG2 proteoglycan, microthrombus-associated fibrin-fibronectin, and aminopeptidase N. Targeting was also attempted toward cellular membranes within an acidic milieu or toward necrotic tumor areas. tTF-NGR, targeting tTF primarily at aminopeptidase N on angiogenic endothelial cells, was the first drug candidate from this emerging class of coaguligands translated to clinical studies in cancer patients. Upon completion of a phase I study, tTF-NGR entered randomized studies in oncology to test the therapeutic impact of this novel therapeutic modality.

Abstract: The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (pola-BR) for patients with refractory or relapsed (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). To investigate the efficacy of pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed 105 patients with LBCL who were treated in 26 German centers under the national compassionate use program. Fifty-four patients received pola as a salvage treatment and 51 patients were treated with pola with the intention to bridge to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (n = 41) or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (n = 10). Notably, patients in the salvage and bridging cohort had received a median of 3 prior treatment lines. In the salvage cohort, the best overall response rate was 48.1%. The 6-month progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) was 27.7% and 49.6%, respectively. In the bridging cohort, 51.2% of patients could be successfully bridged with pola to the intended CAR T-cell therapy. The combination of pola bridging and successful CAR T-cell therapy resulted in a 6-month OS of 77.9% calculated from pola initiation. Pola vedotin-rituximab without a chemotherapy backbone demonstrated encouraging overall response rates up to 40%, highlighting both an appropriate alternative for patients unsuitable for chemotherapy and a new treatment option for bridging before leukapheresis in patients intended for CAR T-cell therapy. Furthermore, 7 of 12 patients with previous failure of CAR T-cell therapy responded to a pola-containing regimen. These findings suggest that pola may serve as effective salvage and bridging treatment of r/r LBCL patients.

Abstract: Introduction The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) for patients with r/r diffuse LBCL (DLBCL). Methods To characterize the efficacy of Pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed data from 97 patients with r/r LBCL who were treated with Pola in 24 German centers within the national CUP. Clinical baseline and follow-up (FU) data were collected by chart review and summarized descriptively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical factors between groups of patients. Results 97 patients with LBCL (DLBCL n=90, High-grade B-cell lymphoma n=6, Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma n=1) were included as of July 22nd, 2020. 49 patients were treated with Pola as bridging concept to immunotherapies (bridging cohort: chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART) n=39, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) n=9, bispecific antibodies n=1), and 48 patients were treated with Pola in palliative intention (palliative cohort). Within the bridging cohort the median age was 61 years (range: 22-82). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-6). 84% (41/49 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line, and 31% had failed an autologous stem cell transplantation. Notably, 14% and 10% of patients had failed prior CART and alloSCT, respectively, and were planned for the alternate cellular immunotherapy. Based on an individual decision, patients were treated with Pola-Rituximab (Pola-R, n=20), Pola-chemotherapy (Pola-chemo, BR n=25; R-CHP n=1) or Pola-monotherapy (Pola-mono, n=3). With a median of 2 Pola cycles (range 1-6), overall response rate (ORR) of all evaluable patients was 33% (15/46 patients) including patients with complete response (CR n=1), partial response (PR n=9) and clinical response (n=5). Although not significant, ORR tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R/Pola-mono (ORR: 42% versus 20%, Fishers test p=0.1). 11 of these 15 responders (24% of the entire bridging cohort) proceeded to CART or alloSCT, while 4 responders (8% of entire bridging cohort) experienced fast progression after their initial response and were referred to best supportive care. 15 of 31 non-responders (33% of entire bridging cohort) underwent immunotherapy with either stable disease (n=6), mixed response (n=2), or progression on Pola (n=7). The remaining 16 patients (35% of entire bridging cohort) were all refractory to Pola and either received alternative salvage treatments which enabled 8 further patients to proceed to the intended immunotherapy, or best supportive care. Taking the effects of CART or alloSCT into account, median OS from initiation of Pola treatment was 8.2 months (median FU 7.2 months, Fig. 1A). The palliative cohort tended to be older than the bridging cohort with a median age of 73.5 years (range: 37-86, p & lt;0.001). Patients were pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-8), and 85% (41/48 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line. Patients in the palliative cohort were treated with a median of 4 Pola cycles (range: 1-9). 65% received Pola-chemo (BR, n=30; R-Gemcitabine, n=1) and 35% Pola-R. The CR rate and ORR was 19% (9/48) and 56% (27/48), respectively. The 6-month PFS and OS from initiation of Pola was 36% and 51%, respectively (median FU of 9.7 months, Fig. 1B). Again, ORR and OS tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R (ORR: 61% versus 47%, Fishers test p=0.4; median OS 7.2 versus 4 months, HR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.9, p=0.7). In univariate analysis, failure to respond to the last treatment line predicted inferior PFS (HR 2.4, 95%CI 1.2-5.0 p=0.02) and OS (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.2-5.4 p=0.02). Patients with more than two prior treatment lines in total tended to have a shorter PFS (HR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.5, p=0.1) and OS (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.8-4.0, p=0.2), although significance was not reached. Conclusion Pola permits effective bridging to CART and alloSCT in r/r LBCL. In the palliative setting, Pola represents an effective salvage option for patients with transplantation-ineligible r/r LBCL. Compared to the approval study, the inferior outcome of the patients of this real-world analysis might be explained by their more advanced disease course. Disclosures Duell: Morphosys: Research Funding. Kerkhoff:BMS: Honoraria. Leng:Roche: Other: lecture fee; Celgene: Other: traveling expenses and congress attendance fee. Holtick:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Mayer:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hüttmann:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy. Brunnberg:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Bullinger:Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mueller-Tidow:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung: Research Funding; Jose-Carreras-Siftung: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag Gmbh: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Research Funding. Lenz:Verastem: Research Funding; AQUINOX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dreger:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dietrich:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.