Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

American Association for Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, 23(27), p. 6393-6404, 2021

DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-0261

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Safety and Antitumor Activity of α-PD-L1 Antibody as Monotherapy or in Combination with α-TIM-3 Antibody in Patients with Microsatellite Instability–High/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Tumors

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitors show high response rates and durable clinical benefit in microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) tumors. However, 50%–60% do not respond to single-agent anti–programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) antibodies, and approximately 50% of responders relapse within 6–12 months. This phase Ib trial evaluated safety and antitumor activity of anti–PD-L1 antibody LY3300054 monotherapy or in combination with anti–TIM-3 antibody LY3321367 in patients with MSI-H/dMMR advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients ≥18 years without prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy received LY3300054 monotherapy (N = 40) or combination (N = 20); patients with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory tumors received the combination (N = 22). LY3300054 (700 mg) and anti–TIM-3 antibody (cycles 1–2: 1,200 mg, cycle 3 onward: 600 mg) were administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Results: Eighty-two patients were enrolled. Most had colorectal (n = 39, 47.6%) or endometrial (n = 14, 17.1%) tumors. More than 70% of patients in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort had received ≥3 treatment lines. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 22 patients (55.0%) receiving monotherapy, 13 (65.0%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve combination cohort, and 6 (27.3%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort. A total of 2 patients (5.0%) receiving monotherapy and 3 (7.1%) receiving the combination experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs. Objective responses occurred in 13 patients (32.5%) with monotherapy, 9 (45.0%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve combination cohort, and 1 patient (4.5%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort. Conclusions: LY3300054 monotherapy and combined LY3300054/anti–TIM-3 had manageable safety profiles. Both regimens showed promising clinical activity against PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve MSI-H/dMMR tumors. The combination had limited clinical benefit in patients with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory MSI-H/dMMR tumors.