Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Mari Mino-Kenudson
Author of
-
+
OA15 - Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 152)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Small Cell Lung Cancer/NET
- Presentations: 1
- Now Available
- Moderators:Raffaele Califano, Charles M Rudin
- Coordinates: 9/10/2019, 14:30 - 16:00, Hilton Head (1978)
-
+
OA15.01 - Combination Olaparib and Temozolomide in Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Results from Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial (Now Available) (ID 1394)
14:30 - 16:00 | Author(s): Mari Mino-Kenudson
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
DNA damage repair inhibition is an emerging strategy for treating small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Combining poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with the DNA alkylating agent temozolomide has shown activity in both preclinical models and early phase clinical trials.
Method
This is a single-arm phase 1/2 study combining the PARP inhibitior olaparib (tablet formulation) with temozolomide in patients with SCLC. Key eligibility criteria include histologically or cytologically confirmed incurable SCLC which progressed following ≥ 1 platinum-based chemotherapy. In cohort 1, olaparib and temozolomide are administered orally on days 1-7 of 21-day cycles. After cohort 1 completed enrollment, cohort 2 was added in a protocol amendment, in which olaparib is administered continuously days 1-21 and temozolomide is administered days 1-7 of 21-day cycles. For each cohort, the phase 1 portion is a conventional 3+3 design, with the primary objective to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary objective of the phase 2 dose expansion portion is to determine the objective response rate (ORR). Response assessments are performed every 6 weeks, with treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or investigator’s discretion. Treatment post-progression is allowed for patients with ongoing clinical benefit.
Result
Between October 2015 and April 2018, 50 patients were enrolled to cohort 1. The median age was 63 (range 39-85), median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-7), and 72% were platinum sensitive. The RP2D was olaparib 200 mg PO BID d1-7 and T 75 mg/m2 QD d1-7. The confirmed ORR was 41.7%. After a median follow-up of 7.1 months among 22 surviving patients, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 4.2 months, median overall survival (mOS) was 8.5 months, and median duration of response (mDoR) was 4.3 months. The ORR among platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant patients was 47.1% and 28.6%, respectively, with no significant differences in mPFS, mOS or mDOR. The most common grade 3/4 treatment related adverse events were neutropenia (38%), anemia (28%) and thrombocytopenia (26%). Among 41 pts treated at the RP2D, dose reductions occurred in 44% overall and 64% of those who received at least 3 cycles. Enrollment to the phase 1 portion of cohort 2 began in November 2018 and is ongoing. Updated results from cohorts 1 and 2 will be presented at the meeting.
Conclusion
Combination olaparib and temozolomide has an acceptable tolerability profile and shows promising clinical activity in relapsed SCLC. Clinical trials identifier NCT02446704.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P2.09 - Pathology (ID 174)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Track: Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/09/2019, 10:15 - 18:15, Exhibit Hall
-
+
P2.09-24 - IASLC Global Survey for Pathologists on PD-L1 Testing for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 906)
10:15 - 18:15 | Presenting Author(s): Mari Mino-Kenudson
- Abstract
Background
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) is now performed for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients to examine their eligibility for pembrolizumab treatment, as well as in Europe for durvalumab therapy after chemoradiation for stage III NSCLC patients. Four PD-L1 clinical trial validated assays (commercial assays) have been FDA/EMA approved or are in vitro diagnostic tests in multiple countries, but high running costs have limited their use; thus, many laboratories utilize laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Overall, the PD-L1 testing seems to be diversely implemented across different countries as well as across different laboratories.
Method
The Immune biomarker working group of the IASLC international pathology panel conducted an international online survey for pathologists on PD-L1 IHC testing for NSCLC patients from 2/1/2019 to 5/31/2019. The goal of the survey was to assess the current prevalence and practice of the PD-L1 testing and to identify issues to improve the practice globally. The survey included more than 20 questions on pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical aspects of the PDL1 IHC testing, including the availability/type of PD-L1 IHC assay(s) as well as the attendance at a training course(s) and participation in a quality assurance program(s).
Result
344 pathologists from 310 institutions in 64 countries participated in the survey. Of those, 38% were from Europe (France 13%), 23% from North America (US 17%) and 17% from Asia. 53% practice thoracic pathology and 36%, cytopathology. 11 pathologists from 10 countries do not perform PD-L1 IHC and 7.6% send out to outside facility. Cell blocks are used by 75% of the participants and cytology smear by 9.9% along with biopsies and surgical specimens. Pre-analytical conditions are not recorded in 45% of the institutions. Clone 22C3 is the most frequently used (61.5%) (59% with the commercial assay; 41% with LDT) followed by clone SP263 (45%) (71% with the commercial assay; 29% with LDT). Overall, one or several LDTs are used by 57% of the participants. A half of the participants reported turnaround time as 2 days or less, while 13% reported it as 5 days or more. Importantly, 20% of the participants reported no quality assessment, 15%, no formal training session for PD-L1interpretation and 14%, no standardized reporting system.
Conclusion
There is marked heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing practice across individual laboratories. In addition, the significant minority reported a lack of quality assurance, formal training and/or standardized reporting system that need to be established to improve the PD-L1 testing practice globally.
