The Educational Branch of COLONTOWN

COLONTOWN University

COLONTOWN University

Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

BOT+BAL trial for MSS CRC

BOT+BAL trial for MSS CRC

DocTalk
2025
Dr. DeVito
MSS
Immunotherapy
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Nicholas DeVito broke down the promising 1L BOT + BAL trial and explained the current state of immunotherapy for MSS colorectal cancer. Recorded in June, 2025.

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to COLONTOWN DocTalks. I’m Dr Manju George the Scientific Director at PALTOWN Development Foundation, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN. So today for our DocTalk, we have Dr Nicholas DeVito with us from Duke University, Duke Cancer Institute. So before we start, I would like to ask Dr DeVito how he got involved in this kind of research, and especially into GI oncology. Welcome, Dr DeVito.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 0:27
Thank you for the introduction. And my foray into immunology goes way back. I actually became interested in immunology while volunteering with an HIV and pregnancy prevention program in high school, and I wanted to understand immunology a lot better, so I kind of started from the immunology perspective, then joined a cancer vaccine laboratory, and then it kind of developed from there. And there was such a need and such a high ceiling, and so much work to be done in gastrointestinal cancers. I had an opportunity here at Duke to stay on board and continue my laboratory research, as well as kind of go into some of the trials that we’ll talk a little bit about later on, but it allows me to really bring things from the bench to the bedside and back again in these emerging immunotherapeutics and colon cancer. So I think that’s that’s worked out well.

Manju George 1:19
Okay. Thank you very much for that introduction. And I think everyone is really excited to hear about Bot Bal, because it has been a topic of interest in COLONTOWN. So thank you so much for making the time to be here with us today and to tell us about immunotherapy in MSS colorectal cancer.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 1:39
Great. All right, so I’ll go ahead and get started. Anyone feel free to interrupt me at any point in time. If you have a question, you can just raise your hand through the chat or come off mute. So here are some of my disclosures. The most relevant one here is that I’m a PI and that stands for Principal Investigator on studies from Xilio, and then I received drug only support from Agenus as well. They do not fund our trial directly, however. So let’s start with an outline of kind of how we’re going to approach this, which will be a layered talk where we talk a lot about immunology. As I mentioned before I came into oncology with an immunology background, which is a bit inverse of what most people are doing now, which is they came in as oncologist and then starting to learn immunology later. So I do think it’s important that we we ask the basic question of, like, why immunotherapy? Why do we like the idea of immunotherapy and and how do we think of the immune system and cancer in the age of immunotherapy? And why hasn’t it worked in micro satellite stable colorectal cancer to date? Why have there been so many disappointments? What are sort of the molecular reasons for that? What are the the situational reasons for that, all of these other kinds of things.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 3:00
In this time, I’d like to explain immune checkpoint blockade, and one thing I’ve done before with some of our fellows is drawn this out on a board, which I have behind me here. So we’ll kind of talk about that, and I’ll scribble it out on the board, and you guys can try to read my handwriting. But I think it’s nice to see immunology visualized, because that’s it’s such a multicellular, interactive process. We’ll also talk specifically about second generation FC modified CTLA 4s which are like botansilimab or Vilastobart and how they’re different from standard first generation CTLA-4 drugs which simply block the receptor as their primary mechanism of action. This would be like Yervoy or Ipilumumab or tremelimumab. We’ll then go into some of the completed and active trials with Bot Bal and then management of adverse events.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 3:50
So I’ll start with why immunotherapy. And every immunotherapist probably thinks of like renal cell carcinoma or melanoma as the first step with immunotherapy, rather than colon cancer, because these are tumors that had some response to a drug called IL-2, which was very toxic. And I say some response, I mean, like 5 to 10%, they were very, very low. It was hard to get patients through therapy. But the promise was there that if you could get the immune system to reject a cancer and and learn what the cancer looked like, you could reverse the process, essentially. And you would see that in some patients with metastatic melanoma. So it was like this thing that everybody kind of kept grasping for, and still at the time, if patients couldn’t tolerate IL-2, which many could not, they would get to the decarbicine chemotherapy’s overall survival was only nine months. It’s pitiful. It’s unacceptable in metastatic melanoma. But when we look at what ipilumab and nivolumab have done, anti CTLA-4 and anti PD1 drugs, respectively, in metastatic melanoma, the median overall survival is six years and over. Half of patients are living melanoma free at 10 years. So I bring this up because this is one of the next bars that we need to get to. And when I talk about the ceiling in GI cancer, it’s like, it’s important to know where others have been and realize that with the right drugs and the right trials, we can get there too. So this is sort of an inspiration for me, and I hope it is one for you as we go through this talk.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 5:24
But one of the problems is how we used to think of the immune system. Now, I’m sure many, many people still do is as this binary, there’s up and there’s down, and so we’re just going to boost the immune system and it’s going to fight off all the cancer, and there’s not going to be cancer anymore, and it’s just that simple. And I bring up this picture because it’s just like a drastic oversimplification, when really it’s like the Department of Defense, which is that map in the top left, you can see how many immune cells have come out of these advanced technologies, like single cell RNA Seq. And so I bring this up to point out that in the past 20 to 30 years, immunology, and in particular, tumor immunology has advanced very, very, very rapidly, and our understanding has deepened very quickly. And for us to catch up to this, we need to have a basic understanding of immunology to start with, and we need to kind of rethink what we consider cancer itself as, in some ways. So I really would say that cancer is a complex “neo organ” that arises due to a failure of immunity. It fails genetic checkpoints, like it doesn’t die off when it gets a RAS mutation or a P 53 mutation together. And that’s bad inside the cell, but then outside the cell, the immune system is supposed to fight it off and recognize it as non-self. So the two checkpoints have failed, the genetic checkpoint and the immune checkpoint. Ergo, you get a tumor. And it’s not simple. It’s not like just T cells are going into the tumor and they take care of everything you have. Like in this graph alone, I think 11 different types of macrophages when they used to think there were two. So this is just to show you the complexity and how daunting it is and how we need to really learn and understand things on a niche level. And when I say we, I don’t just mean physicians and researchers. I mean patients as well, because these things have other implications, like side effects down the road, and separating side effects from effectiveness, and keeping drugs that are effective but tolerable. So our understanding of immunity will continue to advance, but there’s a lot that’s already been done, and I think that is really something that we have to recognize up front.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 7:33
My favorite framework of this, and I think this is very accessible, especially if you just take some time with it and kind of look at it on the visual perspective, like I was talking about, are the 3Es of immuno editing by Robert Schreiber. So you have normal tissue, and then cells are transformed, and they’re supposed to get recognized, and then they’re supposed to be eliminated by these NK cells, CD8 and CD4 Tcells, and then antigen presenting cells, like macrophages and dendritic cells. But unfortunately, if we don’t get that extrinsic tumor suppression, if immune control fails, then we reach a state of equilibrium where tumors can sit in dormancy for months and years at a time, or they can escape, later on. And those escape mechanismsare defined by suppressive cells coming in. These are like T regulatory cells, or there you’ll see the abbreviation MDSC, which is Myeloid Derived Suppressor cells, or bad neutrophils, would be another way to think of them. And the goal of immunotherapy is to push these tumors to the left of this chart, to go closer towards elimination. And I think that this is a really nice framework, because it also fits the framework of response– stable disease and progressive disease. So this is a basic scientific idea and concept, but it is one that helps us think of the clinical concept of tumor and immune interactions over time as this kind of evolutionary struggle, and maybe help us determine where we need to go with an immunotherapeutic and how we can define populations that will benefit, and then how we can also define where we should use novel agents.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 9:12
And one of the best examples of this is if you have micro satellite instable colorectal cancer. So this is a subset of colorectal cancer that we know has a screaming high tumor mutational burden, but more importantly than the number of mutations, because there’s been studies in the lab that MSI alone is not sufficient to induce anti tumor immunity, the number of mutations are very high, but they’re also these mutations called frame shift mutations. And this would be like if you were reading a book instead of there’s some spelling errors, the entire type shift is off, and you’re like, This is all wrong. You wouldn’t recognize a single word in it, and then you just throw the book out, or whatever. And instead of being like most tumors, where they have maybe like a misspelled letter here and there throughout the page, and you could skip over it without recognizing something’s wrong potentially. And what you can see is that there are just astounding results in these 5 to 10% or so of MSI high colorectal cancer patients, because they have an antigen that’s being recognized by the immune system, and the immune system is trying to attack it, and the only thing that’s keeping it from killing the tumor are these immunosuppressive mechanisms, like immune checkpoints. And one other important point that I would bring up too, is that in these studies, they allowed crossover. So starting on chemotherapy first and then doing immunotherapy was not ideal for these patients, and I think that’s something that often gets lost in this data, but many of these patients crossed over after progression on chemotherapy, and then they benefited less than immunotherapy, given the continued decline that you see of those curves and progression free survival in both these data points.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 10:53
So that’ll come up a little bit more later, but to kind of parse these differences more of why we’re not getting responses in MSI high colorectal cancer, aside from being a much less common, and therefore there’s a much higher need in MSS, CRC, right now, they’re very different tumor types. And I bring this up here, not to go through every specific point necessarily, but I really, really, really would think of these as two different diseases when I’m teaching fellows or residents, or we were just talking about this in a lab meeting earlier today. It’s like when you’re looking at human data, there is MSI high colon, and there’s MSS colon, and it is as different as like melanoma and lung cancer, like they are not the same cancer type. Missing doing microsatellite instability on any colon cancer in the in 2025 is completely unacceptable. It’s part of the diagnosis. So that’s really what I want to convey with this slide, because we’re treating these cancers very differently. We’re giving one pure immunotherapy regimens all the way forward. And then there’s some interesting trials for MSI- high too and MSS, we’re treating with a lot of chemotherapy and targeted based therapies as standard of care. So very, very different diseases, and therefore they have very different immune micro environments, which this is kind of harkening back to what we were talking about before.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 12:17
So rather than just thinking about tumor, tumor, tumor– the tumor is this ecosystem, and it has these immune cells that are associated with it. And in MSS colorectal cancer, with a low mutational burden and known limited responses to traditional checkpoint blockade, you see fewer CD8 T cells overall. There’s a small subset that may have some some higher amounts of CD8 T cells. You see dominance in T regulatory cells, which I mentioned before, whereas these are more variable in MSI high, and you see these suppressive myeloid cells that are enriched in the tumor and usually the most dominant immune cell overall. So once again, on almost every facet that we look at, these two tumor types, they’revery different, and it’s important to think of them that way, immunologically, because it helps us understand why immune checkpoint blockade doesn’t work in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, and it does work in microsatellite in stable colorectal cancer.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 13:15
So one thing I’m going to attempt to do right now is a board drawing. So bear with me, because we’ll see how it goes. But I think it’ll be worth it. If we can get itgoing. All right, so, okay, can everybody see the board as the primary screen? Okay, wonderful. All right. So what I’m going to do is, I’m going to start with a tumor here, and tumors have antigens that are recognized by these traveling cells throughout the body called dendritic cells, or DCs. Dendritic cells can do something very special that other cells can’t do, which is antigen cross presentation, where they digest this antigen up and they can present it on MHC -I, or major histocompatibility complex one, and MHC-II. But they don’t do that in the tumor. They actually travel up here to a different site called the lymph node, which I’m sure most you are very, very familiar with, for a number of reasons, and there’s an importance to the fact that it is often co opted by cancer in one of the first places that they spread to. So the dendritic cell then travels to the lymph node. And inside the lymph node, what that dendritic cell is doing is interacting with CD8 T cells and CD4 T cells, and they’re getting TCR recognition, or T cell receptor recognition. And this is supposed to be similar. So they’re recognizing the same antigen. They’re agreeing, hey, this isn’t supposed to be here. And the T helper cell with CD4 is stimulating. Then after they get this first signal, stimulating via another molecule called CD 40 ligand, and CD 40. And then you get a second signal on CD 80 and CD 86 then and only then do you get a CD 8 that travels to the tumor after all of that and then produces things like interferon gamma and perforin and granzymes, which kill tumor cells.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 15:18
So why are the tumor cells not all dying, and why are they not going away, if we have this complex mechanism of recognizing self versus non self? Well, tumors do something to naturally defend themselves, which is to up regulate PD-L1. I think this is an important concept in all of anti tumor immunity, is that this requires all of this. That means that there’s antigen recognition and that there is [I see Annie Delores has a question about the sword in the window, which I’m going to take a break to recognize that I was a knight for a Halloween costume a while ago. So I think that picture is somewhere on my LinkedIn, but I wore a suit of armor to clinic. It was, it was a lot of fun.] So again, the PD-L1 up regulation occurs in response to interferon gamma. And the interferon gamma isaround because you have a tumor that is recognized by an antigen specific CD8 T cell. So all of this process comes down to PD-L1, and it ends up being the last step, and it ends up being why it’s such a good backbone for a lot of our immunotherapies, and why it’s so rational that we’re using it now.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 16:28
What else occurs here that keeps our immunotherapies from working is the up regulation of CTLA4, and this was really focused on primarily in CD8 T cells, because it would compete for the second signal and block it. But CTLA 4 is actually expressed on another cell that’s really important in suppressing CD8 T cells, and those are those T regulatory cells that I brought up before. So they actually express the highest levels of CTLA 4. And when you give drugs like ipilumumab, they don’t necessarily get rid of these cells, whereas other drugs like botensilimab will. So it is working primarily here, and then all of your other drugs, like your anti PD1 drugs are working here, and this is why they work together synergistically, and this is why we use some of these biomarkers and all of these therapies together. So I’ll pause for a second if anybody has quick questions on like the board, and then I’ll kind of launch into into next steps here.

Manju George 17:31
Yeah, I wanted to say that I loved your introduction about the different cell types and how all of that kind of correspond to stable disease or progression. I mean, that’s a very nice way of presenting it.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 17:44
Good, good. I’m glad to hear it. Okay, so I will go back to my screen here. All right, great. Um, so I think that’s a useful framework, and we will actually have an immunology lecture up on a website called VuMedi hopefully in the next month or two that can help to answer some of these questions, too, for anybody who’s interested in a real deep dive in immunology. So I’m going to focus on botensilimab now, because it’s a much different mechanism of action than just freeing up that second signal of costimulation on CD8 T cells, and it’s what makes it really effective when you remember the micro environment that you see in MSS CRC, as opposed to MSI.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 18:32
So the first generation CTLA4 antibodies, again, as you all know, are designed to block that interaction with CD 80 and 86 and allows for the second signal to occur. But if you modify the back end of the antibody that is not sticking to its target, this is called the FC gamma receptor, you can get depletion of the cells that it is in contact with. And the way this works is that NK cells, or Natural Killer cells can can attach to this FC enhanced region and other cells– in that case, they put APC or just Antigen Presenting Cell–but often these are macrophages, and they will eat or destroy the T regulatory cell that’s there. And in doing so, it actually activates those myeloid cells and shows reprogramming. And this has been demonstrated in multiple mouse models now, as well as some pretty interesting data from the early botensilimab trials, that this mechanism of action is quite believable. And I will say, from my own experience, that the another mechanism of action that was recently published, like two weeks ago is that it increases the flux of high endothelial vessels to the tumor, meaning it’s essentially generating a lymph node in the tumor and potentially generating tertiary lymphoid structures. And you can even see that on scan sometimes where there’s like lymphatic engorgement around the tumor site. So it’s really a fascinating immune activating drug that ultimately just results in decreased T regulatory cells, activated myeloid cells instead of suppressive ones, and potentially increase lymphatics, so acting very differently than first generation CTLA4 drugs, and addressing a lot of the mechanisms of immune suppression that we see in MSS, CRC.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 20:24
So I will start with some of the resulted trials in the metastatic setting with Bal and I think you all probably know this already, but balstilimab is an anti PD1 antibody. So I won’t go into tons of detail about that, since we kind of talked about it a little bit, and you all may be familiar from other talks. And then I’ll talk about in the neoadjuvant setting, which I think is really, really fascinating, tells you a lot about its mechanism, too. So this was the Nature Medicine paper that came out last year, about a year ago now. And what they found was that if they treated patients who are late line, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer with botensilimab, they saw a significant benefit if patients didn’t have active liver metastasis, but if they did have active liver metastasis, they were very, very unlikely to benefit, as seen in the red there. That’s something called a waterfall plot, and shows the percent change in a lesion over time, or the best percent change. So you can see that all of the ones that are more than 20% growth for the most part, are active liver metastasis, and all of the ones that are above 30% tumor reduction, have no history of liver metastasis. And then a couple patients that have treated liver metastasis. So this is a really, really important finding, because we essentially have an anatomic biomarker, is how I would think of this. So PD-L1 is useless here, and as I’ll show you in a second, so were things like tumor mutational burden, an interferon gamma signature and a neutrophil signature, which have been shown in other studies to predict immunotherapy response. All of these things washed out in importance to active liver metastasis, which tells me that since all of your blood volume circulates through your liver, there must be a systemic immunosuppressive effect that is induced by liver metastasis. This is something that we and others are studying in the lab using colorectal cancer models that are implanted in mice endoscopically into the wall of the colon and then metastasized to the liver, to better understand how they’re systemically suppressing anti tumor immunity, and we can then convert those to responding lesions. So really important early findings telling us there’s an anatomic biomarker here, and again, this is just to show their overall survival and progression free survival. They have a number of patients who did not have active liver metastasis, or had treated liver metastasis, who actually did quite well on bot bal and have durable responses. So this is very encouraging activity, especially in a late, heavily pre treated population. So what if you give it before other therapies? You know, this is like neoadjuvant bot bal, or given before the surgical resection of the primary so a lot of this work was done by Pashtoon Kasi who was at Cornell and is now at City of Hope. And then Myriam Chalabi, who is in Europe, she has done in other tumor types and shown some very interesting data as well. So a lot of encouraging responses here. And what Dr Kasi really focused in on is the fact that when you use a spatial analysis, and you you look at pre treatment and post treatment. So the tissue is intact on a slide, and you’re seeing where the T cells are in the tumor. And you can just see the increase in blue, CD 4 T cells and pink, the CD 8 T cells. And it’s almost impossible to tell from this slide, but you also see a decrease in the red FOXP3 which are T regulatory cells. So again, botensilimab working how we expected to, checking boxes on our scientific hypotheses.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 24:19
Here showing us what we’re seeing from the mice. And then there’s again, and this was sort of prophetic, if you think about it. And in those terms, is that he observed responses from the outside of the tumor in, which would support the development of HEVs and lymphatics outside the tumor into the tumor, not that they’re developing like an immune organ inside the tumor, necessarily. So that’s how the early response to these drugs looks. So this was really fascinating. Therewas a 50% pathological, or greater than 50% pathological response rate in MSS CRC, and I think that owes to the fact that these locally advanced colorectal cancers have fewer immunosuppressive mechanisms that develop concordant with metastasis. So very interesting.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 25:10
Here’s the waterfall plot, I mean, and that’s all MSS on the left side. So these patients are, in some cases, potentially avoiding surgery, though all of them were assessed for surgery. They also had no delays in surgery, which is really remarkable to me, which shows you the safety and manageability of side effects with with bot bal, which we’ll talk about and in the end, and it’s really, really important to as you all are reviewing immunotherapy studies, and you’re kind of like trying to catch up with this incredibly fast moving world is that it’s important to ask where the trial was done, and what the populations they were treating etc, and how the study was executed, because it tells you if this is just kind of a one hit wonder, or if this is actually like something that is really has a lot of meaning. So the GONO group in Italy did exactly this with all MSS CRC, so this isonly micro satellite stable CRC, and they saw a pretty decent response rate. I mean a partial response rate in their bowel cohort of71% is not bad, even though these are small numbers, it gives encouraging data towards, again, the mechanism of action and the fact that this could be a real therapy for a lot of patients.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 26:21
And importantly, really, the only side effects that they’re seeing that are of any concern are things that are extremely manageable, so no one is experiencing severe side effects, at least on either of these trials, and they treated 56 patients in this one, they’ve treated over 100 in the metastatic setting in the previous paper, and many more since then. So all really, really encouraging data, and that’s why there are so many trials ongoing right now with bot bal in so many different settings. So this is kind of the the potpourri part of the talk before I before I get to a specific first line bot bal trial. So I’m going to go through some of these briefly to the best of my ability, and I’ll present results when they become available. But otherwise I’m just going to tell you where they’re, they’re enrolling at and knowing how fast this is moving, and in this space they’re they’re probably outdated already. So this platform study is very interesting. This is being done by Dr Shah at Cornell. It involves patients with MSS CRC, with resectable liver metastasis, and they undergo a random assignment, either receiving bot bal or bot bal plus a novel agent. And this agent basically tries to block two immunosuppressive pathways, TGF, beta and adenosine, which is the CD73 receptor, and then another one, which is bot bal and radiation together. So this is called a platform trial, because there’s lots of different arms that one could be placed on. They don’t have any data yet that I know of, and it’s interesting because they give all of their agents before and after surgery, so they will get data on what’s going on the liver micro environment. So I think we’ll learn a lot from this trial. I think it’s a really, really interesting study. I think if you’re interested in enrolling in these kinds of studies, I would definitely like reach out and make sure that you know all the your eligibility is correct before you make a trip to New York, if it’s a if it’s a trek for you. There are combinations with other novel agents Other than that, one from the Agenus that I mentioned before, including one that enrolls patients with MSS CRC after one line of therapy. So taking patients even as early as second line, which I’m always a proponent of, is allowing some flexibility there, given that there are lots of folks that really struggle with chemotherapy. And this one involves an ENPP1 inhibitor,which also decreases adenosine, but is known to activate a pathway called stimulator of interferon genes. And the idea would be that it makes tumors more immunogenic essentially, and maybe makes them more likely to respond to MSS, CRC. This is at multiple sites, so I think this is a really good option for people, especially if there are no liver metastases, to get access to bot bal and a novel agent.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 26:32
There is also a KRAS targeted peptide vaccine that’s enrolling at Johns Hopkins. They have a lot of experience in this area. The idea, again, kind of like you saw on the board, would be to increase that antigen load and then induce interferon gamma responses and CD8 T cells into the tumor, and know that they’re going to get suppressed by immune checkpoints, which is why a lot of tumor vaccines failed, and then chasing them and depleting Tregs as well. So I think this is a good study as well and now they’re enrolling patients with with at least one line of therapy, so it’s a really safe population that they’re taking on. There are a few studies that are active but not recruiting, like this one from Marwan Fakih over at City of Hope. This is bot bal and regorafenib. I am not sure when that is going to start recruiting, but it combines an approved third or fourth line agent, regorafenib, with bot bal. And the idea would be that it decreases angiogenesis, which can be another suppressive mechanism, and has an approval in a lot of other cancers like hepatocellular carcinoma, where we give this kind of combination, in general.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 26:59
And then this one, I thought was really fascinating. It’s bot bal with a fasting mimicking diet plus vitamin C, and it’s in KRAS mutant colorectal cancer patients. And I think the most interesting is that they do permit patients with liver metastasis. However, the patient has to have progressed on oxaliplatin and irinotecan already. So this is one that I think is probably a pretty intense study, but it could be an option for a lot of people and and one of the reasons it’s good to talk through all of these different studies as people could be in very different places in their cancer care, and we need to be addressing all of those places, not just one line of therapy. So it goes to show you that these trials are available in a lot of different settings, and that’s important for access.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 31:11
Marwan Fakih at City of Hope has also started this trial, which they reported some initial results that I’ll share of FOLFOX and Avastin plus bot bal, and most of these patients are being retreated with FOLFOX from my preliminary review of the data. But you see, everything is kind of given all at once together. So this is somewhat resembling some of the other studies that have been done with like durvalumab and tremelimumab in combination. This has also been done in the first line with drugs like atezolizumab, with FOLFOXIRI which is called the Atezo TRIBE study, which showed some marginal benefit. But this was interesting to me, because this is a pretty decently pre treated population. There are some patients who had not received treatment before, and they get chemo plus bot bal as almost like a first line, but it’s nice that you’re involving like a mix of patients. You’re giving access to patients with liver metastasis, and you’re getting responses. Some of that could be just due to FOLFOX re reintroduction, but the classical reintroduction FOLFOX response rates are somewhere in like the 10 to 20% range. So I think this is still encouraging. And again, gives gives people options. I put the swimmer plot in there, though, as sort of the the salt or the rub, if you will, because most of these patients have progressed, and there is only two patients who are ongoing on therapy. So this does concern me that the responses that they’re seeing are transient and more typical of like a chemotherapy response. So I think that’s something we have to explore a little bit more of these combinations with chemotherapy. Is it rational, or is it known to combine these drugs together?

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 33:26
And then, before I talk about an investigator initiated first line trial, I do want to bring up another important question that I would think of whenever you’re looking at trials, is I’m looking at this class of drug, and there’s no way it’s the only drug in that class. Some other company makes a drug that’s similar to that, right? So KRAS inhibitors are a great example. There’s Quanta therapeutics and Rev Med, and all of these different companies making KRAS inhibitors. So if you saw one of them that showed a bunch of activity and looks like, it reduced tumors and did really well, and all of the others didn’t. That would be something to raise alarm and suspicion and to say, like, is that real? Whereas the opposite can happen, I think, with drugs like botensilimab, where a similar drug called Velocibart by a company called Xilio has demonstrated very similar activity in patients without liver metastasis. And this tells me this is a class effect of second generation FC modified CTLA4s. The patient on the far right there is my patient. She had a transverse colon mass and had a really, really impressive reduction in the size of that mass, and it’s unresectable. And she’s in her 30s, so this was areally good trial for her to be on, and she got on at second line. So you can see that the responses in a lot of these patients appear to be durable, and that circulating tumor DNA is correlating with response. So this is very reassuring, that this is a class effect.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 34:59
So taking this data collectively, it makes us ask the question, why should we not give this first line without chemotherapy at all? Because most trials of immunotherapy have occurred in later lines, and we know from gastric cancer and from melanoma and from MSI high CRC, like I showed you before, that if you give chemotherapy first and then you switch to immunotherapy, you might reduce their effectiveness. And there’s mouse studies and some human studies pointing to the idea that chemotherapy can restrain the durability of immunotherapy efficacy by disallowing the formation of memory T cells. A lot of that has to be worked out. Unsurprisingly, we don’t know a lot of the effects of chemotherapy on the immune system or the tumor immune microenvironment, so we have to ask ourselves, with these impressive responses, is there a population of patients that could potentially benefit just from bot bal and not necessarily need chemotherapy? And I kind of mentioned that a little bit already,and we have a biomarker already. The biomarker is liver metastasis. If you have liver metastasis, you’re not going to respond. It seems like a simple biomarker. You don’t have to send it to a pathologist or or anything like that, to get PD-L1 ostaining, but it’s a biomarker, nonetheless, it tells you who is going to benefit from your therapy. So this is very important, because, again, these therapies are durable, they’re tolerable, and they don’t have a lot of the long, lasting side effects that chemotherapy does. So there could be a decent amount of people that could benefit from getting bot bal first line.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 36:34
So we designed an investigator initiated trial called BBOPCO, or botansilimab and balstilimab optimization in colorectal cancer, wherein we take untreated patients with stage four MSS CRC, without liver, brain or bone metastasis. We get baseline circulating tumor DNA in either an optional biopsy or archival tissue we treat with botensilimab and balsilamab, and then at six weeks, we get circulating tumor DNA, and we get a CT of the chest, abdomen, pelvis. And if a patient experiences progression, we would biopsy that progressing lesion. And I think this is important too, because coming from a laboratory perspective, you always try to reduce variables as much as possible. So this is a tumor that has only been exposed to immunotherapy, and if the immunotherapy fails, then this is our way to get a potential answer to why, without having confounding mechanisms like other drugs involved or pre treatment, or anything like that. So these are very, very valuable samples, I think. And then if the patient has an ongoing response or disease control, we continue doing scans every six weeks and monitoring them and not starting chemotherapy unless we need to. In patients that do progress, we add FOLFOX and a biologic, and that is, I think, supported from a safety standpoint, by Dr Fkih’s study, where this has been done already, so we’re not worried about safety signals there. And we may be able to rescue some patients with FOLFOX in that manner.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 38:07
So this study is funded by the Gateway Cancer Research Foundation, Crush colorectal cancer, which is the Duke Colorectal Cancer Fund. And we do a yearly 5k in March. So I encourage everyone that’s in the Durham area, if you can make it, that would be great. But this is something that came together on really a shoestring budget, and was something that is a really promising, I hope forfuture treatments. It is not a very involved study. Either, most patients are not spending a lot of time other than this q6 weeks CT scans. So we collect the normal baseline demographics, and we do ask for an optional fresh tissue biopsy, but this is not feasible in a lot of our patients that have lung metastasis and it’s impossible to access tissue. Then in the treatment period we are administering bot bowel, and folks are coming in every three weeks. And then if there’s progression of disease, as I mentioned before, then we’re adding FOLFOXand a biologic.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 39:13
Our frequently asked questions that we’ve gotten about this study is are patientswith peritoneal metastasis eligible? Yes, they are as long as they don’t have clinically relevant ascites. We have had at least three patients enroll so far with peritoneal metastasis and in peritoneal carcinomatosis. And so I think it is safe to enroll these patients. And there’s a major need, for peritoneal carcinomatosis treatments that are more effective than chemotherapy. Patients may need to get another CT scan within 28 days of starting. And we have some of our oncology referral lines there, and we have a 48 hour rule, so we’re getting folks in 48 hours. Our GI oncology department at Duke is the largest in medical oncology. We all enroll to each other’s trials. So this is something we assess every new colorectal cancer patient for who does not have liver metastasis. Everything is provided by the study or standard of care billed to insurance.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 40:16
And I kind of mentioned this already, but we either have your original biopsy, or we obtain another one, optionally, if that’s feasible and safe and we definitely try to gain a lot of knowledge from patients disease that progresses and obtain a biopsy at that time. So we expect to report results of this 15 patient pilot study in early 2026 we’ve already recruited half our cohort, and have no safety concerns at this time. So you can expect to see our results kind of on that timeline. But I hope that this is something that will expand first line immunotherapy options for patients with MSS CRC, going forward, I will stop there for a minute, and then if we have time, I will go into the management of immune related adverse events. And if not, that’s something I can share slides with you all.

Manju George 41:17
Yeah. Thank you so much, Dr DeVito, I was thinking that if you have just a couple of slides, maybe that’s a value to patients too, the side effects.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 41:25
Yeah, let’s go through it. So the main three side effects that we see, and it’s almost always the botensilimab. Now keep in mind with any immunotherapy that can cause any itis, pneumonitis, colitis, thyroiditis, hypophysitis , any of these things are theoretically possible– myositis, where the muscles get inflamed, myocarditis, which is an inflammation around the heart. So they’re all very rare. They happen like less than 10% of the time, and some of them are less than 1% of the time. But it’s important to report any symptoms or any way that you are feeling different than you normally would, even if it seems very mild to your physician if you’re receiving botensilimab, because I think any immunotherapy can cause any of these side effects, and pretty much anytime you’re getting them, it’s just that most people don’t have them. So it requires a different vigilance than chemotherapy. It’s a completely different way of thinking, in my opinion, but the three that we see most frequently, that we have to manage on I would say probably about half of our patients that we’ve had on trial so far are infusion related reactions, early onset syndrome and immune mediated diarrhea and colitis.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 42:33
Infusion reactions are fairly typical of other infusion reactions where this is a hypersensitivity reaction. It’s rapid, and we know that we need to give pre medications going forward. This is something that your treatment rooms and most oncology centers are extremely familiar with, with monoclonal antibodies, and I am not worried about people managing that at all. This early onset syndrome is a little bit different. It can be very self limiting. Can seem just like someone has, like, the flu. A lot of people have gotten tested for COVID because they’re like, I’ve got the same symptoms when I had COVID, fatigue. I’m tired, I and I have these chills, I have, like, a mild fever. You may have some other kind of associated symptoms with it, and it can be quite vague, and that’s something I think that it my suggestion here is one of my frequent suggestions with any side effect is like, write it down. Just write it down, keep a journal. Keep a log. Write down the symptoms you’re having. Write down the temperatures that you measure. Because, they mentioned Tylenol here, but Tylenol has been known to suppress immunotherapy responses, and it’s been known to suppress the immune system in general through the generation of iIL-0 and T regulatory cells.It’s been known for years that it decreases the efficacy of vaccines. So I’m not a big fan of using Tylenol, and everyone in our study so far has benefited from either using naproxen or ibuprofen, non steroidal anti inflammatories for a few days. And then we’ll start them on Imodium if they have mild diarrhea that doesn’t rise to the point of IMDC.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 44:09
So I actually had one patient who during her first cycle of bot bal, she had the early onset syndrome, and then during the second cycle she had IMDC. So it was a very clear comparison between the two and how they’re different. This is very systemic, and the diarrhea is kind of like not your biggest problem. It’s really more that you feel achy and tired. But I think the thing that also has to be considered is this could also be infection. This could be something else completely. So alternative etiologies, alternative causes, need to at least be considered and brought up. IMDC is the one that everybody watches out for and is familiar with, because in very, very rare settings, and I think this happens very infrequently, now that we’re more familiar with it– you could have a perforation where the wall of the colon is so inflamed, particularly in this case, potentially around the tumor, where the wall of the colon is already damaged that it could perforate into the abdomen, which can be a fatal event. We actually send all of our patients out with prednisone at home, so they have it on hand, so they don’t have to call their ER or anything like that. They actually just have a prednisone script for just a short taper, and they say, Hey, I started having five stools a day. I’m starting the prednisone right now. There’s no time to go to the pharmacy, it takes all of that out in the middle. So time to treatment is really, really important, and patient education is really, really important. Some of these symptoms can be very vague and just seem like you kind of have, oh, maybe it’s a GI bug, and then it goes on for more than two or three days, it’s like, no, we need to get on that and treat it. And the best treatment for this, and I kind of alluded to this earlier, is to be able to separate those side effects and the benefit, right? So you want to get rid of the side effects when you keep the benefit. And if you just load people up on steroids, you do reduce the effectiveness of immunotherapy. So we tend to use within about seven to 14 days of symptom onset a drug called infliximab or another drug called vetalizumab. These are drugs for conditions like ulcerative colitis. Makes sense, right? The colon is inflamed. Use an ulcerative colitis treatment, and this can turn people around like that and get them off steroids. So it’s steroid sparing, it’s effective. You only have to give a few doses of it. You can continue the bot bal while you give it. So there’s a lot of reason that patients and providers need to know that these treatments exist.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 46:31
So I am going to wrap up on the last slide, and I wanted to put on this slide the history of CTLA 4, because CTLA 4 was discovered in 1987 and everybody thought it was a costimulatory molecule like CD. 28 they’re like, oh, it’s the same.And Jim Allison, who won a Nobel Prize in 2018– so quite a long time after that, is the one who challenged that idea. And you can see what kind of an incredible benefit it has had for patients that he did that, but it also reminds you how long it takes for some of these things to develop. So this was not possible without NIH and NCI funding. And I think that it just underscores the fact that CTLA4 research, is just a great example of how federally funding laboratory science today can bring cures to patients tomorrow. So that’s, that’s where I’ll end on for questions. And I thank everybody for their time.

Manju George 47:25
Okay, thank you so much, that your talk was excellent at so many levels. So I would like to if you could go back one slide. I was thinking that from the patient perspective for IMDC, so can you give us a time course, like, for example, you give the infusion, when does the more than five stool happen, and how long people take prednisone, and then when do they get infliximab? Like, an example, patient,

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 47:55
Yeah. So a typical course, like one that I’m thinking of off the top of my head, it was, like, about three or four days after she got the botensilimab, she was fine after she got the balstilimab–, and then diarrhea started up to five times a day, she started the prednisone, and it’s always on a Friday, that’s when these problems always happen for folks, which is just cruel. And we went through this debate of like, Oh, do you come in and get inpatient infliximab and you spend time away from home and everything else. And she was like, no, let me see how I do taking 40,30, 20 of prednisone. And then we got to Monday, and we’re like, this is not happening. And we gave her infliximab that day. So to me, it is a little bit loose, like it can happen at any point, really, but it is usually within two weeks of giving the bot, and it is usually better to do a very short, like burst dose of steroids, or like, 40 milligrams, start it until we get you to infliximab. Because in that patient’s case, she was already down to 10 milligrams of prednisone and then stopped the next day, her taper, just like, continued going off. She’s like, I’m fine. Mad with the kids, having fun. No big deal. Infliximab did the trick. So I’m a big fan of using these biologics early. And if you’re on these drugs and you don’t feel like you’re getting assessed for them, I think it’s something to bring up.

Manju George 49:15
Okay, okay. Thank you so much for that. I think then let’s look at the questions, because we…

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 49:20
I scrolled up, I’m going up to one from Michael Nagel before, who asked what distinguishes treated liver Mets from active? So a treated liver met would be one that’s removed with surgery, or that it is treated with an ablation, and that it has demonstrated stability for a predetermined point of time. I think in that Agenus study, they needed to have three months of disease stability in the liver or something like that. Is there any evident difference between patients with treated liver Mets who respond to bot bal? That’s a great question, and those with treated liver Mets, yeah, yeah. We don’t know. We don’t know. I think there are more questions than answers around liver metastases and bot bal responses. I’ve also heard the question or argument that, if you gave it before doing some of these other therapies, would it be effective, or do the liver Mets become systemically immunosuppressive after exposure to chemotherapy? So this is a brave new world, and we’ve got to ask the kind of questions like this, and I think that’s a really good one.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 49:20
UNICORN [trial], I believe, was colorectal. I think it included both colon and rectal. I’d have to double check myself on that, but that is a published study.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 50:37
Do you ever see the NCCN approving immunotherapy for those without liver mets or FDA? Yeah, I do. I don’t know if they will need phase three trials. I think that these drugs are really effective, and they offer something that’s better than a lot of third line therapies for patients. So I think that the way to change that narrative, I hope, is with trials like ours for our first line, where hopefully we get to say, hey, chemotherapy has never touched this person’s vein. Since when they were diagnosed with stage IV cancer? And then it will be hard to kind of ignore that data.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 51:18
Let’s see, “did not qualify for bot bal, are you familiar with compassionate use?’. I am familiar with the compassionate care program. There is information on their website about that with Agenus, and if you have problems, then go ahead and shoot me an email, we’ll get connected. But I have treated at least two patients on compassionate use. It is possible.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 51:42
Are the doses less than other trials for MSS patients? They are the same Biomarkers that can distinguish patients at higher risk of immune mediated colitis? I love it! Gut microbiome profiles! So one of the coolest experiments I ever saw in the lab was that if you treat a mouse that has a melanoma in place with anti PD1, they get colitis. If you treat a mouse that doesn’t have a tumor in place, they don’t get colitis. What does that tell you? You need the tumor in place to get that kind of noeoantigen exposure to get colitis? So how we predict that? I don’t know. It’s an amazingly good question. I think that there’s a lot of people who are chasing down like Th 17 cells as a marker and others, because you’re right, if you can predict that, then you can just straight off the bat, give people, okay, you’re going to get Bot bal, and then day two, you’re going to get vedolizumab or something. And again, split that side effect and efficacy profile up.

Manju George 52:42
Okay, now that we have covered those questions. So is there a way for you to expand this trial using, you know, the NCI, CTAP and the trial system?

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 52:52
We have a grant into the DOD to do that right now. And I think there’s that, and other mechanisms are all on the table. We have several people that are very interested in moving that forward, but I agree with you,

Manju George 53:08
Okay. And the next question is, I’ve heard that the primary tumor being in place plays a big role with immune response. Do you have any insights on why that is other than the myeloid derived suppressive cells and all of that.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 53:24
So you’re saying, if there’s a primary tumor versus metastatic, basically,

Manju George 53:29
yes, like the Neoadjuvant versus after you have surgery to remove the primary tumor, and then treating,

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 53:37
I think it speaks to kind of how tumors must suppress the immune system to metastasize to a different organ, they have to occupy a different micro environment and adapt. And part of that adaptation is immune evasion. So there have been organ specific metastatic like niches that have been described, like PMN MDSCs or polymorphonuclear myeloid derived suppressor cells leading to emergence in the lung, osteopontin macrophages, and these things called fibroblast activating protein positive fibroblasts in the liver and similar macrophages have been seen in the bone. So I think it is kind of like a chicken and the egg phenomenon. It’s like to get there, they had to suppress the immune system, and it’s like, Well, okay, so now, do we work backwards, or is it all different now? Where did it start and where did it end? And is there a difference when you have a primary tumor in place and a metastasis, or just a primary tumor or just a metastasis, it seems like, right now, the best situation is, always, always, always in cancer, earlier treatment, better, like it just is an across the board phenomenon and, and sometimes we can get away with, like oligometastatectomy and things like that in colorectal cancer. But I think to get to real, novel therapeutics, we’re going to have to understand that cascade of immune evasion.

Manju George 55:06
Okay, do you have to leave, it’s one o’clock, or do you have a couple more minutes?

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 55:12
I have a few more minutes. I also see one in the chat, which I think is a question that’s really important. There is a survival difference when you add ipilumimab to nivolumab in MSI colon cancer. And I think the reason for that is kind of the synergy that we talked about on the board. But there’s also one important facet of that synergy, and why you see longer survival, I think specifically is that when you block CTLA 4 you facilitate that CD 40 interaction, and you get professional antigen presenting cells. And those professional antigen presenting cells facilitate something called epitope spreading, which means that they recognize different antigens. So it’s like, yeah, you got this really strong response with PD 1 to the one antigen that was already recognized. But tumors are evolving, and they need to be kind of gotten ahead of so the immune system needs to adapt quickly, and CTLA4 helps them to have a more diverse PCR repertoire, meaning that they recognize many, many more antigens with CTLA4 blockade in place. So they really are like non redundant beneficial therapies, and they are rational in their combination.

Manju George 56:22
Okay, thank you so much. I think I will just ask this question, and then I would like, if you have some references. So there was this one study, like two years ago maybe, looking at pancreatic cancer survivors and looking at immuno editing, and the difference in the immuno editing. I mean, could you explain some of the ideas around immune editing and surviving, like, simply

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 56:44
Yeah, I think the best way to think about it is especially in pancreatic cancer, you have a subset of patients that have lung metastasis only, and they do really, really well. And there could be a number of reasons for that. I’ll take a step back. Tumors are random, right? They’re just random. They do anything they want, at any time they want. They have the whole genetic playbook at their disposal. They’re dividing. They’re making mistakes. They’re fixing mistakes. And so if you have a tumor that de novo, like right from its inception, is recognized by the immune system. The immune system is holding it in place. If you were to–what has been done in a lot of mouse studies– deplete CD8 T cells, just get rid of the T cells that are holding it in place, that tumor goes crazy. It explodes. It’s completely taken off. So even when you’re treating patients with chemotherapy, if you have an antigen that’s being recognized and a T cell that’s trying to kill the tumor you have, kind of like a tonic control of the tumor that translates into a patient living longer. And that’s kind of like the impetus for a lot of the KRAS adjuvant vaccine studies, which I really, really like. You’re just inducing like another bolt of immunity, essentially, and hopefully getting those long term effector memory cells that are constantly keeping it under wraps.

Manju George 58:08
Okay, okay, thank you so much. I think that’s a question about peritoneal meds.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 58:13
Yeah, not resectable.. yes, this is critical. We initially had the trial capped at three, but the trial has been going well enough that we lifted that cap. So I feel what you’re saying in the clinic. I explained peritoneal carcinomatosis as like weeds going through a garden and how it strangulates the intestines. So it says, I know it’s a broad question, how do you see cancer vaccines working together with bot bal or similar approaches? Cancer vaccines have a history of failure, and I think most of those failures are due to the existence of PD 1 and not recognizing that early as such an important mechanism. So I could see that. I could see that being something that gets incorporated in a lot of different ways, but I would most typically expect it to come out first in like an adjuvant setting, like you give bot bal, then you take the tumor out. You design the vaccine, and you keep the tumor gone by just vaccinating the person, and that way you avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. You have a long T cell memory there, and you have long term disease control. Whether it’s going to be effective in the metastatic setting, where there’s all those kind of immune suppressive mechanisms that we talked about before, I’m less certain of that, I wouldn’t rule them out.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 59:43
And then question about liver Mets that are not respectable, yeah, this is, this, is it, man, this is like the whole focus of the laboratory research. This is a big question. We’ve got to figure out a way to undo that systemic immune suppression from liver metastasis without needing to just go in and spot weld or or slice up a liver or something like that. We need that kind of sophisticated understanding. And we have some some interesting findings already, and that they overlap with others, but it’s a matter of finding like a drug and when to use it. And I think one thing that I’ll say about that too, and this has been my goal from the very beginning with BB OPCO, is that by treating patients that do not have liver metastasis and finding those who do not respond and why they don’t respond, maybe that gives us some insight into patients with liver metastasis who do not respond, maybe we start to gain some knowledge there. And I hope that our correlative studies that we do on tissue that are so much more advanced than they they could have possibly been 10 years ago, illuminate some of those interactions so we can apply existing drugs, maybe even and not have to go through the creation of a whole new drug. And that would be the most ideal,

Manju George 59:44
okay, okay. And so HCC is probably the only liver cancer where the immune system really works, like immunotherapy,

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 59:44
Yeah, yeah, it’s true. I mean, patients with melanoma have a lower response rate. with liver metastasis, they still respond though. I mean, I do think that there’s, like, tumors that are, just.. there’s an antigenicity threshold where they’re just so different to the immune system that it’s like, Ah, you get the PD1 inhibitor, and they really just can’t compete with it. But colon cancer is different. I mean, it’s very, very different. I think this is very interesting biology that needs to be studied aggressively.

Manju George 1:01:40
Okay, okay, I think we can stop now. Thank you so much for doing this with us and for the great talk.

Dr. Nicholas DeVito 1:01:48
Yeah, and thanks Absolutely. All right, thanks a lot. Have a good one. Talk to you all soon. Bye, bye.

DocTalk
2025
Dr. DeVito
MSS
Immunotherapy
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Scott Kopetz, MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses the much awaited results of the FOLFIRI + Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm of this 1L trial for patients with BRAF V600E–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. Recorded in February, 2026.

More Videos

Immunotherapy in MSS Colorectal Cancer
2023
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
BREAKWATER: 2026 Update
Dr. Kopetz
2026
BOT+BAL trial for MSS CRC
Dr. DeVito
2025
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Sharif
MSI-H
Immunotherapy
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Saima Sharif discusses early-stage MSI-H colon cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in December, 2023.

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to DocTalks. Today, we have Dr Pashtoon Kasi with us, and he will be talking aboutneoadjuvant, Bot/Bal in resectable mismatch proficient colorectal cancer. But before that, I want to ask Dr Kasi how he got involved in doing work on colorectal cancer. I’m not going to introduce Dr Kasi more, because for people from COLONTOWN, he’s a familiar figure. And the only thing I want to say is that if you’re interested in learning about what’s happening in the CRC world, I would recommend that you follow Dr Kasi on Twitter. So welcome, Dr Kasi.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 0:38
Oh, thank you again for the kind words, Manju. So in terms of how I started in oncology and GI, specifically in colorectal cancer, I think for me, the journey has been punctuated by the experiences during residency and fellowship and the mentors and the colleagues you encounter that inspire you to seek a particular pathway. Mayo Clinic is home to a lot of innovation when it comes to the role of GI oncology and colorectal cancer. Some of the regimens that we talk about, some of the figures who have shaped the whole field are folks that you get to walk the same hallway with, especially during the fellowship at Mayo Clinic that allowed me to focus on GI cancers and then colorectal cancer specifically moving forward.

Manju George 1:34
Okay, thank you very much. I also want to say that your poster was one of the most trafficked ones at GI ASCO, so we are really excited to hear about your work

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 1:43
Yeah, when I went to put up the poster at 6:15am before I could even put up the poster, there were people asking me about the poster. So and then, from six to nine, and then there was a brief break for the Bespoke CtDNA oral presentation, and there were people still walking upstairs with me. And then when I came back at 10:30 we were still talking till like 2:30 till they forced us to get out of the area. So again, it’s a good problem. I lost my voice later that evening.

Manju George 2:19
I can imagine. Okay. Thank you so much for doing this for us.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 2:25
No, thanks for having me. Yeah. So do you want me to discuss some of the high level updates and the about the trial in the background next?

Manju George 2:35
Yes, yes, please.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 2:37
So you know some of you might have seen some of the discussion, but I kind of wanted to high level describe, all the relevant findings to date. I have some slides, and I also then have the poster that we can dive into. But in terms of background there’s a lot of things going on the world of colorectal cancer in the last few years. Two things that are in particular, of note, that allowed us to develop this particular concept was, number 1), there’s been a neoadjuvant paradigm shift. So the term neoadjuvant means that treatment that you would do before somebody’s surgery happens. People are familiar with the term adjuvant chemo, which is kind of like the adjuvant or mop up chemo that you do to eliminate somebody’s cancer. The idea of doing that treatment beforehand is something that is already considered the standard for patients with rectal cancer, where you want to do your chemotherapy and or radiation if necessary, and the final plan for surgery is the last step. In fact, people have gone from neoadjuvant to something called TNT, which stands for Total Neodjuvant Therapy for rectal cancer. So that’s how quickly that has changed for patients with rectal cancer. In fact, all the trials moving forward are focusing on TNT as a strategy, not just neoadjuvant, but in general, for not just for colorectal cancer, but for all cancers, neoadjuvant studies, there are many things that why would one would want to do the systemic therapy part?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 4:11
First, a lot of our surgeons who like to operate, they’ve actually been in the proponent to help us understand that maybe them operating right away is not always the best strategy. There is suggestion that they might be perturbing the micro environment of the cancer by doing surgery first. There could be reasons to affecting your immune system in an adverse way, where they’re taking a lot of lymph nodes and things out at the time of surgery, you might be affecting drug delivery or the immune response that your body itself may be mounting. There’s also suggestion that maybe keeping the primary or the mothership where everything started would be helpful, that be part of the treatment plan, as you introduce, especially something like immunotherapy, and also just the whole stress of surgery itself. Even though patients are getting minimally invasive surgery or robotic surgery, especially for colon cancer, and literally going home the next day. Those are all things that are happening every day in our hospitals and other hospitals that are Centers for Excellence for colorectal cancer. But also you have to realize the body is still surviving that insult or injury, so to speak. So immune changes in a negative way could also be in the post operative phase. So for all these reasons, there’s suggestion or idea that maybe doing some treatment beforehand might help increase the chances of success, and some of the parallels have been happening in other tumor types. Melanoma or skin cancer, is one of the tumor types where a lot of research has been focusing on the vaccine, immunotherapy, before and after surgery, and they’ve been striking differences of the exact same treatment done in a clinical trial, randomized fashion, where outcomes were significantly better if the same treatment was done before surgery, as opposed to doing surgery first and thereafter.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 6:17
In the world of colorectal cancer, one trial that a lot of colleagues and patient advocate as well as caregivers, are familiar about is the story of the MSI high, or mismatch repair deficient colon and rectal cancer. And we’ve noted that in the metastatic setting, while a third of patients with MSI high cancers, even with drugs like pembrolizumab, and at the actual GI oncology conferences a couple of days ago, at ASCO, they also presented data with Ipi-Nivo, with updates. So there are striking differences, but there’s still a proportion of patients who don’t respond, and it’s anywhere from a third to at least, 20% if not more. We’re still trying to figure out why that case is, but when Dr. Chalabi and their group moved the treatment with their NICHE-! study to neoadjuvant setting. Nearly everybody responded. So I guess there is definitely some pretext to why neoadjuvant would be a good strategy. From a clinical trial standpoint and from a scientific standpoint, neo adjuvant — they call like them as the window of opportunity, meaning that you could still do whatever you’re trying to do, but get a quick readout as opposed to doing calls with hundreds of patients, I think, with novel clinical trial designs and how things are evolving, this is something that is being challenged, that we need trials that take years to mature, that take hundreds of patients & effort to realize that something is not working. With novel precision medicine based focused design, and in this case, the Precision Medicine being the setting itself, you can probably get away with smaller numbers, especially if the difference is significant.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 7:58
You don’t need huge trials to tease out those minor differences depending on the therapy you’re dealing with. So that was one reason why we thought that neoadjuvant would be a great fit. But the other parallel update that has happened in the last couple of years while patients with the so called cold tumors, or mismatch repair proficient tumors or microsatellite stable tumors, all meaning the same, which is the fair majority, 95% in the metastatic setting, and anywhere from 80 to 90% in the non metastatic setting are the MSS cancers that unfortunately don’t respond to immunotherapy. In the last few years, we’ve seen this regimen called the Bot Bal, or Botensilimab, combined with Balstilimab showing the first hint of a promise of novel immunotherapy that works in patients with cold tumors. One interesting finding that shaped the change in the trial moving forward is they noticed that folks who had active liver metastases, and the definition of active liver metastases was that, it’s not like you could never have had liver metastases. It’s just that at the time when you enroll in the study, they had to be resected, ablated, removed, or radiated at least six months ago, because the first 17 are patients that they treated, the ones who were benefiting the most were the ones who didn’t have liver metastases at the time.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 9:28
So moving forward the phase II study, and then the randomized phase II that has been completed third quarter of last year, just eagerly awaiting readout, there was a huge proportion of patients who did not have liver metastases at the time have benefited. So that’s how this regimen came to note in terms of patients with colorectal cancer. So keeping these two big advances in mind with the neoadjuvant paradigm shift, and then this regimen Bot/Bal, we had proposed as an investigator initiated trial to Agenus, the company who makes this drug–how about if we could consider the same combination, but in the neoadjuvant setting. We also looked at designing this in terms of as a parallel to the NICHE study that was published in Nature Medicine. Also there’s been an update to that presentation at ASCO, with over 29 patients treated with the immunotherapy that is approved for MSI high in melanoma, the ipilimumab or nivolumab, or ipi- nivo for short. So the idea was to compare and contrast how would this combination Bot/Bal fare in the setting of mismatch repair proficient and deficient tumors in the neoadjuvant setting, we designed it to kind of keep safety in mind.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 10:56
Its the last thing you want to do is in a person who can get colon cancer surgery tomorrow, next week, curative intent, is to jeopardize the surgery. Because we cannot cure patients with colon cancer for the most part, without surgery and or chemotherapy for the ones who need it, who are high risk. So the main objective of our trial was safety. So one of the things that we wanted to make sure was any surgery that got delayed would be considered a negative and the study would have to be shut down if two or more patients in the 12 patients that we wanted to treat would lead to a delay or cancelation of their surgery. So even a delay beyond 12 weeks was considered as what we call in our scientific world, like a dose limiting toxicity or something that would want us to stop the trial prematurely. So that was the main goal. And of course, we wanted to make sure that surgery happens safely as well, so any kind of serious adverse events or toxicity happening in the perioperative period even up to 90 days or 100 days after surgery, because immutherapy is a like a vaccine, it stays in your system.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 12:00
So could it even impact somebody’s clinical care beyond the first few months was the main end point, and so we really find combed any kind of side effects that were attributed to treatment and or any side effects period, that happened during the build up to the surgery as well as in the post operative period. But at the same time, we, of course, wanted to see the efficacy question as well. And we on purpose, had MSI high cancer patients as well, because if immunotherapy is already known to work there in the subset that have mismatched efficient tumors, we should have proof that it’s working in those patients as well. But more so, the interest and focus was on the cold tumors, which is mismatch proficient tumors. And at the time when we were designing the study, I would say anything more than a couple of patients responding would have been still promising for further investigation, because pretty much the bar has been close to zero in the metastatic setting and some hint of signal in the early stage setting. So any kind of responses for us would have been considered promising.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 13:13
Just to give you an idea of the dose, you know, the actual doses that have been studied have been the up to 150 milligrams of bot, which is a multi immune activator. Some folks, while can argue that this is the next generation, or the second generation, CTLA-4 antibody, with the mechanisms that we were able to find in our trial, as well as some of the correlative work. It’s not simplistically, just another ipilimumab. It is different, which is why even the toxicity that we are seeing is different, and also the efficacy that we’re seeing is different in also in parallels in other cold tumors like sarcoma and other tumor types. The fact that this is working is is very promising. So we only chose half of the recommended dose, or the lowest possible dose that we thought would be effective, and also just one dose of it, as opposed to ongoing immunotherapy, which is every six weeks, up to four times in some of the studies. So just to kind of give you an idea, this was the lowest possible dose that one could have thought of or conceived to be given in this study. As shown here in this cartoon as well these are kind of like don’t eat any signals or signals that prompt the immune cells to stay away from the cancer that some of these immune checkpoint blockade as the name checkpoint suggests is to kind of break those interactions so that the immune cells are able to recognize, expand and activate, and also try to kill the cancer. But there are other mechanisms that are it seems like there are some immune cells that are the good immune cells that are killing the cancer. But then there are some immune cells that can dampen the response, these are Tregs or bad immune cells. So it seems like it’s not as simple as just activating your immune system, but kind of the diversity that’s expanded is of value to note. And then which of the cells are expanded more than the other, the ratio of it in terms of circuitry, is important to recognize.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 15:22
So jumping onto the results, and the waterfall plot, where things hanging down is a good sign, and every single line is a patient and their response, which was actually the surgical response, meaning how much of the cancer was alive or dead when the pathologist looked under the microscope. Just to kind of give you an idea, I mean, this was also a learning experience for me as well. The pathologist do look under the microscope, and they have a surgical sample, but they don’t necessarily look at every single looking corner of the specimen. They, of course, examine the lymph nodes, and they examine how much tumor is left. But in general, not every single section of a huge specimen is looked at. But in this particular trial, our surgical pathologist, Dr Erica song is kind of worked hand in hand as a co- PI on the study, and also one of the senior author on our paper. Is also important, because without the pathologist, and of course, it goes without saying, without the colorectal surgeons who see these patients, this trial would not have seen the light of day. And so these are in some ways conservative numbers, because even in some cases where there were just a couple of cells floating around in a dead mucin pool, like this person and MSI high on the farthest right, who had a 98% responsepretty much the whole entire ginormous tumor was all dead, but just a small cluster of cells were present. So we made sure that we reported all of this so that we, in any way, the last thing you want to do is overestimate something and lead to a wrong signal. So these are, in fact, conservative numbers. But it’s hard to fake no cancer being present at all, or the cancer disappearing. And what was very fascinating as an experience, and very rewarding as an experience for us was, the it was a subjectivity, and the adjectives that our pathology colleagues started describing at some of these tumor board meetings, where every week here at Cornell, on every Thursday night, we review every single patient’s case, every new patient gets discussed, and that’s true for all academic and community centers as well. It’s good practice to be making decisions as a team, but then that’s also a meeting where we look into the microscope together as to what did the pathologist find? How aggressive was the tumor? What did it look like? What was the mutation testing? And also in patients who got any chemotherapy or immunotherapy, what was the pattern response? Did you see immune cells around the cancer? How much of the cancer was alive or dead? But the way they were describing from the very first patient that got this as a treatment was what did the patient get? What did you give the patient? And we’ve never seen immune response like this much, or the exuberant nature of the response, or the striking area of immune cells, or tons of inflammation and necrosis, meaning dying of the cancer cells. There were things that even the first two patients that were the cold tumors that had over 90% and 85% kill, the patients here that are on the third and fourth that prompted us to write a whole publication that was in the Oncogene journal. And we can share the links afterwards, and it’s available online, free to read because it has some striking images that we had pre and post, even just the first two patients. We wanted to get the word out, because for things to work and also to work as quickly, remember, these patients could have gotten surgery as early as three weeks from starting the treatment. That’s very important to recognize that if you can have just three weeks of a treatment causing this much kill of the cancer, that is unprecedented in many ways. In fact, a lot of patients as early as 21 days had surgery.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 19:32
We wanted to keep this trial pragmatic and practical meaning that right now in the United States, a patient like I said, with colon cancer is often seen by the surgeon first, and with the surgery team as well as the patient and caregiver alike, the immediate plan is to get the tumor out of your body as soon as possible. Now again, I would do the same if this was me or my family member, but at the same time. It’s good to realize that this didn’t start this week or last week, this month or this year. Some of the polyp to adenoma to carcinoma sequence can take three to five years to develop. That’s why, if somebody has a colonoscopy that’s clean, the next one is not due to, like, five years or so. So that’s because we know that this is how things develop. But we still have to remember there’s the psychosocial piece. So the surgery happening ASAP on the calendar whenever the surgeon can get an operating date, which could be tomorrow, it could be next week. So most patients, if not all of them, actually already came with a surgery date in hand, and we’re told that I’m getting my surgery on February 4. The surgeon asked me to do the pre op testing and the COVID testing, and I’m also here to talk to you, because I hear you have a trial. So keep that in mind we wanted to keep it as pragmatic as possible, so that all we were asking patients is you’re getting a surgery on February 4, a couple of weeks away from now. We have this immunotherapy that is not yet proven or tested in the neoadjuvant setting, but may have value, especially for those with advanced cancers, with chemo and surgery, may or may not even cure all of them, is to consider this trial. So we were only pushing out surgery by a week or so at the most, so that was something that was acceptable to all the patients that the trial was offered. So it also shows the interest in the patient and caregivers as well who participated in the study, and the trust that they showed to consider something which is not necessarily the norm.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 19:48
And like I said, as the trial progressed, was also very fascinating was patients and their caregivers, also the surgeons were themselves asking, can we postpone the surgery by another couple of weeks? Because maybe we can get more more shrinkage and kill all the cancer? So that’s how you might see, I’ll show you in the poster as well, that there were patients who had surgery a little later. Wasn’t because of any side effects or anything. In a positive way it was because the signal was getting more profound as we waited even a few days longer, that prompted the surgeons and the teams taking care of the patient on a week by week basis to maybe purposely allow for things to be delayed some.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 22:24
As shown here in dark green, are the MSS, or cold tumors. You can see from cancers entirely disappearing. The one of the first patients who is a 100% is somebody who had so much bulky tumor that even one of my colleagues who saw me the next day, who where the patient was starting the trial, was a little apprehensive about a person who was having some symptoms and bulky tumor to consider a trial that you know potentially may or may not work. So that patient’s symptoms and pain and things improving, and then the cancer being down to nothing it was very rewarding. The second patient was a 100% is somebody who actually had rectal cancer. So it’s important that while this trial and NICHE-1 looked at colon cancer, and a lot of the mismatch deficient studies from Dr. Cercek from Sloan and other teams have looked at Dostarlimab in rectal cancer where, of course, living with a permanent ostomy and can be a life altering experience from a quality of life perspective. So we did allow rectal cancers to enroll as well, as long as there was a plan for surgery as next and no chemotherapy or radiation. Because, of course, the ones who are candidates for chemotherapy and radiation, maybe in the future, in different trials, but for the context of this trial high rectal cancers or rectal cancer, where there’s a plan for surgery and no chemotherapy or radiation, are pretty much like colon cancer. So they were allowed to enroll.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 23:47
So we had one, mismatch deficient MSI high rectal cancer that had a 100% response. The second, mismatch repair proficient MSS rectal cancer had a very low rectal cancer, it would have been something called an ultra low LAR, something that could have risked an ostomy as well, that the type of surgery that was done had changed and ended up in a complete response, as well. We had an 85% and also we had a 10% response. And also, as we understood some of the micro metastatic disease in the pattern response, just trying to give you an idea, as shown here in the cartoon on the right hand side, we also noticed that what was striking was even if the cancer was present, it was kind of at the luminal or the tip of the colon. So if you can imagine this cancer reaching through the walls of the colon and the lymph node that’s involving, typically when we’re killing the cancer with chemotherapy or radiation, even if it’s eradicating let’s say approximately 90% of the cancer here is dead when it’s dead and scattered in different parts, and there could be cells floating around that are not bigger than we’ve seen, because we never really fail locally. For the most part, things are getting so much better with surgery and radiation, with sophisticated software and stuff. It’s more so the question of systemic recurrence or the cells kind of being present in the soil, just like grass with pollen or grass with weed, or in terms of things spreading elsewhere. But with immunotherapy, the responses that we see, we call it like inside out, versus like root up or kind of like serosa to mucosa, meaning, even if there was cancer, the immune cells, like a wave, were destroying them in a way where, kind of like the trash was just at the door for pickup. So even if there was leftover cancer, 75% alive, 90% alive, as long as it was in the specimen that is already out of the patient’s body in the trashcan honestly, from my standpoint, it’s great to have more kill, but at the same time, as long as we didn’t leave any cancer cells behind, that’s more important, because for MSS cold tumors, they’ll get their surgery anyways. It’s not like we’re planning to avoid surgery here, but the fact that you can eradicate micrometastatic disease, that was something very fascinating and novel, which was part of the like I said, this paper is available online on Oncogene, and also some cool immunofluorescent analyzes looking at immune cells that we did with this company called Rarecyte Inc, which required very minimal tissue to be sent to them. But you can see pre and post shown here in this golden is the cancer itself and around the golden cancer is the immune cells, different kinds. CD4, CD8, good cells, bad cells. Foxp3 it’s like a swarm of bees that you can see between pre and post, just a few weeks apart. The swarm of bees around the cancer is such exuberant increase, and even within the same patient, parts of the body that had some cancer left behind, versus part of the body that had more cancer, you could see the activity of immune cells like a busy office versus an office after 5pm as you could see, the differences between the type of immune cells, how active they were pre and post. So it was something that was very striking.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 27:24
While arbitrarily, you can argue that for major response, anything less than 50% is considered maybe not a success, and anything that 10% or less is considered “a failure”. I would argue, if even for the 0% and 10% since we saw some inflammation, and if we eradicated the micrometastatic disease, and the person still had surgery and everything is removed with the goal being cure, then even these might be not necessarily failures, in my opinion. So I would say that every single case has been a valuable insight since even the patients were at 50% 25%, when we checked their cancer cells or DNA after surgery with a blood draw to see if there was any leftover cancer, in any of these patients at more than 30 time points over six months, none of them had a recurrence. So the fact that we have such a strong black and white signal kind of speaks to the mechanism of action here, and also our understanding, a lot of these crude measures of response were invented back in the day with the esophagus cancer getting chemotherapy/radiation. So these numbers may need to be revised. In fact, a new study published in lung cancer, for example, question some of these arbitrary cut offs. Who said 90% is the cut off or 50% is good? We kind of use the real world where we come up with these arbitrary numbers of six months or three months or 50% is good, or the glass half full or half empty. But they actually showed that it’s a continuous measure that every 10% increase, or as a continuous variable, the more shrinkage you were getting that was equating to the being cancer free odds years down the line. So this is kind of changing the understanding, so to speak, of what we understand with with what’s happening in these patients.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 29:18
And so the study, by the way, is expanded based on these results. Iwanted to kind of highlight some of the key conclusions first, and then I’ll show some details regarding the poster as well. So we found it to be a safe and active regimen. Again, going back to the safety that we didn’t discuss yet, there was only one person, and again, that’s the same person who had the 100% response who had diarrhea, that’s from inflammation of the colon called colitis, that can be managed proactively with what we call steroid sparing drugs, or as the name suggests, you don’t need to use steroids to hamper the immune system or dampen the immune system. And ifrecognized early can allow the side effects to be nipped in the bud. That patient had the diarrhea on a Friday. It’s always the Friday afternoon when you hear about these events, and he still was able to get surgery the following Thursday, so the surgery was not delayed. And in fact, that’s the same person who also had the 100% response. So if you talk to some of these immunologists and oncologists who’ve been treating and have had a lot of experience with immunotherapy of the years, of course, we don’t want you to have severe side effects, but even in the days of melanoma, back in the day, having some rash or having some diarrhea or having some thyroid inflammation, it was one of those things that patients, caregivers and oncologists were looking for, and there would be more worried if there was none of it, because how do you know? There’s no direct of knowing if somebody’s immune system is activated, not activated, some of these side effects, symptoms, what they were going by and not just this particular regimen. Across the board, having any immune adverse events is very different than coming off of the trial let’s say if you had a serious adverse event for chemotherapy or target therapy, where as soon as you stop the treatment, pretty much the cancer is going to do what it was doing before. With immunotherapy, it is very different. I’ve had patients with vaccines or different kinds of immunotherapy that didn’t even get more than one dose and had to be taken off because of whatever adverse events. It’s the tale of patients who are alive and alive years out where the word cure is being used, that is happening even in the patients who there’s no specific number of doses, in my opinion, and no specific duration that you need to get immunotherapy as long as it’s working, it’s a it’s a gift that keeps giving.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 31:43
And because of the down staging we saw and the responses we saw in MSI high, the goal that we’re going to ask in the next set of patients is, and that was also something that we actually changed last minute again, because we also heard from our surgeons that in a good way that they were not inclined to operate on the next patient who was MSI high who got immunotherapy, because they never find cancer, and often everything responds so briskly, just like a marshmallow melting, that sometimes it’s actually it’s harder for them to operate because there’s a lot of scar tissue and so much robust infiltration from an immune standpoint. In fact, even at the discussion section at the ASCO, somebody asked about strictures developing. And we’ve had some similar experiences as well with just even pembrolizumab used in advanced setting, where the surgery was only done, because in a good way, there was so much response that actually there was a narrowing that had developed as an outcome of that. So maybe in those cases, we have less reliance on surgery and no surgery at all, or give that decision to the patient and caregivers and the surgeon. If they wanted to go for surgery and everything was dead, that will still be a success. If they didn’t want to go for surgery and just had no cancer worsening, that should still be considered a success. So we’ll allow for that as a composite or as an option, to give and empower the patient, so to speak, and the caregiver to make that decision. And then for the ones who are going for surgery, we’ll look at how much of it is dead as the key outcome variable. But going back to the MSS or cold tumor story, if we were able to get this much shrinkage with just three to four weeks of therapy, the idea is what would happen if we let the immunotherapy brew longer?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 33:25
We have some idea from the NICHE-3 study that was recently presented from Dr. Chalabi and colleagues, where there were deeper responses with the immunotherapy, nivo, with LAG-3. And while some folks were discussing if LAG-3 is the one that’s causing this, I think the big difference between that and NICHE-1 is also the fact that they use the monthly four week dosing of NIVO, so the average time of surgery was longer. So that just the fact that immunotherapy was allowed to simplistically bloom for longer, in my opinion, that’s what led to more responses. So we’re going to formally investigate without changing the doses of the Bot, just one dose still and keeping safety in mind, we’re going to allow for patients to have double the duration of the same regimen in MSS moving forward, and compare and contrast the results with the results what we have here.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 34:18
So with that let me just quickly, just show a little bit of the the poster as well, which had some additional data that is available online. But one of the things that we found, as shown here in the poster is shown here in the red are the patients who had CT DNA positivity, who through different platforms, again, this was commercially available tests, robust, deep analysis in-house that we’re doing with some of the scientists here, which had more insights, but none of the patients in the post op setting that have been tested, some tested as much as four times on both plasma only assays, as well as tumor informed assays, have remained negative to date. And if you look at the mutations, for the next 12 patients that might be seen in any cancer center, this is a mix of anybody and everybody. We had a patient who was HER2 positive, KRAS mutant, KRAS wild type, P53 mutant, Wnt mutations, MSI high. We had young folks were germline Lynch syndrome. We had older folks who had the somatic MSI high, from as young as 26 years of age to as old as 78. We only had four Caucasians in our trial, which is quite the opposite of the story of all the trials that are conducted in the United States, where sometimes, even in hundreds of patients, you barely find one African American enrolled in the trial. That’s important for immune therapy. That’s not just about equity and diversity, but also there isdifferent types of HLA and immune features that distinguish us apart. Again, not just race, even males, females, we had six of each. Same thing, for example, we saw was, there were five people, four out of five, all young females who had this thing called early immune activation, where they had fevers as high as like, 102 103, 101 but no signs of infection. And the symptoms of the flu, like symptoms that go along with it, that again, with just some proactive Tylenol or Alleve or naproxen. If necessary, in some patients, just the low dose, 20 milligrams of prednisone, just for a couple of days to kind of nip it in the bud, was something that overcame that. Again, goes to show that there are biological differences in your immune system as well, that have to be kept in mind from, male female biology, as well as different races. So we had Southeast Asians, we had African Americans, we had Hispanic Mexicans, we had Middle Eastern we also had Caucasian. So we hadpeople mix of older, younger. So in a good way, there’s no signal to differentiate who is the one who had more response and where the one who is this fast. Because we had folks older, whichever race, who also had the response, and younger, whatever age. Because, of course, we are noting there’s also the difference in biology between young onset, colon versus older onset. And you know the plenary at ASCO-GI, for those of you who attended or heard was in fact, on the rise of cancers in young adults from Dr Kimmie Ng. That was the plenary. So it’s important to note that biology differences might be there between young and older onset. So the fact that we saw no differences so far on all the crude analysis that we’ve done to date, nothing from a CPS or PDL-1. In fact, just a few hours ago, I got results from all the patients before and after PDL-1. And in every single patient, the PDL one went through the roof so and a lot of these patients had the so called cold tumors with not much immune inflammation. So there’s not much to tell or tease apart. We’ll have more additional results from Rarecyte to go over. And as you can see in this line plot, you can see all kinds of immune cells, CD20, B cell, T cells, that went up. But then if you look at the cells that are, what we call immune proliferation, versus the ones that are that dampen the immune cells, the ratio of that was going down, we should explain some of the responses that we are seeing. So I know there are a lot of questions, so I think I’ll probably just stop there and we can maybe look at the questions, and then based on the questions, we can revisit things on the poster, or the talk.

Manju George 38:58
Okay, sounds good. Thank you very much, Dr Kasi, so shall we start from the top of the questions?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 39:05
Yeah, yeah.

Manju George 49:42
So the first question is, how do Bot/Bal findings apply to unresectable cases? And then I’ve heard on COLONTOWN that liver Mets disqualify one from receiving Bot/ Bal. Is this accurate?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 52:04
Yeah, it’s a great question. We saw a lot of CD20 cells going up as well. And I think in the comments it’s also mentioned that it was a tumor up stage as well. I think the issue, as I said, is as opposed to rectal cancer, where you can pretty much, it’s not 100%, but it’s really good, in terms of MRI pre op staging versus post op staging. Of course, there is discrepancy, but colon cancer is a mess. Colon cancer does not get MRIs. Colon cancer is diagnosed on CT scan, and if the lumen is collapsed, you may not even be able to assess how big the tumor is. And lymph nodes are always tricky to evaluate on a CT scan. So overall, the work from European colleagues show that colon cancers are under staged when it comes to the MSS variety, and overstaged for the MSI, because in the MSI, the lymph node may just be swollen because of your immune system activation. So they could be misinterpreted as stage III, and then post op, they may be stage II. So overall, we saw pretty much clearance for them. For the most part, I think the anybody who waited at least a month to get their surgery, we saw like that inside out where the lymph nodes were negative. There was no lymphovascular invasion, no perineural invasion. And now the tumors were beyond T1, T2 so I think that the N1, N2 patients, if they had waited a few weeks longer, which we will test in the upcoming cohort, we would have seen the activity go down.

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Sharif
MSI-H
Immunotherapy
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Saima Sharif discusses early-stage MSI-H colon cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in December, 2023.

More Videos

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer
Dr. Sharif
2023
Defining early-onset CRC and improving outcomes for MSI-H rectal cancer
Dr. Cercek
2022
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

CAMILLA trial — Cabo + Durva for metastatic refractory MSS CRC

CAMILLA trial — Cabo + Durva for metastatic refractory MSS CRC

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Saeed
MSS
Immunotheapy
Trials

In this DocTalk organized by PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George, Dr. Anwaar Saeed from Kansas University Cancer Center talks about the CAMILLA trial for treatment-refractory Microsatellite Stable (MSS) stage IV colorectal cancer. Recorded in May, 2022. 

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
01:35: Dr. Saeed outlines her research activities at KU Cancer center
06:26: Background/rationale for CAMILLA trial, Cabo & Pembro each as single agents in CRC
10:47: Mechanism of action of Cabozantinib
14:10: Cabo as a “dirty Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI)”
15:14: Cabo + Immunotherapy for CRC
17:28: CAMILLA trial introduction — Dose-limiting toxicity evaluation
21:05: Results of the Phase 1b study
25:30: PD-L1 CPS & its role in treatment response
26:30: Phase II multi-cohort schema
28:31: Phase II Cabo + Durva in MSS mCRC results
28:50: Background
30:45: Methods
33:14: Baseline characteristics of the patient population
35:32: Safety data from the study
38:48: Efficacy data
51:14: Conclusions
51:49: Other VEGF TKI + IO combinations
53:00: Coming soon! STELLAR 303 600 patient global Phase 3 trial using offspring of Cabo + Atezo vs Rego in MSS stage IV CRC with RAS WT tumors

Dr. Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to DocTalks. I’m Dr. Manju George, the Scientific Director at PALTOWN. I organize these DocTalks, where we invite leading clinicians to talk to us about topics that are relevant to colorectal cancer patients and caregivers. And today, we have the pleasure having Dr. Anwaar Saeed with us. She’s an Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at the Kansas University Cancer Center and the Associate Director of the Early Phase Program. She’s going to tell us about the CAMILLA trial, but before that, let’s chat a little bit with her and ask her about her work. So Dr. Saeed, welcome.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 0:43
Thank you Manju. Thanks a lot for the invitation. It’s really an honor and it’s my pleasure to be here today and talk about my research work and present the data on the CAMILLA trial, and also chat on future perspectives where we’re heading and any promising combinations or regimens in this field.

Dr. Manju George 1:03
I see on the website that you are an active member and lead investigator in the GI Oncology program and Early Phase Developmental Therapeutics Program, and I also see that you have a bunch of trials running. So could you tell us a little bit? – And so you had your medical degree at the Arabian Gulf University in Bahrain and then a clinical fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center. So do you want to tell us a little bit about your research activities and other trials that are going on at the Kansas University Medical Center?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 1:34
Sure. So we are so invested in immune modulatory approaches. As we know, over the last few years, we have seen how checkpoint inhibitors, particularly the agents that target the PD1 and PD-L1 , have revolutionized the way we treat solid malignancies, as we’ve seen multiple approvals of those agents, either a single agent, or in combination with chemotherapy or other biologic therapies and multiple solid malignancies. And particularly I would say, over the last two to three years, we’ve seen those agents invading the GI or gastrointestinal cancer space, and particularly in hepatocellular carcinoma, upper GI cancer, like gastric and esophagus, as well as in colon cancer space as we are trying to identify a way of modulating those cold tumors to turn them into a hot tumor and make them respond to those immunotherapy agents. We’ve seen how those PD1 or PD-L1 inhibitors have already had approvals in the frontline setting and later line settings in patients with microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient tumors. But when we look at the advanced stage colorectal cancer space, we’re looking at really not more than 5% – 10% of the whole population. So my interest and my investment in terms of research effort and activity really lies in finding a space for those agents in the majority of colorectal cancer, which represent the microsatellite stable space. So within this space I’m looking at combining those checkpoint inhibitors with novel agents. So the CAMILLA trials combining durvalumab with a multi VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor in this case, cabozantinib. And I also have other studies I’ll go into, looking at combining the checkpoint inhibitor or a PD1 inhibitor with cell cycle inhibitors. The one that I have interest in is called 9-ING-41. It’s an agent that is very interesting that combines very well with chemotherapy through chemosensitization effects, but has shown recently immune modulatory impact by modulating or upregulating, PD-L1 and LAG-3. As we know, LAG-3 is another checkpoint inhibitor just like PD-L1 and we know blocking it can unlock the immune system like how we block PD-L1. And so I’m really excited about that area of research, because I feel like combining agents like this with a PD1 inhibitor as well as chemo in the frontline space could really change the horizon for our patients. So I have that study, I got recently opened. It’s actually looking at the combination of chemo with PD1 and that agent in the pancreatic space but I have a vision of looking at a similar approach in patients with colorectal cancer in the frontline space. And then there are several other stuff, I’m also interested in the GI chemo prevention. And so me and my partner, his name is Dr. A.J. Mansell, are working on several chemo prevention ideas we have. I have an ongoing trial looking at omega-3 fatty acids as a chemo prevention option in patients with Lynch syndrome. We feel like we need a chemo prevention method, in those patients with Lynch syndrome who have 80% lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer yet we don’t have any chemo prevention agents in this space beyond aspirin. I mean, there are some vaccine trials ongoing, but we don’t have any data yet from those. But we need something: diet modifications or a chemo prevention agent, so we’re looking at omega-3 fatty acids as a prescription drug using moderate doses. That trial is ongoing, and we’re hoping to present it at one of the upcoming conferences.

Dr. Manju George 6:00
Okay, thank you very much. That all sounds exciting and if you have a link of the trials, especially for CRC, that’d be kind of nice to see. And then I also saw the two posters, the one from GI ASCO earlier this year and the SITC. So if you can send me a PDF of those, that would also be something that would be very helpful. Okay, so we can get started on the CAMILLA trial then.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 6:25
Sure. Thank you. I’m going to present our talk about highlights of immune modulatory approaches in patients with advanced microsatellite stable colorectal cancer with a spotlight on the CAMILLA trial and particularly cohort 2, as this trial is ongoing, has a multi-cohort focusing on testing this regimen of cabozantinib plus durvalumab in multiple disease cohorts, but we will focus today’s talk on the colorectal cancer cohort. As a background or rationale, looking at what we have tested so far in patients with colorectal cancer, before delving into the data from the CAMILLA trial, we know that cabozantinib in colorectal cancer as single agent leads to some, I would say, modest impact on disease control rate. There was a small phase 2 study that tested cabozantinib as monotherapy in patients with chemo refractory: patients who already tried and progressed on standard of care chemotherapy options– so we’re talking about the third-line and fourth-line setting. Usingcabozantinib as a single agent in this population led to a response rate of 3% so kind of modest responses here. And I would say reasonable disease control rate of 72.7% and they have a 12 week progression-free time of 34%. In comparison, when we look at how PD1 inhibitors perform in this population, in patients with microsatellite stable colorectal cancer. So looking at the trial that led to the approval of pembrolizumab in patients with MSI-High disease, in that trial they will count all patients, regardless of MSS. So we had a cohort in that trial that looked at pembrolizumab as a single agent in patients with microsatellite stable disease, as well as another cohort looking at it in the patients with microsatellite instability, or MSI-High. And as you see in the right hand side of the slide the trial has shown that pembrolizumab as a single agent, in patients with chemorefractory colorectal cancer, do not lead to any responses. So overall response rate of 0%, in patients with microsatellite stable disease, as opposed to really good responses, as you see here in the blue bars and the black bars, the MSI-High status. So clearly, immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agents do not really do anything, just do not work. As you see, progression-free survival here is two months. Similarly in cabozantinib. And then if we use this days tab, which is in contrast with historic results of standard of care agents that we currently have in the third-line setting, namely regorafenib and LONSURF. And I put them here just for us to compare– when we look at regorafenib as a single agent based on the CORRECT trial that led to the approval of this drug, overall response rate was 1%, the median progression-free survival was 1.9 months. Really similar to what we’ve seen with PD1 inhibitor in microsatellite stable disease. So a really minimal benefit to a placebo effect and a median overall survival of around six months. Similarly here, using LONSURF, as a single agent overall response rate is 1.6% so really not more than 2% here, median progression-free survival of two months, and then a median survival of seven months. So this is what we have, as a standard of care. And those single agent activity here with either cabozantinib or any checkpoint inhibitor, do not go beyond what we’ve seen as standard of care. So this is a background of what we have so far.

Dr. Manju George 10:37
Dr. Saeed, could you please go into a little bit more detail about how cabozantinib works?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 10:44
Yes, cabozantinib, and I’m going to go on to the next slide, it will show you why we’re looking at cabozantinib, and why this drug. So what is the rationale of combining cabozantinib with checkpoint inhibitors, and before looking at the immunomodulatory effect of this drug, cabozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, so it blocks the tyrosine kinases that are very important in phosphorylating very vital proteins that the cancer depends on for survival and proliferation or multiplication. There is a huge number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors out there, but those “dirty” tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the ones that block multiple tyrosine kinases, not just one. And the famous ones that led to multiple approvals, for example, cabozantinib, regorafenib, lenvatinib those all block the VEGF receptor-2 tyrosine kinase in addition to multiple other tyrosine kinases. Cabozantinib is one of them, it blocks the tyrosine kinase protein for VEGF receptor-2 and we know VEGF receptor-2 is a vital protein in our vascular endothelial system, and it helps with vascular proliferation and within the cancer tumor microenvironment we know that this vascular system is very vital for tumor replication and tumor growth, and any dysregulation in the vascular pathway is one way that the cancer uses to progress, metastasize and proliferate. Blocking the vascular system has shown, in for example, gastrointestinal malignancy, particularly in colorectal cancer, that it helps the chemotherapy work better. It improves the control rate and the median progression-free time, and it has shown to be a very good maintenance strategy, combining it with our standard of care chemo in this disease. And I’m referring by saying that, to Avastin, which is the standard of care drug that we utilize. The difference between Avastin and cabozantinib is Avastin is a monoclonal antibody that blocks the protein VEGF receptor-2, but just blocks the protein, not the tyrosine kinase, the enzyme that is linked to the protein. And so we call it a monoclonal antibody that blocks the protein receptor on the cell membrane, whereas cabozantinib is a VEGF receptor-2, blocks the same pathway, but it blocks the tyrosine kinase protein that is linked to that receptor. And it is not just blocking that VEGF receptor-2, it is a multikinase inhibitor. It blocks that protein, but also with it, blocks multiple other tyrosine kinases. So in this case, the profile of cabozantinib targets include “M-E-T” or “MET”, as well as “R-E-T” and multiple other tyrosine kinases like FLT and RET and KIT. We call it “dirty” tyrosine kinase because it blocks multiple kinases. It can lead to some certain side effects that I will highlight as we go through the slides. And as compared to the other multi-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors, it has its unique targets because it is one of the only, I would say, approved multi-VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors that block both VEGF and MET at the same time. And we know that in gastrointestinal cancer malignancies, particularly colorectal cancer, the MET pathway plays a vital role, especially in patients who have RAS wild-type disease after progression on EGFR inhibitors like cetuximab or panitumumab. So that is what cabozantinib does as a drug.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 15:04
But nowadays, because of all the immunotherapy approvals, there is a lot of research and trials that were done exploring, “how about looking at those biologic agents that block the tyrosine kinases and the vascular pathway and see if they could work well with immunotherapy? Do they have any immune modulatory impacts in a way that provide rationale to combining them with immune checkpoint inhibitors?”. And the reason for that is because when we modulate the vascular system in the tumor microenvironment, we know that the vascular system crosstalks with those checkpoint inhibitors, because this is what the cancer does to evade the immune system, modulating the vascular pathway, through the hypoxia pathway and such, it can upregulate certain checkpoints, like PD-L1. So for example, with this drug cabozantinib, it was tested a few years ago, back in 2014 in a colorectal cancer model, and testing it has shown that cabozantinib can reduce the immune suppressor cells in the circulation by suppressing T Regs and MDSCs, and those are suppressive T cells and it can boost the effector T cells like CD4 T cells and CD8 T cells. So, it has shown some immunomodulatory impact in colorectal cancer. And in a different model, in a prostate cancer in vivo model published in Nature back in 2017, combining cabozantinib with checkpoint blockade has led to significant suppression of MDSCs and significant boosting of the CD8 T Reg ratio. That was very significant in comparison to using either checkpoint blockade alone or using cabozantinib alone. This study clearly validates pre- clinically, that combining cabozantinib with immune checkpoint blockade leads to synergistic impact, and that provided the rationale to develop this trial. And not just this trial, because cabozantinib is being combined with immune checkpoint blockade and being tested in multiple other solid tumor types. But this is the first study that combined cabozantinib with immune checkpoint blockade in GI cancer malignancies, colon cancer and gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 18:32
So this is the highlight of the schema for the CAMILLA trial, which is a phase 1/2 trial, combining cabozantinib with durvalumab in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer and other gastrointestinal malignancies. So, the highlight of what we’ve done for the Phase Ib part of the study: Part One of the study was a DLT evaluation or what we call dose limiting toxicity evaluation. We use the classic three plus three dose escalation, where we use the fixed dose of durvalumab, which is the standard dose for durvalumab, the PDL1 inhibitor. And this is a standard dose that we give once a month. So on the first day of every cycle–each cycle is four weeks. The first day of every cycle, the patient receives 1500 milligrams of durvalumab intravenously, in combination with cabozantinib, which is an oral agent. And in this phase, we escalated. We started with the lowest dose of cabozantinib, 20 milligrams daily, and then we went up to 40 milligrams daily in the next dose cohort. And then we went up to the maximum dose, which is 60 milligrams, so just three dose levels that we tested.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 18:54
And then we opened the phase 2, or the expansion phase. So from phase 1, we’ve learned that going up from 20 to 60, we did not see any dose limiting toxicities per the protocol, per our protocol definitions of those limiting toxicities. However, most of the patients who went into the 60 milligram dose through the expansion phase needed dose reduction to 40 milligrams after cycle two, and most of this was related to accumulated fatigue and anorexia, or loss of taste and weight loss. Because of that, we regrouped and discussed in detail all the side effects that we’ve seen and the safety profile, and we agreed that the 40 milligram dose would be the happy medium, and we should use that as the recommended phase 2 dose. We did not see any fatal drug toxicities or adverse events throughout the study. For the phase 1 part, which included, as you see here, colorectal cancer as well as gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma, I presented the first 20 patients’ data back in ASCO, 2020, just to show the preliminary results from the phase 1 at that time. We’ve seen really good, impressive results. Overall response rate was 25% among those first 20 patients, and a disease control rate of 85% and most of those patients, not most of them, I would say all of them have chemorefractory disease and they are micro satellite stable. So they progressed on the standard of care chemotherapy regimens in the front line, second line, and then they went on the trial. Those are the mature Phase 1b results that I presented at the SITC meeting. And as you see, those are the first 30 patients that went on the study. Part of them went on the dose escalation cohort, and then the second part was the dose expansion cohort. We have 17 patients among those with colorectal cancer, 10 patients with gastric and esophageal and 3 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. As you see, we’ve seen a really good overall response rate 26.6% so around 27% disease control rate of 83% and a median progression free survival of 4.5 months, median survival of nine months, and the six month progression-free survival was 36.6%. And we looked at, as I highlighted earlier, because of the immune modulatory impact of cabozantinib, we expect some immune modulation and rationale for combining with durvalumab. We know from the upper GI literature and some other solid tumor literature as well, that PD-L1 expression, using the combined positivity score or CPS methodology, can predict or identify a subgroup of patients that might respond better to regimens that contain PD1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. So we ran a subgroup analysis, we obtained baseline biopsies, so before all of those patients went on the trial, we obtained a fresh tumor biopsy from all of them, and we tested those tumors for PD-L1 using the CPS method. And then we’ve seen that among the 30 patients were evaluable for response 12 of them have relatively high PD-L1 expression defined as CPS 5 and above. So among those 12 patients, we’ve seen better responses, which is in line with what what we’ve seen with using this methodology in patients with upper GI malignancies, when nivolumab and pembrolizumab was combined with chemotherapy in the frontline space and in that disease population. But so far, there’s no other studies that looked at PD-L1 CPS in patients with colorectal cancer who have advanced stage disease, or even early stage disease. This is the very first study that explored using this biomarker to identify a group of patients who might benefit the most from this combination, and we’ve seen that the overall response rate was better: 33%. Disease control rate is better: 91%,and the median progression-free survival was really better 6.1 months, and then the median survival was way better, not reached here, but I have up to date data that showed the median overall survival: 14 months. The six month PFS was 50% so those patients are able to stay on the study longer, and they are able to derive deeper responses than the rest of the patients.

Dr. Manju George 24:13
Dr Saeed, in the study, how many are colorectal cancer patients?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 24:19
17.

Dr. Manju George 24:20
Okay.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 24:21
So, among the 30 patients, we had 17 colorectal cancer, 10 gastric and esophageal and 3 HCC. And the colors here, if you look at the graphs, the green is the colorectal cancer patient, so most of those are colorectal. The red is the gastric and esophageal and the blue is the hepatocellular carcinoma or liver.

Dr. Manju George 24:44
Thank you.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 24:44
Thank you. So this is just showing the couple more curves, highlighting the subgroups. As you see here, looking at progression- free survival, there’s a clear separation of the curve. Those patients really do better. Patients with PD-L1 CPS score 5 and above, there’s clear separation throughout from the get go and then, similarly, with the overall survival, clear separation of the curve. And this is why one way of identifying a clear biomarker, we know that PD-L1 CPS has its own pros and cons, and own challenges when it comes to testing it in the tumor micro environment, because of intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity, because if you obtain different biopsies from the same patients, you might get different results. But most of those patients have numbers ranging, if you find a CPS PD-L1, – CPS of 10 – from the primary tumor in the colon, is likely that you’re going to find eight or seven in the liver, or maybe higher in the liver. So despite the heterogeneity, it is one of the best markers out there that could identify the population that will benefit the most. And again, I have to say that this is a small sample size, and so we should not use this as a conclusion that this is a good marker, but this definitely sets the stage for us to test the marker in a larger patient population, in our larger study, and also in the ongoing study. So this just highlights what we have in the study so far before I review the results for the colorectal cancer cohort.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 26:27
As you see, there’s four cohorts in the study, all of them are ongoing, except the colorectal, because we completed that enrollment of the colorectal cancer cohort. And I presented that data at the GI ASCO meeting. So 29 patients are expected to enroll in each one of those cohorts. We are almost done with enrolling to the gastric and esophageal cohort, and as I said, completed enrollment to the colorectal cohort and those two liver cancer cohorts are currently ongoing. We actually, on the cohort four of the liver cancer cohort here, we are testing the triplet. So in addition to cabozantinib and durvalumab, there is some data recently that have shown that combining durvalumab with another checkpoint inhibitor called tremelimumab, also from AstraZeneca, have shown really good responses in a small Phase 2 study in the 2nd line space. And then recently, this was validated based on the HIMALAYA trial, which is a large Phase 3 trial – FDA registration trial, in the front line space, and patients with advanced liver cancer. This combination, or doublet, showed positive results in this large frontline study. And based on that, we decided, well, if those two checkpoint inhibitors work very well, then we could probably just add this checkpoint to our doublet here in the CAMILLA study and test the triplet to see if we will be able to capitalize on what they’ve seen in the HIMALAYA study. So this is currently ongoing as part of cohort 4, and obviously, if we’ve seen good results with that triplet, my vision as far as next step is to possibly test the triplet in the other disease types, including colorectal cancer.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 28:24
So with that, we can delve into the results of the colorectal cancer cohort, which tested again, the same regimen, in the MSS colorectal cancer population, mostly in the third-, fourth- and fifth- line setting. So, I already went through the background and discussed how combining checkpoint inhibitors with anti- angiogenic agents have antitumor activity in multiple cancer types. As an example, we could highlight renal cell carcinoma within the kidney cancer space, liver cancer and lung cancer in those spaces, combining agents that target the vascular pathway, or what we call antiangiogenic agents with immune checkpoint blockade led to benefit and led to approval of those drugs in those settings. Cabozantinib, as I highlighted earlier, is an anti-VEGF Receptor-2, MET and AXL multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. It has multiple studies in the pre clinical and the clinical space and various solid tumors that demonstrated favorable immune modulatory activity of this drug and clinical synergy when this drug combined with PD1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, like durvalumab, in this case. So this study is just following what was shown in other disease types, but testing it in the gastrointestinal cancer space, particularly colon cancer and gastric and esophageal cancer. Upon completion of this Phase 1b basket study that I just highlighted, evaluating cabozantinib and durva in those 30 patients and demonstrating favorable safety and efficacy, the trial was then expanded to a Phase 2, multi-cohort, multi-center study of 117 patients. It’s currently ongoing. We almost completed two cohorts, and two of our cohorts are still ongoing.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 33:51
As far as the methods for this Phase 2, the patients who were enrolled in this Phase 2 received the recommended Phase 2 dose of cabozantinib, which is 40 milligrams daily, as I highlighted earlier, and they received a fixed dose of durvalumab, which is a standard dose for this drug, 1500 milligrams through IV infusion, once every four weeks. The enrolled patients should have a microsatellite stable disease or proficient mismatch repair phenotype. And this is the majority, around 90% of the advanced colorectal cancer population belong to this, or have this phenotype. They must have progressed on two or more lines of therapy. So we’re only testing this in the third, fourth and fifth-line setting. We have run a subgroup analysis on the RAS wild type tumors, and I will highlight them. We’ve been doing scans, or per the protocol, the scans were done every eight weeks, so every couple months the patients will have a scan to evaluate disease response. We allow disease beyond progression just one time, so if the patient shows any evidence for disease progression that meets our, what we call it: the RECIST criteria, the trial followed a modified RECIST criteria, meaning if thepatients have disease progression, we allow the patient to continue to study beyond progression one time and then repeat another scan in at least four weeks from the first scan that showed progression. If the follow-up scan shows disease progression, that means the progression is confirmed, and at that time, we can move the patient off the study and discuss other options. If the second scan shows response or improvement or stable findings from the first scan then we consider that this could possibly reflect something called pseudo progression in the setting of immunotherapy, and that patient would be allowed to continue the therapy.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 34:13
So those are the baseline characteristics for the patients who went on the trial. So we had balanced, I would say female/male ratio around 50%, as far as the median age who went on the study? 57 years was the median age. But we have quite a good number of patients above the age of 60 who went on the study, 45%. As far as performance status, most of the patients have performance status of one. As far as sidedness, most of the patients had left-sided colorectal cancer, including rectum. So: 16 have rectal cancer; 25 patients have left-sided; and only 4 patients have right-sided colorectal cancer. The results, I would say, represent the left-sided, mostly, colorectal cancer space. As far as the RAS status, 41% or 12 patients who went on the study had wild type, and 17 patients had RAS mutant phenotype. As far as the HER2 amplifications, we had two patients on the study who had HER2 amplification and they went on the study after failing a HER2 targeted approach. Similarly with the RAS wild type, the study mandates that the patient fail the standard of care, EGFR blocker, whether cetuximab or panitumumab, before enrolling on the trial.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 34:13
And as far as prior lines of therapy, as you see 100% of the patients who went on the study had at least two prior lines of therapy. 14 of them had two lines of therapy, meaning they received the regimen in the third-line. And then 15 of them, which is half of the patients who went on the trial, received the regimen in the fourth or fifth-line. As far as the prior therapies, we have four patients who went on the trial after failing LONSURF, and we did not have any patients who went on the trial with prior exposure to Regorafanib. Most of the patients who went on the trial had prior VEGF targeted agent, Bevacizumab, and around half of them had prior EGFR antibodies like cetuximab or panitumumab. And most of the patients have pretty good volume load of the disease. As you see, all of them, 100% of the patients went on the study had at least three sites of metastasis. Patients who have liver metastasis constitute 79% of the study population. So most of them have liver metastasis as well.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 35:32
As far as the safety, as you see here, when looking at the significant grade three and above treatment-related adverse events, 31% of the patients, so 11 out of the 36 had grade three and above treatment-related adverse events. And as I alluded to earlier, we did not have any grade five, which are the fatal toxicities. So we do not have any patients who died because of toxicities related to the trial regimen, and those are either grade three or four, but mostly grade three. As far as the immune related adverse events, as this is an immunotherapy combination regimen, six patients had grade three and above immune related adverse events, and among those, three of them required at least four weeks of steroid therapy to calm down the immune therapy related toxicity. And as far as the dose modifications required, half of the patients who went off, around half of the patients who went on the study required a dose delay or hold in either durvalumab or cabozantinib. And as far as the number of patients who required permanent discontinuation of one of those drugs, it is, I would say, amazing that none of the patients had required permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, but we have one patient who needed to have permanent discontinuation of durvalumab, and that is related to a recurrent immunotherapy related inflammation in the colon or colitis, after rechallenging. So, a patient developed immunotherapy related colitis, we treat it with steroid, then we rechallenge the patient with durvalumab again. And we’ve seen that that patient developed immunotherapy related adverse event again, so the colitis reoccurred. So in situations like this, we typically permanently discontinue the immunotherapy. We had one patient who have… those are the most common side effects that we’ve seen with the combination. Most commonly, as you see, and this is in line with with the side effects that for this type of combination, that what’s shown or what’s seen in other tumor types. The most common side effects, as you see here, are fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anorexia, hand foot syndrome, liver enzyme changes – or we call it transaminitis, high blood pressure, hypertension, headache, thyroid issues, either hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism. Skin Changes: mostly dry skin, inflammation and the mucosa membranes or oral mucositis, muscle cramp, commonly happens with cabozantininb and low cell counts, particularly thrombocytopenia, is common with cabozantinib as well, but not severe enough. So as you see, all of the patients that we’ve seen with thrombocytopenia had, I would say, grade one or two, proteinuria, weight loss. We’ve seen some patients with hair color changes and some other toxicities, as you see here.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 38:47
So those are the efficacy results you see.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 38:51
We have 29 patients who are evaluable for efficacy. Overall response rate was around 27.6% or 28% confirmed partial response. Those are the patients who had another scan after the first partial response that confirmed the same deep response that we’ve seen on the first scan, is 20.7%. The disease control rate is 86.2%, median progression-free survival is 3.8 months, and the median overall survival is 9.1 months, the six month progression- free survival is 34.5%. And as you may all know that we ran a subgroup analysis on patients who have RAS wild type, and because around half of the patients who went on a study had RAS wild type status we ran a subgroup analysis on this group, and as you see, in patients who have RAS wild type disease, the overall response is way better, 50%. The disease control rate is 83%, median progression-free survival is 6.3 months, their median overall survival is 21.8 months. So clearly, those patients, I would say, significantly benefit. There’s significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival when compared to the overall population. If you look at the graphs, the green bars and the green arrows here, including the green lines in the spider plot, are all patients who have partial response. And when I run my analysis, I noticed that all of those green bars, green lines and arrows, belong to the RAS wild type. So those are the population that really benefit the most from the regimen. And so far, we don’t know why – we’re running an ongoing analysis – we obtained fresh tumor tissue before all of those patients went on the trial. So we’re running tumor environment assays to see if there are any new markers that correlate with better response beyond just the RAS wild type status, to identify why, maybe the RAS wild type has a different tumor microenvironment than the RAS mutant population, or maybe there is a pathway that’s upregulated after they fail the EGFR blocker, because all of those patients who have RAS wild type failed prior cetuximab or panitumumab before going on the study. So are we dealing with a situation where those patients progressed on cetuximab or panitumumab because they upregulated a different pathway than EGFR and we know from prior published literature that a common scenario in this situation is upregulation of MET, and we know cabozantinib is targeting the MET pathway. So it could be a scenario where cabozantinib came in the right space, MET was upregulated, and those patients benefited the most. Or, their tumor microenvironment is immune permissive, meaning the tumor suppressor cells are not that populated in the tumor microenvironment and throwing in durvalumab there led to way better survival advantage than the other group. So those are ongoing studies that I’m running and I’m hoping to definitely present at a later conference this year or early next year.

Dr. Manju George 38:51
Dr. Saeed, I had a question about the spider plot. The blue one which goes above, is that some kind of hyper- progression or something that you saw?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 42:42
I would say the red ones, yes. So the red ones are primary refractory disease. They did not benefit. They did not have any stable scans. Most of the blue ones are the ones who have stable scan up to four to six months, so they have stable disease for four to six months. Some of them progress kind of slowly, but then they maintain overall…, if you look at this one, it’s an interesting line. There’s no flare, there’s slow progression, but then it stabilizes. And this is something we see with immunotherapy, even in other disease types that, if you allow patients to continue to be on progression, you might meet progression criteria at some point, but it’s only one. Like here, he had a rise, but then he maintained it.

Dr. Manju George 43:29
And I was wondering whether, in your wild-type RAS patients, do you think that EGFR inhibitors changed their sensitivity to PD-L1 inhibition and made them more sensitive? Is that something that you think might be going on?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 43:44
Possibly. As we know, targeting the EGFR – so if we can extrapolate even from the HER2 literature, if you’re targeting HER2, especially nowadays with all of those HER2 agents trying to target HER2 and an immunotherapy agent, and we’re seeing tons of positive studies coming out showing that if you target HER2 with an immunotherapy agent, you get better responses. Even in the upper GI space, like in gastric and esophageal, for the first time in decades we’ve trumped the results of the TOGA trial. So trastuzumab and chemotherapy. We’ve been using this regimen as a standard of care for years up until now, when pembrolizumab was combined with Herceptin, we’ve seen that we can show better results than, Herceptin and chemo. So this talks to the EGFR pathway, because HER2 is part of the EGFR pathway. I think it’s already validated that if you target HER2 or EGFR pathway with an IO agent, you get better results. And it’s probably the case. Those patients received an EGFR blocker, their tumor microenvironment may be modulated, and then we threw the durvalumab there, and cabozantinib, so you targeted a different kinase on that same pathway. And you threw the durvalumab, so I think that’s probably what’s going on. But we cannot for sure tell what happened without the testing, but all of those are valid theories.

Dr. Manju George 45:13
Okay. The other question I had is that in our patient groups, people were interested in the LEAP trial, where they did lenva plus pembro, but that result is different from what you’re seeing, right? And why do you think there is a, I mean, it’s just a curious question, what is the difference? Is it the TKI targeting different things?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 45:33
I think there’s multiple things that we could think of, because it’s hard to compare those, because we’re not doing head to head comparison here, right? And so the population of patients who went on that study might be different than this one. I do not know if they ran a RAS wild-type analysis. Maybe the patients who went on that study are mostly not RAS wild-type and mostly RAS mutant. That would definitely, if I repeat the study and block the RAS wild-type, you would imagine that my overall response rate would not be right. So I’m not sure what’s happening in that space and whether they, at least looked at their RAS wild-type population. Because we also know that if you do not mandate a fresh biopsy before the patient goes on the trial, you cannot just use the historic results to label that patient as RAS wild-type, because we know from newer studies that even in the RAS wild type could change. It’s an ongoing target, so the patients who develop resistance might be RAS mutant by the time they went on on the study so they cannot take their historic results to say lenvatinib doesn’t work. So just looking deeply into into those things, it may be that, even if they run a RAS wild-type analysis, it might be that those RAS wild-type patients turn into RAS mutant before they went on the study. And the reverse is true. Some of the RAS mutants could also lose their as the KRAS mutation, and have a RAS wild-type phenotype. So the fresh biopsies are also very important. And I know how challenging it is to obtain fresh biopsies, especially if it’s an industry study or very large phase 3 studies. So I think this is the benefit of this CAMILLA study, because it’s an investigator-initiated trial. I can control it. It’s being run at my institution. So mandating those fresh biopsies, though challenging, is feasible in those kind of proof of concept early phase trials, and I can definitely tell that those patients are RAS wild-type, because we did a fresh biopsy before they went on the study, and that’s what we’ve seen. So it may be that. And then also, I believe, cabozantinib has different tyrosine kinase profile. And if you look at comparing how cabozantinib performed, even in other disease types, really better than lenvatinib and regorafenib. So it is not just in colorectal cancer space. We’ve seen better results with cabozantinib across tumor types when looking at those agents in historic comparison. So it has something to do with that drug as well.

Dr. Manju George 48:13
Thank you so much. And then you were saying that in your study, you had a lot of patients who had liver mets, and that did not seem to affect it right? There’s this idea that liver mets are supposed to be globally immunosuppressive, but that is not the case for you, right?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 48:28
Yes, I think, yes, definitely. I agree with the studies that showed how liver metastases can lead to immune resistant environment in the liver. And I totally agree with that. It doesn’t seem to impact a lot the results we’ve seen here, maybe because we’re talking about some molecular phenomena here, because when it comes to molecular phenomena, for example, with HER2 targeted therapy, we didn’t see that process, like those patients’ responded, regardless, right? So if you use the targeted agents in the right population, you see the results regardless of those studies. And I think that’s what’s probably happening. There might be, I mean, if you look at the RAS mutant in my population, they’re clearly not responding very well, right? So, yeah, something to do with the RAS wild-type.

Dr. Manju George 49:24
Yeah, it’s, it seems like, here is you’ve shown proof of real personalization of therapy, right? You’re looking at CPS, you’re looking at RAS status, and then you’re seeing that effect. So you can actually narrow down what is the specific population that is responsive to something like this.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 49:42
Exactly. Yeah.

Dr. Manju George 49:44
This is very exciting.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 49:45
Yes. The good part about being a clinician, researcher, and investigator, is that I’ve seen this hands-on in clinic. Because, as I was enrolling patients, I was like, “Oh, this patient has been one year, and this patient on the study, and then you see another patient who’s been beyond nine months. I was, “Okay, what’s common between them? There must be something”. And then you go look at their profile. Oh, they are RAS wild-type. And then you go back, and then you look at all of those who really responded and stayed on the study. All of them share one thing, RAS wild-type. So it’s exciting to test those agents in clinic. And see that. This is just the Kaplan Meier curves. And again, I’m really excited about this, and though it’s a small study size, but we can clearly show how those lines are separating. So the RAS wild-type really benefiting the RAS mutant is in the lower and the blue line is like when you lump everyone. So if you separate the RAS mutant by themselves and the RAS wild-type by themselves, there’s clear separation without any noise, even from the get go. So just to conclude, we have demonstrated that combining cabozantinib and durvalumab show promising efficacy and was fairly tolerated without any new safety signals in heavily treated microsatellite stable colorectal cancer patients. Wild-type RAS status was associated with improved overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. So these encouraging results were a further evaluation of this regimen in a phase 3 randomized trial as salvage therapy in this population. And this is just a time to ill…, — we discussed the other VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors. So I created this table to contrast our data with or our results with what was published with the other VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors. And as you see, we can control the disease way better than all of the things tested. And most of those are, I included, mostly the US studies, as you see. So we’re talking about US population here with lenvatinib, regoranfinib and cabozantinib, we have the best disease control rate, we have way better overall response rate than the others, and then better progression-free survival. And obviously, if we just look at the RAS wild-type population, we have way better median survival than the other regimens. So I would like to, since we’re talking to our colorectal cancer population, and I had lots of questions from many patients, I would say, across the US, emailing me and through Twitter and other social media, asking about what’s next, we have RAS wild-type, where could we go? And all of those things. So I figured I should highlight the trial that will open soon. It’s a global study.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 52:46
So Exelixis is taking this to a phase 3 trial. It’s called STELLAR-303, it’s a pivotal study, FDA registration trial that will combine the offspring of cabo, so XL092 is pretty much cabozantinib. This is the offspring of cabozantinib. So cabozantinib patent has come into to an end, so they have to go to a phase 3 trial. They have to use the offspring or their new drug. The difference between this drug and cabozantinib is that this was engineered to have a lower half life, and so the company is feeling like this will have a better side effect profile than cabozantinib without an impact on efficacy. So that engineering part to create this offspring did not touch the targets for cabozantinib. So it’s pretty much similar drug with maybe a better side effect profile. It will be combined with atezolizumab, which is similar to durvalumab, it is a PD-L1 inhibitor, a well known PD1 inhibitor as well. So the study will look at this combination regimen, XL092, plus atezolizumab in the microsatellite stable advanced colorectal cancer who have progressed on the standard of care therapy. So it will be a third-line study. So patients in the third-line and they have to have a RAS wild- type disease. So this is a phase 3 study that is tailored to the RAS wild-type space, or the RAS wild-type population. And I mean clearly, just based on the CAMILLA study results, it will have 600 patients enrolled across the globe. They will be randomized to either the combination regimen versus the control arm, which is regorafinib here. They chose regorafinib because in order to see that we are showing a benefit, we have to compare it with a VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor. That’s why LONSURF was not included. So this is pretty much the study, and it will be activated around the summer of this year, so we anticipate the first site to open. It is not in clinical trials.gov yet, but it should go within the next month with the first site opening.

Dr. Manju George 55:22
And is this going to be open at your place?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 55:23
Yes.

Dr. Manju George 55:24
Okay, okay. And then, so people shouldn’t get on if they’re interested in this, they shouldn’t get prior regorafinib?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 55:29
I would say yes, because it’s a third-line study. So they should fail the first- and the second-line chemo regimens. They should have a RAS wild-type status failing, and if they are RAS wild-type, they should fail prior EGFR targeted therapy like panitumumab or cetuximab, and then they get this regimen.

Dr. Manju George 55:49
Okay,

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 55:54
That’s hopefully, yeah, addresses all the questions.

Dr. Manju George 55:57
One other question I had was that with the LEAP trial, there was a lot of intestinal perforation with lenvatinib, and you didn’t have any, any of that with the cabo?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 56:08
No, we did not have any colon perforations or intestinal perforations. In our gastric patients, though, and patients who have esophageal and gastric cancer, we had one case, one patient who had esophageal perforation, but that was a case – in that case, I presented that data at SITC, there was an immunotherapy-related inflammation in the wall of the esophagus, which might have triggered the perforation, but it’s really hard to say totally not related when he was also taking cabozantinib, but that was the only case that we’ve seen in our study patients.

Dr. Manju George 56:46
Okay and with this particular trial, are you expecting more sites to open in the US?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 56:52
Oh, yeah, they will have, I’m not sure exactly how many sites, but it will be open through the US. There will be multiple sites in the US, multiple sites in Europe and Eastern Asia.

Dr. Manju George 57:06
Okay. Okay, there is a question that has come in: Regarding the rationale behind choosing an anti PD-L1 rather than an anti PD1 in CRC, MSS patients do you think there is room for radiotherapy in this subset of patients as a means of immune priming?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 57:30
Well, that’s a nice question. We don’t really know if radiation therapy provides immune priming. There are ongoing studies and similar in several solid tumor types that use the radiation therapy as a way to do immune priming. It would be hard to test it in a stage IV setting though, in a large study like this, especially if we don’t have validation for that concept, because the concept is being studied in order to validate it. So without validation, it would be hard to incorporate it in a study like this. But one thing also to think of when we think about radiation therapy as modulator of immune response, especially in a stage IV setting, I think it’s really hard to adopt this, or especially nowadays with all of those immune modulators there. Why use a classic kind of anti-tumor burning with radiation when we have novel agents that could be taken as an oral pill or something to combine, especially if we are seeking systemic immune modulatory impact rather than regional immune modulatory impact. So that’s my opinion.

Dr. Manju George 58:49
I think that people were very interested in the abscopal effect, like you radiate one site and you see something happening in other places. But so far, I don’t think there are any studies which show that is true, right?

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 59:00
Totally agree. This is exactly my answer. When they raised this question about the abscopal effect, show me one clinical study. We’ve seen case reports and case series – do we have a clinical study showing that there is a true absopal effect, or we’re just talking about it, you know? So, so far, we don’t have any studies that validated, that’s carbon effects, okay,

Dr. Manju George 59:26
Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, and thank you for spending all this time with us and answering all the questions. This was a great presentation. Good luck with all your coming studies, I’m sure that we will be looking forward to what is coming out from your lab and your work.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 59:46
Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot, Manju, and this is my pleasure anytime, I’m happy to address any questions down the road that will come up, or come back and present stuff. I’m so happy and thanks again for the invitation.

Dr. Manju George 1:00:00
Yeah, thank you very much. And thank you all for participating. If you have any questions, feel free to email me, and I’m sure that I can email them to Dr. Saeed, or she’s on Twitter, and she’s very active. So thank you very much.

Dr. Anwaar Saeed 1:00:13
My pleasure, bye bye.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Saeed
MSS
Immunotherapy
Trials

In this DocTalk organized by PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George, Dr. Anwaar Saeed from Kansas University Cancer Center talks about the CAMILLA trial for treatment-refractory Microsatellite Stable (MSS) stage IV colorectal cancer. Recorded in May, 2022. 

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
01:35: Dr. Saeed outlines her research activities at KU Cancer center
06:26: Background/rationale for CAMILLA trial, Cabo & Pembro each as single agents in CRC
10:47: Mechanism of action of Cabozantinib
14:10: Cabo as a “dirty Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI)”
15:14: Cabo + Immunotherapy for CRC
17:28: CAMILLA trial introduction — Dose-limiting toxicity evaluation
21:05: Results of the Phase 1b study
25:30: PD-L1 CPS & its role in treatment response
26:30: Phase II multi-cohort schema
28:31: Phase II Cabo + Durva in MSS mCRC results
28:50: Background
30:45: Methods
33:14: Baseline characteristics of the patient population
35:32: Safety data from the study
38:48: Efficacy data
51:14: Conclusions
51:49: Other VEGF TKI + IO combinations
53:00: Coming soon! STELLAR 303 600 patient global Phase 3 trial using offspring of Cabo + Atezo vs Rego in MSS stage IV CRC with RAS WT tumors

More Videos

HAI for metastatic CRC
Dr. Connell
2024
New treatment strategies for MSS CRC
Dr. Parikh
2021
The TIL trial for metastatic CRC
Drs. Lou and Starr
2021
SBRT for liver and lung mets
Dr. Miller
2024
Histotripsy: New Technology for Liver Tumor Treatment
Dr. Burns
2025
Advancements in Liver Transplant Oncology for Stage IV CRC
Dr. Satish Nadig
2025
HAI Physician & Patient Panel
Drs. Ellis & Turk
2025
Multimodal Management of Liver Mets
Dr. Rocca
2025
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Immunotherapy in MSS Colorectal Cancer

Immunotherapy in MSS Colorectal Cancer

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Fakih
Immunotherapy
Liver
MSS
Stage IV
Trials

Dr. Marwan Fakih of the City of Hope Cancer Center takes a deep look at immunotherapy for MSS CRC in this Doc Talk, recorded in January 2022 with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Dr. Fakih discusses a number of recent clinical trials in this video conversation.

Table of contents:

1:38: Immunotherapy (IO) in MSS CRC—Broad overview: where are we currently with this?
3:02: What is MSI-H?
4:02: What is MMR?
6:35: dMMR Vs pMMR PD-L1 expression, how IO works
7:46: Why does IO not work in MSS CRC
9:25: KEYNOTE 177 results
10:31: Keytruda/Pembro or single agent IO in MSS CRC
12:17: IMblaze 370 trial Atezo+Cobi vs Atezo vs Stivarga in MSS CRC
13:35: CO.26 Double IO (CTLA4i+PD1i) vs best supportive care in MSS CRC
14:55: Liver mets & effect on IO-mice studies, what might be happening?
17:23: IO in mCRC patients: liver mets, a biomarker for lack of efficacy?
19:39: Immune modulatory effects of Stivarga
20:55: REGONIVO CRC-Japanese trial & similar combinations, results from GI22
28:10: CAMILLA CRC (Cabo+Durva) trial results
32:00: LEAP-005 trial (Lenva-pembro)
33:00: REGONIVO US study: why liver mets don’t seem to respond
38:10: New approaches for IO in CRC with liver mets
39:35: Summary
40:23: Other directions
42:50: Q & A Association of liver resection in the response to IO
45:00: Role of TMB in response to IO
48:22: Radiation therapy+IO in MSS CRC
50:46: Biomarkers for IO efficacy: TMB? CPS scoring? Others?
53:04: Role of gut microbiome?
57:21: IO in lymph node only metastases?
54:46: Treatment sequencing with IO?

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. I’m Dr Manju George. I’m the Scientific Director at PALTOWN Development Foundation, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN. Today we have with us Dr. Marwan Fakih. I’m sure that a lot of you already know him. He’s a professor of medical oncology and therapeutics research, a Judy and Bernard Briskin Distinguished Director of Clinical Research, Associate Director for Clinical Sciences, Medical Director of the Briskin Center for Clinical Research, Section Head of GI Medical Oncology, the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. We’re really excited to have you with us to talk to us about immunotherapy for MSS colorectal cancer.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 0:41
Thank you, Dr. George, and thank you for the invitation. Like many other physicians, we’ve all heard of COLONTOWN, and I have many patients actually, who participate in this forum, so it’s a pleasure to be here.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 1:01
I’m a medical oncologist, I treat colorectal cancer, and been doing so for the last 21 years. I’m very excited to see the field move forward. I know that we have a lot more work to do. Whatever progress we’ve made is good, but definitely not sufficient. So for those patients who are on the call, we feel you, we hear you, and I’m very hopeful that we will make more progress. So I’ve been asked today to talk about immunotherapy in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer. And this is an area that I certainly have a lot of interest in and I’ve seen some definite progress but I think it’s important that when we look at an area of research, to recognize where it’s working and also recognize where it’s not working. Defining a treatment is good, but it has to be the right treatment for the right patient. These treatments are not without side effects, and I think we have a lot more to learn, but I’m personally an advocate, and I think there are definitely patients who respond very well to immunotherapy with microsatellite stable colon cancer. I am personally treating many of those, and many of those have been on treatment for more than two years, but I’m also cognizant to the fact that not everybody responds. So when we start looking at immunotherapy, we have to ask ourselves, “what immunotherapy, and for whom”, and then try to understand how we can make it better. We all know that immunotherapy in colorectal cancer is approved for patients with microsatellite instability.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 3:09
What is micro satellite instability? I know that many of you have done a lot of your own research, are following the field of colorectal cancer very well, but, in a simplistic way, microsatellite instability – it means that there are errors in DNA within the tumor, and that the tumor cannot repair DNA damage, and that lack of ability to repair DNA damage is actually related to an error or a problem in the repair engine. And the repair engine here is what we call mismatch repair proteins, which simply are proteins that correct mismatches in the DNA. There’s two main reasons for mismatch repair protein loss. One is what we call Lynch syndrome, where one inherits a defective gene that is responsible for translation into one of those proteins: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 are the four genes that we look for. And the other reason for mismatch repair deficiency or MSI-High, is silencing of those genes, which is more common in the elderly population, especially females, right sided colon cancer. And that’s really not a hereditary condition, but rather sporadic colon cancer, meaning colon cancer that we get without a hereditary predisposition. But both categories of patients who have this condition have the same issue, which is that they can’t repair the DNA damage, and therefore there is stacking of abnormal mutations in the genome of the tumor, which leads to a lot of abnormal proteins in the tumor per se, and now you suddenly have a tumor that has proteins that the body hasn’t seen before, and the body is able to recognize that tumor as, “Hey, you don’t belong here. You have proteins that are not part of my own normal makeup of protein and therefore I am going to unleash my immune system to attack this tumor”. And that’s why patients with mismatch repair abnormalities do a lot better when they have resected colon cancer than patients without mismatch repair abnormality.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 5:43
So if you look at patients with early stage disease, stage II and stage III who have MSI-High, they rarely relapse, and they have a better overall survival than patients who do not have MSI-High. And the main reason for that is that you have the immune system in the patients with MSI-High tumors, preventing metastases from happening, attacking the tumor before it develops micro metastatic disease, and therefore it gets a better overall survival. Indeed, if we look at the tumors from patients with mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, or otherwise known as microsatellite unstable or MSI-High – all is the same. You can see that these tumors have a lot of lymphocytes. These are CD8 positive cells. These brown dots are the lymphocytes at the tumor margin so it’s kind of preventing the tumor from expanding or attacking it where it is expanding. And so there are lots of what we call tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor, and the tumor is reacting back by trying to suppress these lymphocytes from killing it, and produces PD-L1. You can see the PD-L1 localizing at the sites of the CD8, and this PD-L1 is suppressing these lymphocytes. That’s simply why immunotherapy works so well, because when you give KEYTRUDA, you’re basically blocking PD-L1 from suppressing CD8s. Now these CD8s are happy, and they’re attacking the tumor and killing the cancer. And so either by using PD-L1 inhibitors, such as Atezolizumab or Nivolumab, or by using PD1 inhibitors where PD-L1 binds to, you can basically invigorate the immune response and stimulate these CD8 cells to attack the cancer.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 7:45
So why does immunotherapy work for MSI-High and why doesn’t it work for MSS very well? It is because you don’t have lymphocytes infiltrating the tumor in patients with mismatch repair proficient colorectal cancer, MSS patients. There’s not enough CD8s, and there’s not enough CD8s because the tumor is not hypermutated. The tumor doesn’t have a lot of antigens. Why it doesn’t have a lot of neoantigens or a lot of abnormal proteins, is because you don’t have that mismatch repair problem. So we’re looking at two different populations, and you have to think about these checkpoint inhibitors as unleashing an existing immune response, and that’s why they work in MSI-High, and why they don’t work in MSS is that there’s no immune response to unleash of significance in these tumors. But that’s the simple explanation as to the difference between MSI-High and MSS as far as to why we’re seeing differences in responses. Now, this is another way to look at the checkpoint inhibitors and differences between MSS and MSI-High. MSS is the blue and MSI-High is red, and you can see that CTLA-4 is higher in MSI-High tumors, PD-L1 is higher, LAG-3 is higher. All of these are checkpoint inhibitors. And you can see that in all compartments, especially in the invasive front of the tumor, the margin of the tumor. So there are inherent differences between these two tumors, MSI-High and MSS and that’s why in MSI- High tumors, we use pembrolizumab up front in the first line setting because it works even better than chemo, as we have seen from a very large study that compared patients with stage IV colon cancer who have MSI-High. Half of them received chemotherapy, and half of them received KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab). And you can see that with KEYTRUDA, these patients who are without progression at three years, pretty much these are the cured patients. These patients rarely ever relapse afterwards. And I would say a lot of these patients may have something on their CT, but it could be just that tumor fibrosed, and you can’t tell that it’s gone, because it leaves a mark. We have many patients now who are MSI-High who are absolutely cured with immunotherapy for three years and never relapse. And so definitely a big difference in outcome, and we don’t want to miss those patients because they respond beautifully to immunotherapy.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 10:22
It’s not that KEYTRUDA has not been tested in MSS patients, patients without microsatellite instability. This is a study that said, “I’m going to look at MSS patients, I’m going to look at colorectal cancer patients. I’m going to only enroll patients who have a high PD-L1”. And PD-L1 is a biomarker of response to KEYTRUDA. In lung cancer it indicates that you have an immunosuppressive effect of the tumor against the lymphocytes, and the higher the PD-L1 is, the more likely the response in certain tumor types, such as non-small cell lung cancer. So in this colorectal cancer study, they screened 138 patients, and out of those, 138 patients, only 33 patients were PD-L1 positive. 10 had other exclusion criteria. They ended up treating 23 patients and only one patient had a response. The definition of response is shrinkage by more than half, by the way. When we use these terms, stable disease means either slight increase or slight decrease, but a partial response means major decrease, more than 50% of the tumor disappearing. As you can see, only one patient did very well on this study, and everybody else progressed, although for some it took almost about eight months before progression. But the only patient who had a good shrinkage or partial response actually was MSI-High, and all the MSS patients here did not have an objective response. So even when you’re enriching for PD-L1 positivity in MSS colorectal cancer patients it is not likely that a drug like KEYTRUDA or a drug like OPDIVO on its own is going to make a difference. We’ve been involved in this study as well.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 12:20
This study was published a while ago, looking at atezolizumab, which is a PD-L1 inhibitor, and patients who have gone through a couple of lines of therapy, first line and second line. In this study the comparison arm was Regorafenib, or STIVARGA, and 1/3 of the patients got Atezolizumab alone, so a PD-L1 inhibitor alone. 1/3 got cobimetinib plus atezolizumab. Cobimetinib is a MEK inhibitor, and at that point it was thought that that makes the immunotherapy work better based on a small phase 2 trial. But the bottom line is, in these patients who received atezolizumab alone, or atezolizumab plus a MEK inhibitor, there wasn’t really much of a difference compared to STIVARGA alone. So again, this large trial of almost 250+ patients failed to show that we gain much by using immunotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer, especially in microsatellite stable colon cancer. The majority of these patients in the study – I think, were 97% or so – were microsatellite stable. On the other hand, there was a glimmer of hope from a trial done in Canada called the CO.26 trial. And in this study, they used a CTLA-4 inhibitor, so another checkpoint inhibitor, another immunotherapy that takes off the brakes from the lymphocytes against the cancer, along with the PD-L1 inhibitor. So a KEYTRUDA-like drug called durvalumab, and that combination was compared to no treatment at all and even though there were no major shrinkages and there was no difference in the time for progression, there was an effect on the overall survival. The red line is the patients who got the double immunotherapy. The blue line is patients treated with best supportive care, and it prolonged survival by 30% in these patients, but it wasn’t really a big difference in terms of duration of how many months of addition, but it did add some, suggesting that even in this population of microsatellite stable colon cancer, there may be something to immunotherapy, but the signal is not very, very strong, and maybe adding CTLA-4 does make a difference as well as most of the studies so far have not looked at the combination of PD1, CTLA-4.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 14:56
Our group/myself had started looking at liver metastases and impact on response to immunotherapy, because we had many patients who would go on clinical trials receiving PD1 or PD-L1 targeting, who had MSS. What we would note is that some patients with lung metastases were having some shrinkage or prolonged stabilization, but everybody who has liver metastases, they tend to not do well at all on these studies. And I’ll show you some of the data that we generated, but some of the data that we published about four years ago after the REGONIVO data came from Japan also was substantiated by laboratory models. In this particular model, they treated mice by injecting colon cancer cell lines in their flank, and then they gave them immunotherapy with a PD-L1 inhibitor. And sure enough, the tumor in the flank shrunk. Now they got the same mice, the same tumor, and now they injected the tumor in the flank and the tumor in the liver, and let the tumor grow in the liver. And not only did the tumor in the liver not respond to PD-L1 therapy, but also the tumor in the flank of the mice did not respond to immunotherapy anymore, suggesting that when the colon cancer metastasizes to the liver, that that not only affects the response in the liver, but it may have a negative abscopal effect, a negative effect outside the liver on the response to immunotherapy. And there are many theories as to why that may be the case. Frankly, those theories come from mice models. They may not necessarily apply to humans fully. But one of the theories is that the tumors in the liver chew up the immune cells that are involved in attacking the cancer cells and therefore has a systemic impact on the overall response to immunotherapy.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 17:10
We looked at 95 patients who had microsatellite stable colon cancer, and those patients were treated with PD1 or PD-L1 therapy, and reported that data and in JAMA Network. What we did differently is we categorized patients according to their performance statuses. Are they: very weak/strong?; Do they have limitations in their physical activity? Is there any evidence of spread to the peritoneum? Any evidence of spread to the liver?; Any evidence of spread to the lung, lymph nodes, bone, brain? And then we also looked at tumor mutation burden in these tumors. And we looked at RAS mutation, BRAF mutation, APC and TP53. The thing that stood out the strongest here is that the liver was the biggest biomarker of resistance to immunotherapy. In this study, about 50-some patients with liver metastases were treated, and none of them had any major shrinkage. On the other hand, in the patients who did not have liver metastases, about 20% of those patients had major shrinkage, and you can see that the likelihood the impact on progression if patients had liver metastases – presence of liver mets, has a seven-fold increased risk of progression compared to non-liver metastases. We did see some other signs that are not very clear. The sidedness has a small impact on on on progression. The left did a little bit better than the right, so a higher chance of progression if they have right-sided tumor versus left-sided tumor. RAS mutation, there was slightly higher progression, like the progression of RAS mutation versus non-RAS mutation. I have to say, in other data sets that we have looked at we’re not as convinced on RAS, and that’s a story that needs to be unfolded some more. But APC mutation did not have a substantial impact. A lot of people report APC as a marker of resistance. – No. – You can have APC mutation with colon cancer, MSS, and still respond to therapy. So liver did come out as the biggest problem here, as far as response. And meanwhile, there had been some data suggesting that drugs that target what we call the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway, which is a pathway important in blood vessel formation that those inhibitors may substantiate or improve the response to immunotherapy. Particularly the drug STIVARGA, which is approved for refractory colon cancer, had been associated with decrease in macrophages or tumor-associated macrophages, especially the M2 phenotype, which associates with a poor outcome and switching it to the M1 phenotype, which are anti-cancer, that that may occur with STIVARGA, and that STIVARGA may also normalize the blood vessels, decrease the T-regs, the regulatory T-cells as well, which may also be important in reducing the immune resistance within the tumor microenvironment within the liver.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 20:43
I’m sure a lot of the folks on this forum had as much enthusiasm as I had about three years ago or more maybe, when this data from a Japanese group was reported at ASCO, I think it was three years plus now, looking at a small number of colon cancer patients, 24 patients, who had microsatellite stable colon cancer, I think, except one patient if I recollect right, and those patients were treated with STIVARGA (Regorafenib) plus Nivolumab (OPDIVO) and therefore the acronym “Rego” for Regorafenib; “Nivo” for Nivolumab. And the excitement was that these patients had progressed on standard of care, and when they were treated with this combination, almost half of those patients had not progressed at 7.9 months, or 8 months if we want to round it, and that approximately 1/3 of those patients had major response, – objective response, we call it. A majority had good disease control between stable disease and major shrinkage. And this data prompted many of us to consider offering this treatment on a compassionate basis, or rather than compassionate, the right term is “off-label”, even though this was not approved to offer this to patients with colorectal cancer. And to my surprise, when we were treating patients with this and we looked at our data in about 18 patients or so, initially we saw that 13 patients with liver mets, none of them responded, and that in the five patients without liver mets, maybe four of them had some minor shrinkages, not a major shrinkage, but were able to continue on treatment for a while and we reported that data.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 22:43
Before, we looked at the 95 patients. But this particular study from Japan has really triggered a plethora of trials looking at the same classes of drugs together, so a PD1 or PD-L1, plus what we call a “tyrosine kinase inhibitor”: pills that inhibit different enzymes and different proteins, including proteins that are important in the blood vessel activation process, what we call “vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors”. One such study is a study done in China. This is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is very similar to regorafenib, and this is a PD1 inhibitor, and 28 patients with microsatellite stability. Response rate was only 7%, but a lot of patients had stabilization and a good disease control so that’s not meaningless when you control the cancer in your patients more than six months. And so there are some signals, but not as strong as what’s been shown in the Japanese trial. This is a study that looked at STIVARGA plus pembrolizumab that was reported this meeting by a colleague of mine. Very discouraging is the fact that none of 73 patients had major shrinkages here. But when looking at the 16 patients who didn’t have any liver metastases, at least half of those patients were having ongoing benefit beyond the four months mark, while most of the patients had progressed at two months with liver metastases. That shows what we call the “progression-free survival curve”, the time to patients progressing. So those are the 16 patients in blue. And you can see that there are some patients who have more prolonged benefit, even at the one year, but that’s a small number of patients. Only two of the 16 probably were still deriving a benefit. So who are these two, and why and how can we identify them, is the big question. Who are those getting benefit beyond six months, right? Because, yes, liver metastases is a marker of resistance, but it doesn’t mean that everybody without liver metastases is going to benefit. Some will benefit more than others, and it does appear that those without liver metastases have a better survival. There are other studies we can go over and over, again. That’s another study of STIVARGA, plus another PD1 inhibitor and metastatic cancer. Again, microsatellite stable, and you can see, again, a big difference in response rates: patients without liver metastases – major shrinkage, more than 50% shrinkage, and 30% of patients stable disease, 20% here, major shrinkage with liver mets is only in 8% of patients. So again, showing a difference in time to progression in non-liver is better than liver. And this is a study presented… this meeting looking at bevacizumab, which is again a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, plus KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab), and they added what we call a MEK inhibitor, binimetinib to it. And here you see that about 1/3 of the patients had some form of shrinkage. And the patients who had major, major shrinkage – more than 50% shrinkage, are about 13% of patients. But a fair number of patients between mild increase and mild decrease. This is what we call stable disease. (That’s the yellow.) Again suggesting that there’s a signal here, but not too strong. And how can we identify those folks who benefit the most from this?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 26:38
That’s another study presented at this meeting, a couple of days ago, with a PD1 inhibitor, plus, again, an angiogenesis inhibitor that is novel because it blocks two angiogenesis pathways, angiotensin 2 and VEGF. There’s more shrinkages than growth here and I think the exciting thing is, definitely there are patients who continue to benefit beyond the eight months mark. But the bottom line is, all these studies are not telling us: who are the patients with liver mets and who are the patients without liver mets? They’re not really reporting yet the characteristics of those patients. I do believe that it’s less likely that patients who are having great response here are liver mets patients, and it’s important for you to know that you’re going to have a lot of variations and responses and benefits dependent on what type of patients are going on the study. If it’s a patient who has only lung mets, that’s a patient who probably is going to be more likely to respond. But a study that uses the same regimen and enrolls 90% of the patients with liver metastases, the results of that study are going to be dismal. And so it is very hard to extrapolate from these 20, 30 patient trials into: “What is a better regimen for a patient?”. You may hear a little bit more in your forum about this study. So cabozantinib is a compound by a drug company called Exelixis Inc., and which is a drug that is approved for kidney cancer and liver cancer. They have a couple of reports this meeting on cabozantinib, plus a PD-L1 inhibitor. This is durvalumab, which is the PD-L1 inhibitor and plus cabozantinib. This is called the CAMILLA trial, and they looked at colorectal cancer here, 29 patients is reported as efficacy. And then they say, well, eight patients out of 29 had major shrinkage, 27.6% but in six out of the eight that response was sustainable, meaning on the next CT, the were still benefiting versus two out of the eight, the next CT that were progressing and you can see the median progression-free survival is 3.8, they don’t report on the characteristic by liver or non liver, but they do show that there is slightly better outcome for the RAS wild-type versus the RAS mutant. Again, something that we have seen on our multivariate analysis from a year ago. So the question is, should this be evaluated further in RAS wild-type? The problem is, they didn’t do the analysis here based on where the tumor spread. Could it be that the patients without RAS mutation were more more enriched in patients without liver mets here, and that’s why you’re seeing that signal? We don’t know. The other thing about this study is that they actually enrolled 36 patients, and seven patients actually didn’t reach the first CT scan, so they did not include them in the analysis. So the reality is that this study shows similar outcome as all the other studies in that the final confirmed responses, if we include the full sample of 36 patients, is 16.6%. So again, there are patients who benefit. This is very exciting. If you follow the 25 months mark, there are some patients at two years who are still benefiting. So who are they? And how do we identify them and offer them these strategies, and how do we make sure they don’t get diluted, and in the patient population sample who are not benefiting? And more importantly, how can we exclude patients who don’t benefit so that they can find other strategies to look into. Interestingly, this meeting from two days ago, looked at cabozantinib plus atezolizumab. Atezolizumab is not much different than durvalumab that it’s a PD-L1 inhibitor. And here again, they looked at 31 patients. The difference here is that the objective response rate is actually quite a bit lower than the previously presented study here. Only 3 out of 31 patients had major shrinkage. But then they report that most of these 3 were in the patients without RAS mutation. So again, something that needs to be explored further. Does RAS wild-type tumor, no RAS mutation, enrich for better likelihood of response? Could it be that patients without liver metastases and without RAS mutation could be the best patient population to look into – I think the challenge is, all of these are small studies, and you can’t do this kind of deep analysis on a small sample size, and I wish we could pull all these efforts from different investigators to answer that question, and it would require that all the sponsors agree to do so, which may not happen.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 32:03
Many of you have heard about the LEAP trial. This is KEYTRUDA plus lenvatinib, again, same concept, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor that at least partly targets VEGFR plus KEYTRUDA. And this study reported a 22% major shrinkage, and at six months, almost 1/3 of the patients had not progressed. This regimen actually moved on to a randomized phase 3 trial that is ongoing, so we will know soon. The good thing about that study is that they are stratifying by presence or absence of liver metastases so we’ll have a better idea as to the outcome in patients without liver mets. On the phase 2 study, which I am showing you here, the company did not report the outcome by liver and non-liver metastases. So finally, this is a study we reported last year on regorafenib, Nivolumab in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, we enrolled 70 patients, 23 without liver metastases. You can see the response rate here. The major shrinkage is about one in five patients, but the stable disease is another 1/3 of the patients. Half of those patients still progressed by three and a half months. The liver metastases did not respond. What we reported at this meeting is that we know partly why liver meds don’t respond. If we look at biopsies from liver metastases versus no liver metastases, the liver metastases have less CD8 cells. These are lymphocytes that attack the tumor, and when we enrich further for granzyme B positivity, which is the substance that lymphocytes release when activated against the cancer. Again, we don’t see much of that in the liver. We see more of it in patients without liver mets and tumor biopsies that are not liver. The immune system is more robust in these non-liver metastases, which results in a higher regulatory T-cells in those tumors. You don’t see as much in the liver, and you see also more macrophages outside the liver. So basically, there’s more of an immune activation in tumors that spread outside the liver than in the liver. I don’t think it’s the same between lung, and peritoneum, and bone, and abdominal wall, and lymph node. I think there probably are differences. I think at the end of the day, the question is, which sites of disease may benefit the most: is there a biomarker of site of metastases, number of metastases, size of metastases, molecular biomarker? What type of mutations the tumor has, is there a special formula that we need to know about, that we need to come up with? I’m sure we’re not going to come up with the perfect one, but there are a lot of efforts being made to try to identify at least some form of biomarker that helps us further. So this is the same study we conducted. Now, you can see that patients without liver metastases: this is a good thing. You can see you have 1-2-3-4 patients out of 23 who had not progressed at the 40 week mark. And frankly, we’ve got two patients who’ve hit the two year mark without progression in our institute on this study. And so that’s not something you will achieve with STIVARGA alone. How much of this is from OPDIVO versus OPDIVO plus STIVARGA remains to be seen, but there’s probably some synergy between these two, but I don’t think it’s sufficient for the majority of patients versus liver- the majority had progressed by the 24 week mark. Very few patients continue beyond, and most of those eventually did progress. And you see the tumors. None of these tumors had sustained shrinkage below the 30% decline in tumor in the target lesions versus the non-liver mets, you have quite a few blue squares that go in the “PR” partial response category. So this is work we’ve done in our institute. When we stain the tumors of liver and we look at what we call the core of the tumor, you can see that the core of the tumor has very few lymphocytes that get into it versus lung, a lot of lymphocytes get into it. (That’s the blue here, is the lymphocytes) and so part of the problem with liver metastases is that the immune cells don’t get into it to attack and that’s been a challenge, frankly. I don’t think anybody has the definitive answer today, although a lot of efforts are being made to answer that or to overcome it, whether it’s viruses or other type of drugs. Finally, I want to say that the CTLA-4 question is not really done yet. This is a study that looked at a novel CTLA-4 inhibitor, plus a PD1 inhibitor in patients with colorectal cancer. Here at the upper right corner they enroll 20 patients. This is without regorafinib, this is just the CTLA-4, PD1, no TKI, no tyrosine kinase inhibitor, just the checkpoint inhibitors. And four out of the 20 patients here had major responses. And you can see a lot of these, some of these are quite durable. And again, they did not report in the poster if these were non-liver mets or not but I think that means something to me. Probably we do need a CTLA-4 inhibitor. And the question is, do we need the three drugs together or not? And so this is actually what we had proposed to SWOG. First of all, we’re pretty certain liver mets don’t respond to regoraphenib-nivolumab, so we think those patients should not be treated with this combination. And also, we have some data that peritoneal metastases are little bit more resistant and may not benefit that much from that combination. And so we’ve proposed a study looking at STIVARGA plus OPDIVO, REGONIVO compared with regorafenib, ipilimumab and nivolumab so, CTLA-4, PD1 plus regorafenib, we have already completed a study with REGONIVO IPI in our center. That data has not been reported yet, so I can’t go over it today but we think there’s enough to compare these two to see if there is a winner, and perhaps that can move forward to be compared to a standard of care in the future. I’m hoping that this will move forward. It’s too early yet, but that’s one way of approaching colorectal cancer with a microsatellite stability to recognize the patients who are more likely to benefit from a strategy and then explore it further, and then narrow down more the biomarkers so that you can identify even better who the potential super responders are. So what I summarize today is that microsatellite stable colorectal cancer is not all one disease, and especially with immunotherapy, it’s different than chemo. The site of metastases matters. And liver metastases are different than lung. They have biological differences in lymphocytic infiltration, antigen presenting cells, B cells, etc, that we are reporting on, and that the lung metastases have more active immune microenvironment that may contribute to the response to immunotherapy.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 40:17
So where do we go from here? I think there are a lot of studies across the nation and across the globe trying to look beyond checkpoint inhibitors, beyond STIVARGA and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. There’s a lot of studies looking at what we call bispecific antibodies, which typically target tumor-specific antigen and CD3. There are cellular therapeutics going on, including tumor infiltrating lymphocyte infusions, but you have to harvest the tumor here, grow the lymphocytes infiltrating the tumor. It’s a long process, and then grow these lymphocytes into the billions and then re-inject them in the patient and hope that they infiltrate the tumor and attack it. There’s some data that that is effective in non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma, and there are some efforts in colorectal cancer. There’s no data yet if that is effective or not, but that’s what those studies are doing. There are studies called neoTCR, where you basically take a biopsy, identify cancer specific antigens, and then clone receptors to those antigens, and then engineer the lymphocytes of that patient to express those receptors and then re-infuse those lymphocytes. There are CAR T in early development. CAR T in solids have been much harder than CAR T in liquid tumors, and because these engineered T-cells have more difficulty infiltrating within the solid tumor. But certainly it is an area of interest and should be evaluated. But where CAR T is going to be, we still don’t know. There are some studies looking at combinations of neoantigens and vaccines plus checkpoint inhibitors. Certainly there are other studies that have integrated immuno-checkpoint inhibitors, like nivo plus FOLFOX early on, and those studies should be maturing soon. Whether one should also engage with CTLA-4, PD1 plus chemo early on, is another question. But those are other directions. So I hope this is a little helpful, and I think we can open it up for discussion.

Manju George 42:48
Okay, thank you, Dr Fakih, that was awesome. I have one question, and then we will look at the chat and look through all the questions. So in the mouse model that you mentioned when they had the tumor also implanted in the liver, in addition to the flank tumor, the animal did not respond to immunotherapy. Did they do an experiment where they then remove the liver tumor and then try to see if the animal was again sensitive to –

Dr. Marwan Fakih 43:10
–They did not. But we have clinical data that shows that with regonivo and others, that hepatectomy patients will respond. So there are data that our group/myself have generated that show that if you have a hepatectomy, and now the patient, six months later, has lung-only metastases, that those patients could respond, and some of them for a very long period of time. Whether it is as robust as patients with never liver metastases our data shows a little bit less robust, maybe, but some surprisingly, very protracted benefits. Once you don’t have active disease it’s a little bit different story. It’s important to note that all of these are associations that we are describing. So the question becomes, is an association, a cause-effect? Is it or not? Is it the biology of the cancer that leads to liver metastases that makes it more immune resistant? If that is the case, you wouldn’t expect that the surgery would fix that problem, right? Or is it also possible that the biology that is favorable enough that a patient can undergo liver surgery means that they are also a little bit more immune sensitive. It’s possible, but association is important enough in your patient selection, right? Even if you cannot prove a cause effect, if you have an association of lack of response, at least it helps you on how you define your patient population is to benefit from a specific strategy.

Manju George 44:43
Okay, thank you. So we will go through the questions. Annie has a question, “Can you comment on the KISIMA-01, combo approach with the vaccine, where Dr. Kopetz has indicated there has been response in liver mets?”.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 45:02
No, I can’t comment on that. I don’t have additional information.

Manju George 45:06
Okay, then other than liver mets and RAS status is tumor burden a factor determining efficacy of IO and MSS?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 45:17
Yes and no. If, for example, and I didn’t present that data, I think we reported the first case of Pol E mutation responding to immunotherapy. So about 0.5% of patients will have Pol E mutations, which is polymerase E, which is important. Those patients are MSS, but they have what we call an ultra mutated colorectal cancer. Their tumor mutation burden is more than 200. They respond as well as MSI-High, if not better. Those are one in 200 patients. You don’t want to miss them. You identify them by the super high TMB, and they definitely should get immunotherapy, even though there’s no indication for immunotherapy for those patients, yet (-official indication). Then you have what we call intermediate TMB. They’re not MSI high, but their tumor mutation burden is 14, 12, 16. I think some of these patients, may respond somewhat to immunotherapy. I don’t think they respond as well as the MSI high. They usually are more stable disease or less durable responses. There’s been case reports of such cases responding to pembrolizumab. It’s important to note that the keynote 158, that we reported that led to the approval of pembrolizumab in the TMB of more than 10. Actually, that study did not include colorectal cancer patients, so it’s hard to extrapolate as to the benefit, but even in that particular study, there was a correlation between the level of TMB and response, and even though it’s not in the paper. Merck, the sponsor of that trial, had reported that if you look at those patients who had a TMB of 10 to 15, the objective response rate, the major shrinkage rate, was less than 15%. The overall population was 29% but if you look at the 10 to 15, they didn’t do that well. And therefore immunotherapy in patients who have a TMB of more than 10, but less than 20 should not be first line and should not be second line, in my opinion, because the benefit is not clear, but they should not be excluded from from getting KEYTRUDA. In the MSS patients that we looked at in our center, we didn’t see a correlation between TMB in response to regonivo or other PD1 inhibitors. And we have many patients who had an objective response or durable, stable disease with a TMB of one and two. So those patients that you see that have the tail of the curve with ongoing benefits were not intermediate TMB, you know. So, the bottom line, yes, there are patients with very low TMB that respond to immunotherapy, but not liver mets.

Manju George 48:06
The second part of the question is, is there any evidence that in low burden or low tumor burden settings radiation treatment previous or concomitant to IO could increase IO efficacy? Can it make the tumors more immunogenic?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 48:22
I personally, I doubt. I think the data has been extremely thin. We had done a study of Y90 followed by a PD1 and CTLA-4 inhibitor. Unfortunately, we had to close the study because we had nine patients, and none of them responded, whether in the liver or outside the liver, to the immunotherapy. I think there’s been some reports about SBRT plus immunotherapy. Those data have been extremely mixed, and the benefit was slim, and it’s not really clear if it’s attributed to the SBRT or not, so I don’t think so. I am aware that the recent study, and I think everybody should take that with a grain of salt, that the REGONIVO that was reported at this GI ASCO has said the patients with prior radiation did better, but there’s two reasons to give prior radiation. One is rectal cancer, which tends to have more lung mets. So when you say prior radiation is… they had chemo radiation for their primary rectal cancer before surgery, and then they develop probably lung mets. So it’s enriching lung mets. The second is SBRT, right? And who gets SBRT? -The patients who don’t have diffuse disease, the patients who have only few metastases. And who are the patients who have only few metastases? -Those who have a robust immune response against their cancer. So here, the prior radiation therapy is likely enriching a patient population that would have responded to immunotherapy whether they got radiation or not, by selecting patients who have a better immunoscore. So a lot more to be learned. But I think the radiation concept had been tested for a very long time now, and the data should be still evaluated in a research setting, but I don’t think clinically there’s any reason to believe that we should be radiating to induce a response at this point. I think we need to evaluate it further.

Manju George 50:29
Okay, so the next part of the question, I think it’s very important to address that, how should, when patients are considering immunotherapy – you just mentioned TMB. What are the other ways to find the PD1, PD-L1, CPS scoring or TPS scoring? What do you comment about that?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 50:45
I think it’s important to note that not all tumors are the same, and I think we have to really look at the data within colon cancer. So far, the PD1 story has not panned out that much in colorectal cancer and we’ve had patients with a CPS score of 20, 30 with liver mets that we got excited about with them on immunotherapy, and we don’t see a response. And so I don’t think that we have a biomarker today of a response to immunotherapy in somebody with a low TMB, with the exception of saying that liver is a biomarker of high level of resistance, and frankly, everything else is still under investigation. I wish I would say otherwise, but there’s no definitive answer yet, and there’s a lot of conflicting data from different sets of studies.

Manju George 50:45
Okay, thank you. So maybe some kind of composite score where they look at the location of the mets, maybe CPS, maybe TMB, or all of that together?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 51:50
Yeah. I mean, eventually that would be the hope, right? It’s coming up with a formula that takes into consideration the host, the tumor, and the clinical presentation. So a molecular score, right? Patient score, it could be ECOG as well. We’ve seen ECOG 2’s don’t do as well with immunotherapy than ECOG zero likely, and site of metastatic disease. And also from my personal experience, somebody who has 1000 lung mets what we call “miliary disease” in the lungs, we don’t see them respond to immunotherapy, and partly because probably the tumor has escaped/there’s no immune system to prevent it from exploding in a diffuse process. Versus somebody with well defined 15 spots in the liver may respond to immunotherapy. So you cannot come up with such a score unless you have prospectively collected data sets that are very large, treated in a homogeneous manner, and the data is collected prospectively on all these variables. To my knowledge, that data set is not there.

Manju George 53:01
Okay, thank you. So another question is about the microbiome. Do you have any thoughts on whether the diet, gut microbiome – Does it have any effect in MSS CRC?

Speaker 1 53:13
I don’t have any data myself. I think the microbiome story is still evolving on some of the data with fecal transplantation had been intriguing in couple cases with melanoma. I think the disheartening thing is that that data came out three, four years ago and you would expect that somebody could have validated it already. There’s been so many trials that have included capsules that have different bacteria, etc, to try to answer that question. And I hope it’s true. I think it needs to be validated in probably non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma first. But today I don’t have any special diet that I prescribe to my patients. I’m not against them trying. I’m very open about that, but the evidence is not there.

Manju George 54:12
Okay, there’s one question about efficacy of IO and MSS patients with isolated lymph node mets, the rationale being that lymph nodes have a high concentration of the immune cells.

Dr. Marwan Fakih 54:21
They do very well. In our experience, lymph-only metastasis, not all of them respond. But I think if you ask me today, based on my observation and what we have seen, the two sites that benefit the most are lung and lymph node.

Speaker 1 54:39
Okay. And then there was this other question about sequencing. Dr. Barzi had reported that subsequent treatment with TAS-102, the responses were higher after people were on radiation. What do you think about it?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 54:54
I think one has to be very careful and anecdotal evidence from subgroup analysis, from studies. It seems to me that if you give immunotherapy, you change the course of the disease after immunotherapy. It’s not necessarily making TAS-102 work better. You’ve seen the data with the Canadian trial. There was no difference in progression, but the curve separated for overall survival. So even when patients do progress, we do see that not all the tumors necessarily progress after IO and so you’re dealing with a little bit different biology after immunotherapy. It doesn’t mean that because you gave immunotherapy, it’s going to make the chemotherapy… – It could be that those patients, even without TAS-102, may have had a more indolent course. So those are only hypothesis-generating questions and need to be validated. Of course, I would rather use a regimen of IO that has a 30% chance of keeping 1/3 of patients without progression at eight months than using Lonsurf. And hey, if Lonsurf works better afterwards, that’s great, but we need more work on biomarkers.

Manju George 56:07
Okay, so basically, what you’re saying is that – there is this talk in COLONTOWN too – that if you get immunotherapy, and then people who have gone back on chemo, they are responding better. And what you’re saying is that that might be because the immunotherapy affected the progression without actually responding to chemo, right?

Dr. Marwan Fakih 56:25
The disease may become a little bit more indolent in some patients. There are a lot of patients who, prior to IO, when they go and study you have 20, 30, tumors progressing. They have stable disease, and then only five tumors are growing, and the other 15 are still regressed, but they meet the guidelines of progressive disease, and they come off study and and now their immune system has been conditioned to attack those 15 tumors, but the other five have escape mechanisms. And even when they have escape mechanisms, they may not be growing at the same pace that they did before going on IO. It doesn’t mean that every patient that gets IO will have that benefit. That’s very important to note. You know, there’s even some thoughts of hyperprogressors with IO, where the disease is progressing more quickly. I haven’t seen liver metastases change course that much after IO for example.

Manju George 57:28
Looks like there are no more questions. Thank you, Dr Fakih for that very interesting and informative talk. Thank you all for attending. The video of the talk will be available soon at the Lecture Hall in COLONTOWN University.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Fakih
Immunotherapy
Liver
MSS
Stage IV
Trials

Dr. Marwan Fakih of the City of Hope Cancer Center takes a deep look at immunotherapy for MSS CRC in this Doc Talk, recorded in January 2022 with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Dr. Fakih discusses a number of recent clinical trials in this video conversation.

Table of contents:

1:38: Immunotherapy (IO) in MSS CRC—Broad overview: where are we currently with this?
3:02: What is MSI-H?
4:02: What is MMR?
6:35: dMMR Vs pMMR PD-L1 expression, how IO works
7:46: Why does IO not work in MSS CRC
9:25: KEYNOTE 177 results
10:31: Keytruda/Pembro or single agent IO in MSS CRC
12:17: IMblaze 370 trial Atezo+Cobi vs Atezo vs Stivarga in MSS CRC
13:35: CO.26 Double IO (CTLA4i+PD1i) vs best supportive care in MSS CRC
14:55: Liver mets & effect on IO-mice studies, what might be happening?
17:23: IO in mCRC patients: liver mets, a biomarker for lack of efficacy?
19:39: Immune modulatory effects of Stivarga
20:55: REGONIVO CRC-Japanese trial & similar combinations, results from GI22
28:10: CAMILLA CRC (Cabo+Durva) trial results
32:00: LEAP-005 trial (Lenva-pembro)
33:00: REGONIVO US study: why liver mets don’t seem to respond
38:10: New approaches for IO in CRC with liver mets
39:35: Summary
40:23: Other directions
42:50: Q & A Association of liver resection in the response to IO
45:00: Role of TMB in response to IO
48:22: Radiation therapy+IO in MSS CRC
50:46: Biomarkers for IO efficacy: TMB? CPS scoring? Others?
53:04: Role of gut microbiome?
57:21: IO in lymph node only metastases?
54:46: Treatment sequencing with IO?

More Videos

How ablation can be a cancer terminator for liver and lung mets
Dr. Arellano
2023
LIVER LOVERS Legend: Dr. Yuman Fong on All Things Liver
Dr. Fong
2024
Y90 for CRC liver mets — What patients need to know
Dr. Dayyani
2024
Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
Optimal management of colorectal liver mets & HAI discussion
Dr. Padmanabhan
2024
State of the art liver surgery with robotic technology
Dr. Sucandy
2024
HAI for metastatic CRC
Dr. Connell
2024
Histotripsy for mCRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy

DocTalk
2020
Dr. Morris
BRAF
Immunotherapy

Dr. Van Morris from MD Anderson discussed combining targeted therapies and immunotherapy for BRAF patients in this COLONTOWN Doc Talk, recorded in August 2020. 

Dr. Morris 00:00
Yeah, thank you guys for inviting me in, as you refer to, we really appreciate just the support of COLONTOWN in general. This goes beyond just kind of, as you mentioned, your support for the COBRA trial, and in the BRAF trials as well, which you guys are obviously incredible in mobilizing patients, through social media, but I will say more experientially as well, you know, this group means a lot to my patients. And it’s common for me to have that patient come to MD Anderson, who’s newly diagnosed with colon cancer and is very understandably afraid and, to hear kind of their testimonies with how helpful COLONTOWN has been, and helping them and other patient advocacy groups who have been in helping them to understand kind of what’s going on with the shock of this news in their lives. So we just want to say we as oncologists appreciate your commitment to helping patients in this effort we’re all fighting against. I will say, you know, I realized that Dr. Corcoran had presented I think, a week or so ago. So some of this may overlap, I’ll try to kind of interject my own opinions about this, but there will be some overlap. There may be some slides that we haven’t published yet. But I did want to share these just share our data. So when I hit the slides, I want to share that kind of why we think what we think, but also just maybe ask for those particular slides, just kind of keeping those confidential, because we haven’t really published this data yet. I’m gonna be talking about kind of combining targeted therapies with immunotherapy. And maybe not using a one-size-fits-all approach for the management of BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

So I always just feel that it’s important to start out with, a patient presentation just to kind of put into context what we’re up against here, and this was a patient that I met during my first year on faculty at MD Anderson. She was a 35-year-old lady from the valley in southern Texas who presented to the ER, with abdominal pain, no past medical history at all. She had a 13-year-old son, a single mother. When she presented with abdominal pain her surgeons locally felt that she had issues with their gallbladder and took her to surgery to remove the gallbladder and were surprised, instead, to find a large transverse colon mass with diffuse metastatic disease in the peritoneum that was responsible for the abdominal pain. The pathology ultimately showed a microsatellite-stable BRAF-mutated CRC tumor. She then came to MD Anderson, where, by the time she arrived at MD Anderson, she already had evolved a large bowel obstruction from her tumor. So this was in 2016, we started her on treatment with FOLFOXFIRI. And she had some initial clinical improvement, but unfortunately, within three months of what is really throwing the kitchen sink at this tumor, in terms of cytotoxic chemotherapy, she was already developing signs of clinical and radiographic progression. Within four months of her initial presentation, the single mother was transferred to hospice and it was horrific to watch this unfold as a new oncologist at that point in time, and I think it just really speaks to the challenge we face with BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer, we recognize that this is a unique population with regards to clinical outcomes. As I’ve alluded to, the responses to chemotherapy aren’t great as we’re used to seeing our BRAF wild-type patients, we recognize the unique pathology here just in terms of where these tumors commonly arise from and how they look under the microscope. And with the genome as well we’ll talk about later the high tumor burden may extend beyond the association with MSI high into the MSS setting as well. But also it’s unique with regard to the epigenome and we recognize these to be hypermethylated tumors. I think that this still represents an untapped biology, that is potentially targetable with regards to this particular subpopulation of colorectal cancer, and possibly, with respect to the transcriptome as well, and we’ll talk kind of about CMS correlations a little bit later, too. So we’re seeing a unique but challenging, but potentially intervenable, clinical presentation. And I’ll kind of go through these slides quickly, because we all recognize that the BRAF mutations, even though it’s typically called an uncommon subpopulation of CRC, when you still consider it’s 5 to 10% of all the patients who have CRC and colorectal cancer represents one of the top causes for cancer mortality in the United States. By absolute numbers, it’s still a large fraction of patients who are faced with the challenge of BRAF-mutated, metastatic CRC. And unfortunately, as we all know here the successes of targeted therapies in terms of response rates that other cancer types see with the same exact BRAF mutation, we just don’t see those in data that Dr. Kopetz and then Dr. Corcoran had shown with BRAF monotherapy and BRAF MEK combination therapy, it just we don’t see either the response rates or the survival outcomes, that we’re accustomed to seeing in the context of other solid tumors as well. So this, oftentimes, when I hear people say that we should be treating tumors agnostically to the primary and according to the molecular subtype, I always just cringe when I hear that, because I think that again, that’s a one-size-fits-all approach. And I think that the BRAF V600E story for colorectal cancer is a very good example of why we can’t practice under such an umbrella. This is just kind of data that, again, we’re all familiar with, from eight years ago now, just kind of showing why in the context of CRC, blocking the BRAF V600E oncoprotein with agents that work in other contexts doesn’t work as well, to kind of have this upregulation of MAP kinase signaling, you get kind of this constitutive activation of… I think I say this to say it again, I don’t… correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think I can probably go pretty quickly through the next couple of slides. I think this group fully understands the recent clinical trials, which have led to clinical outcomes, or new clinical options for these patients; but it was really exciting, I think, to be involved early on with Dr. Kopetz as a fellow even, and working on the SWOG protocol, and seeing this translate from an idea in the data that was coming out of the lab, to showing some benefit in patients.

We looked at a model too that is a different model that was initially had disease control with Vemurafenib and Cetuximab. And we saw similar results in PDX, as we were seeing acquisition of acquired KRAS mutations. This is something that in the Vemurafenib study, when they went to the baseline samples of these patients and looked in their plasma, droplet digital PCR sequencing showed the presence of very, very low allelic frequency of KRAS mutants, you can see 0.21%, 0.31% that were present at baseline that are oftentimes below the limit of detection of assays that were available at that time. When we looked at patients who were treated on a phase one trial at MD Anderson with Vemurafenib, Cetuximab and Irinotecan, we saw that in the black here, you see the relative allelic frequency of the BRAF V600e gene in ctDNA. But again, we were finding in patients the same thing that we had seen in the PDX models, that there were these acquired oncogenes showing up in the resistant setting that had not been present in the pretreatment specimens. So our question then, at that time, and this is the data that we took to Array when Kopetz was pitching the BEACON approach, was: can the addition of the MEK inhibitor overcome the resistance to BRAF, EGFR targeted therapies. I also think with the SHP and SOS inhibitors, which are coming out as well, this also kind of represents something we’re thinking about moving forward as well. And again, what we saw on our PDX was, again, when these tumors grew resistant to the Vemurafenib and Cetuximab, if we added a MEK inhibitor, we could see sensitivity; and I think that Corcoran and his group beat us to the punch in publishing this data, but we certainly felt that what we’re seeing in the lab were being validated by his group as well. And so again, it made a lot of sense to us. So, as we all know, these thoughts led to the creation of the BEACON study. This is kind of flipped here, but the overall response rate of 26% with the triplet, and the 20%, with the doublet, beat that of Irinotecan and Cetuximab. And as you guys are all aware, the addition of the MEK inhibitor didn’t add any overall survival difference between BRAF EGFR and, very excitingly, (oh, this should actually be changed)… Encorafenib, Cetuximab, in February or April 2020, became FDA approved. So this was obviously super exciting for us, and for our patients as well. So one of the questions that comes up with our patients when we talk about this in the clinic is binimetinib, is it a non-viable option for the management of patients with BRAF mutated colorectal cancer? And I honestly don’t fully know how to answer this question because I struggle with the idea that there’s a one-size-fits-all approach for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. You know, I think that we realize, clinically, these are heterogeneous patients, and they’re probably biologically these are heterogeneous patients as well, and just kind of talking out loud, it just seems like when we manage these patients, we oftentimes get a lot of more mixed responses and the BRAF mutated context than we do in maybe the BRAF wild-type, I don’t know, if that’s a thing, I’m actually just kind of talking out loud right now, saying that I haven’t really looked into it, but it’s, you just see this more, I think, than kind of in the BRAF wild type where if patients are going to progress, all of their spots are going to be kind of progressing together. Whereas, oftentimes you’ll have responses in two-thirds of the lesions and then massive changes in the opposite direction in the other third. So, again, I think the underlying biologic heterogeneity, as well, is very interesting, and it points to the challenge of treating this disease. We presented this data at ASCO last year. It’s under review right now for a manuscript.

We looked at our cohort of patients at MD Anderson, if you had been evaluated since 2005. And we found 187 patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic CRC. If you were evaluated at our institution, and we just asked a simple question: if we take both ends of the spectrum and compare the differences what do we see? It wasn’t surprising that in the better survival group there were more MSI-high patients; almost 50% of the patients in whom we had data on had MSI-high tumors. But I think that one of the really interesting things as well, is that the median survival from the time of metastatic disease, and this longest survival, was eighty-four months, and in the lowest survival, it was 8.6. And I think that when we, as oncologists see the BRAF mutation, our minds automatically go to this lower end of the spectrum. But I think that we have to kind of keep open minds that there are patients who do have good survival outcomes. When we looked at what is driving out survival in this longest survival group, – what’s driving the long survival outcome? And we saw that was also heterogeneous as well. Some of these patients were able to go to surgery. And as you can see, in the black line here, many of these patients remained disease-free despite having an initial diagnosis of BRAF mutated, metastatic CRC, you know, 5, 6, 7 years out. But interestingly, and as we would expect, as immunotherapy has unfolded, patients who are MSI-high, were also seeing good long-term outcomes. Interestingly, one of these patients had an MSS tumor. But again, there were seven patients that we found who were doing fairly well for long periods of time on MAP-kinase targeted therapies, this included BRAF EGFR options, BRAF MEK options and BRAF inhibitors alone. So, there is some suggestion here to us that there may be a subpopulation of the BRAF mutated who just need targeting in their MAP-kinase, in their particular tumor is addicted to MAP-kinase signaling in the same way that perhaps an EGFR-mutated lung cancer may be addicted to that EGFR mutation, and being equally sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibition in that context as well. So, I say that to say that even the drivers for favorable outcomes in the study are heterogeneous and do not always conform to what providers can assume. So, I talked about how this is still ongoing, I think, bench to bedside to bench and back to bedside success story, but how can we lift that tale further.

Obviously, in the MSI setting, response rates, even with a concomitant BRAF V600E mutation, is very good for anti-PD1 with or without anti-CTLA4 therapy. But unfortunately, still within the BRAF V600E context, we feel that the MSI-highs, that concomitant microsatellite instability is still a minority of the patients with BRAF V600E tumors. So, this is where we start getting a little bit more in-depth to our data, which we haven’t published yet, but I did want to share with you. It’s a majority of… we think of BRAF V600E tumors as being kind of high tumor mutation burden. And oftentimes I think the assumption is that, well, there’s this association between microsatellite instability, we all know that MSI tumors have higher mutation burdens and so that’s the reason that BRAF V600E tumors carry this association with having high tumor mutational burdens. We actually looked at four datasets that were available to us: the nursing health data from Memorial Sloan Kettering, data from the TCGA, and then from internal data, we had it at MD Anderson, and we said, let’s pull out the MSI high tumors. And let’s look at just the MSS tumors. And look at the patients and compare BRAF-mutated tumors with the BRAF wild types. We saw the same trends across all four datasets that in general MSS, BRAFV600E mutated tumors harbor higher tumor mutation burdens relative to their MSS, BRAF wild-type counterparts. So this may not be something that’s just MSI-high-driven. And if that’s the case, this may argue for some role of immunotherapy as a component for the MSS BRAF V600E story. We’re also excited to see data that was published in Science last year from Dr. Bardelli’s group in Milan, where they looked at BRAFV600E CRC cell lines and showed that when you treat these with dual BRAF EGFR targeting, you induce, in terms of expression, a loss of expression of the mismatch repair of proteins and can kind of create this transient and MSI-high like state. So, if that’s the case, you know, does that make sense that dual, or I guess, triplet, BRAF EGFR plus PD-1 therapy would make sense in this context. And this is something that we’ve seen as well. This is data we haven’t published yet, but this is from an expansion cohort of patients who were treated with vemurafenib, Irinotecan and cetuximab, – patients with BRAFV600E metastatic CRC. This is an example of a patient with a microsatellite stable tumor, but you can see prior to treatment, you don’t see a lot of immune reactive T cells within the tumor microenvironment, but that upon treatment with a BRAF EGFR inhibitor, you do see recruitment of activated CD8 positive cytotoxic T cells within the microenvironment. So that suggested to us that there may be a role for BRAF EGFR plus immune checkpoint therapy when we were pitching these concepts years ago in our initial letters of intent.

Let’s talk about CMS, you know, we all I think all recognize the role of CMS biology and that again, CMS1 is kind of the immune active group of a subset of CRC tumors, again, often associated with microsatellite instability. We also recognize that BRAFV600E tumors kind of aggregate to CMS1 oftentimes as well. And so our question again was is this association uniquely inherent to this association between MSI high CRC with BRAF V 600E mutations or can you see this in the MSS setting as well. So, we looked at data from the SWOG 1406. And again, it hasn’t been published yet either, but will be kind of forthcoming. And we looked specifically at in the red here from the from the SWOG study. And within the MSS context, the relative distribution of BRAFV600E tumors and as again, as you can see almost half of the MSS BRAF tumors were CMS1, the other kind of large proportion was CMS4. And this is different than what we had seen with an internal cohort of patients at MD Anderson who had MSS BRAF wild types, where you see a very low fraction of CMS1 within the BRAF of wild-type MSS contexts. So again what we’re seeing here is that within this MSS CRC population of patients, there may be some enrichment for a group, at least of BRAFV600E MSS tumors, for this more kind of immunologically hot CMS1 phenotype. We recognize from data that was published by several groups several years ago that already signatures can indeed for their subcategorized, BRAFV600E tumors, BM1, the B RAF mutation, one subgroup, it tends to be more of a kind of KRAS MAP kinase. Whereas the BM2 is more consistent with cell cycle gene regulation. And again, you can see here kind of when they look by CMS subtypes as well you see kind of what we had seen in the in the prior slide in the group where you have more MSS, BRAF mutated tumors, you start seeing more CM4 as well. And I think that it’s a little bit early to know how this will kind of play out but again, kind of argues for the heterogeneous subpopulations within the BRAF V600E contexts.

So I think that, this was the reason that we were thinking, about the BRAF, EGFR PD1 combination, and we’re very excited to kind of see Dr. Corcoran’s data that he presented earlier this summer in virtual Barcelona and then I think to you guys, it sounds like in the recent past here, looking at the Dabrafenib Trametinib Spartalizumab combination. So not exactly the same ideas or it’s just kind of given the mechanism of the BRAF but, I think that one of the things that really stuck out to us was the fact that you don’t see a whole lot of kind of toxicity with this combination. When we approached Array and BMS with this idea several years ago, I think that they internally were worried a lot about the skin toxicity that you were going to see with these combinations. And I think that his early data suggests that, this is a fairly well-tolerated regimen. But very interestingly even though the data are still very early and immature, the gross numbers, just comparing the same BRAF MEK combination with or without a PD1 I mean, it’s really encouraging, like, and it’s very encouraging. And similarly, I think that he saw, kind of with this slide, similar to what I had shown you guys with our multiplex immunofluorescence slide, or data several slides back, but again, that BRAF MEK PD1 does seem to recruit active T cells to the tumor microenvironment for hopeful cytotoxicity. So, this kind of led us to our concept at MD Anderson, which is now enrolling, you know, it’s a trial looking specifically at MSS BRAFV600E mutated CRC for patients who have not had prior BRAF, EGFR, MEK therapies or immunotherapy, I think his trial may have been a little more broader, and its eligibility criteria. But, this was the population we wanted to look at first, to kind of see signal and we put 11 patients on kind of amidst the COVID pandemic and having to stop it for 2 30-day windows to evaluate toxicity. And given the fact that this combination hadn’t been looked at before. And so we’ve enrolled, you know, fairly quickly under this trial, and what we’re seeing is that just kind of as Dr. Corcoran has shown, the safety data is very promising for this combination as well. This is the kind of the selected eligibility criteria for study again, MSS BRAF V600E adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, at least one but no more than two prior lines of systemic therapy, and then excluding prior BRAF, MEK or other anti EGFR therapies or immunotherapy. So that trial, like I said, is enrolling kind of at the same time, as we were about to launch, Dr. Atreya at UCSF was interested in looking at a BRAF MEK PD1 combination in the same setting. So we’ve worked with her to kind of get these trials going up in parallel, I believe her trial is open now. And I think that they’re kind of talking to her they’ve been enrolling too. Sorry, I actually don’t know what the safety data is of this combination yet. I haven’t heard that from her. But we presume that it’s going to be well tolerated.

So I want to circle back just to how we can learn from what we’re doing in the lab, and move that forward in this context, as well. We love using PDX models at MD Anderson kind of as I’ve talked about earlier, we feel that these kind of help us to pitch concepts for clinical trials to the NCI and pharmaceutical companies. And we’ve shown again, in data that hasn’t been published yet that what happens clinically, the patients on BRAF, EGFR therapies match what happens in their matched mouse avatar. So we looked at five patients who were treated on the SWOG 1406 study and characterized them by their clinical responses either having stable disease or partial response. And what you can see is that the overall trends for the stable disease patients in the blue mirror that for what was happening in the matched mouse whereas what was happening in the patients who responded clinically to the combination, you see have greater reductions, kind of in the tumor size in their mouse avatars as well. One of the interesting things just kind of anecdotally, just to kind of point out here as well, is that, in some of these mouse models, this was just looking at this one, the patient had a response to vemurafenib, irinotecan and cetuximab. You can see that in this mouse model for this patient, the BRAF EGFR, you know, it developed resistance but then when we added the irinotecan you see a drastic reduction in tumor size, there’s also a trend towards the irinotecan being different than that of the BRAF EGFR. Similarly, here, this mouse model, this patient responded to the combination, the mouse didn’t really benefit from irinotecan alone. But when we added all three, we saw that there was improvement. So, again, it may point, that just the one size doesn’t fit all. And also kind of points to the fact that this heterogeneity that I’m talking about. There is a trial, you know, that’s being developed in moving forward looking at chemo with or without encorafenib cetuximab in the frontline setting. And I think that data like this kind of points, the idea that, hey, maybe there’s some meaningful interaction with chemotherapy and targeted therapies in this context that that we will see. The problem is when it comes to mouse models, these are immunocompromised. So the the ability to study, the encorafenib nivolumab cetuximab combination would be limited in traditional PDX models. So, Dr. Karla in our group at MD Anderson’s, all star, his work to develop these humanized PDX models where tumor tissue from a patient and matched blood is used to create these mouse avatars. And we have funding that’s through an early career SPORE award at MD Anderson to do a clinical trial for our study, to look to see if what happens again in the patient mirrors what happens in with the same treatment combination in a developed humanized PDX model. And likewise, if what you see happening immunologically, in terms of changes, matches what happens in the matched humanized PDX model as well. This was funny, I got through the SPORE award the mentor here is John Allison, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in developing immunotherapy for patients with cancer. And it’s been really exciting to have the chance to work with Dr. Allison on and get his input on the design and science of what’s going on here. This was just kind of work showing some stuff we’re doing with Dr. Tusayan in collaboration with her on this trial, I would also ask this to be confidential and not shared as well, out of respect to her developing technology, but what we’re doing is we’re getting her slices of tumor, from pretreatment biopsies taken from patients on this study. And then she’s slicing these tumors and putting them into individual plates. And we’re testing what’s happening, with various combinations. And this is a patient who responded on our study to the triple combination. And what we saw was that when she treated the small slices of the tumor with encorafenib, and cetuximab by day 18, there was some reduction of tumor cell viability with the BRAF EGFR combination. When we added nivolumab, to that combination, we saw a much deeper reduction in cell viability, I didn’t put the nivolumab here as well, but it was that bar was here. So you didn’t see it wasn’t single-agent nivolumab down here either. So it was interesting to us because we felt that her model could likewise when you have the patient’s own immune cells present within the microenvironment may reflect what’s happening in the matched patient, but also that there may be in some patients some meaningful benefits to the addition of nivolumab. So, I hope that I provided here some rationale for why adding immunotherapy to BRAF, EGFR targeted therapies in MSS BRAF mutated setting makes sense, when these patients historically have been unresponsive to immunotherapy alone. I think we’re all encouraged by Dr. Corcoran’s work. And our hope would be that given the recent FDA indication of encorafenib and cetuximab we can build upon that success with a similar approach, and are certainly working to that and then I think that this will be informed further by preclinical and translational work that remains ongoing.

I was asked just to talk a little bit about atypical BRAF mutations in CRC. These are slides that I borrowed, full disclosure from Dr. Benny Johnson in our group at MD Anderson who really has led our group’s efforts, very valiantly to kind of work. This is a slide I think, had come from maybe Dr. Yeager at Memorial, I’m just kind of showing how the different mechanisms have the traditional RAS independence, BRAF V600E monomer, we associate with a class I, the dimerized. BRAF mutants, we see kind of with class II, and then kind of the, the BRAF inert, class IIIs that kind of has been characterized is these more atypical BRAF mutations. Again, we recognize that, as you can see, in all three of these, the atypical BRAFs tend to fare better than the BRAF V600Es and I would say I don’t think that this is something that all oncologists realize it’s not uncommon, so you get a referral or a call from outside doctors saying, hey, I have a patient with the BRAF mutation can I send them for your trial, and then we find out that it’s like a D594G mutation, kind of one of these more atypicals. So I think this is something we’re really trying to get the word out with oncologists as well, kind of as we learn more. And this is kind of, again, Dr. Johnson here, who I really just want to plug I think, has really had a passion for leading this effort in our group at MD Anderson, but just kind of some of the novel approaches that we’re trying to take at MD Anderson for kind of how we triage patients to various trials, according to their specific BRAF mutation, whether it’s a V600E, or a non V600E. So that kind of sums up what I had to say. I try to be active on Twitter, if you have any questions, please just let me know.

Manju George 37:06
So if I can, I’m going to start the questions, you can hear me, right?

Dr. Morris 37:12
Yes, I can. Yeah.

Manju George 37:13
So you were talking about the heterogeneity, so I was kind of wondering, in the unpublished data that you have, can you said that one part was the MAP kinase signaling pathway, and the other one was a different, you know, cell cycle and all of those pathways? So are you in your different trials are you attempting to find out what those different groups are? And in the reason I asked is, just like you said, we in our group, we find a lot of heterogeneity in how people respond to the different treatments for the BRAF V600E mutation. So it will make sense to us to if we could know what they were, because most of the patients, they already have their genomic testing done. And then if there’s some way to know upfront that you are in the 8.4 months category, not in the 84-month category, then you can plan accordingly how you have to prioritize treatment, right?

Dr. Morris 38:14
Yeah. So I think we’re looking at that we’re certainly collecting biopsies, to look at the transcriptome in RNA sequencing of these patients, and that may kind of inform on what their CMS classifications or BM1 BM2 classifications. I believe that Pfizer is looking at that on the patients who were on the Beacon study as well. So I think it’ll be very interesting if you see here that the BM1 patients are the ones who maybe had more benefit with the triplet, if there was a preferential added benefit with the addition of the MEK inhibitors that the BM1s than the BM twos. So, I’m very interested in this question as well and I hope that we’ll get some information from Pfizer about that. I think that Corcoran had published from his triplet, the dabrafenib, tremetinib, panitumumab work earlier this summer in clinical cancer research some signal kind of saying that, but I think it’ll be very interesting, in a larger cohort in a randomized trial to look at that in a kind of post hoc analysis.

Manju George 39:33
And then my other question would be like, there is this test called immuno score, right? Do you think those kinds of tests can tell you more, I was kind of wondering that if there was any efforts to develop some kind of assays so that you can look at a BRAF patient and say that this would be more BM1 or BM2, even the consensus molecular subtypes if there is, do you know if there is something like that being developed or going on?

Dr. Morris 40:02
I mean, not that I’m aware of I’m sure that it probably is being worked on. And it’s a really good point. But it’s not something that we’re actively working on now.

Manju George 40:13
Okay. And then the other person that you’re collaborating with Houston Yun, like the tissue culture thing. So it’s like an entire section of the biopsies is grown in the wells and you’re seeing that, when you try the combination treatment with the immunotherapy, just with that not inside an animal, you’re still seeing a response. Right? That’s what you said?

Dr. Morris 40:40
Yeah, that’s right. So, I mean, again, like, we’ve put only 11 patients on our trial thus far. And I mean, in full disclosure, with the pandemic, we had to shut down understandably, all optional biopsies for several months. So this limited our ability, thus far to look at this in high numbers, but it is something that we’re opening back up now. And we’ll be looking more stringently to see is there a signal? You always see kind of in the presentations, the N of one? So it’s hard to know for sure iff that’s truly representative, or if people cherry-pick the best for you to show? I don’t know,

Manju George 41:26
Okay. And then you have some results by GI-ASCO. Is that right?

Dr. Morris 41:36
Yeah, I mean, if so, it’d be a late-breaking abstract. I think we have 26 patients that we would plan on putting on study, so we’re just about halfway there. So it would either be a late-breaking, or probably the ASCO next year, we’ll see. We’re moving forward. And we talked to the NCI about what the next step would look like in a more definitive fashion.

Manju George 42:03
So, thank you, let’s see if others have questions. Questions, anyone?

COLONTOWN Member 42:29
Know, I feel like I need to, like, listen to this all again and consume so much information here, it’s been very helpful. But I was really interested to hear about some of the other mutations, you know, that we’re seeing, that are driving when BRAF you know, kind of becomes, you know, less important. So, while you know, I’m, again, I kind of feel like I need to, like review all of that, again, because I don’t think I caught it all. But you know, any other thoughts you have around that? And how we should think about how does treatment progress, as you know, maybe get to the end of what targeted BRAF therapy can do how do you make the decision to move forward from there?

Dr. Morris 43:10
Yeah, I mean, I think it’s a really good question. I think one of the things that hasn’t been fully looked at yet is with what you see in a RAS wild-type setting where there’s this idea of, these patients developing these acquired RAS, KRAS NRAS mutations. And then when you pull away the anti-EGFR therapy, that selective pressure is lost, and that acquired mechanism of resistance decays back down. Dr. Christine, Parsighian in our group had a really nice paper just kind of showing the kinetics of in the acquire resistance study to anti-EGFR therapy, the median half-life is about four to five months. So, before by the time you see 50% of that acquired resistance mechanism go away and then you can re-challenge these patients and see some benefit, and that’s being looked at in multiple clinical trials right now. And then the question is when a patient progresses on BRAF EGFR therapy, is that the end ever in their story and journey for EGFR therapy, or is there a role for rechallenge? None of us knows that. And I think it would be really, really interesting to look at. So I mean, yeah, like I think that’s something we’ve thought about, and I’m not aware of any data out there that’s shown that that’s successful or not successful.

COLONTOWN Member 44:53
Thank you, Manju. Dr. Morris, My name is Rashmi and I’m a caregiver to my husband with BRAF. My question to you is we know the pathway of the BRAF and the EGFR and the MEK and Erk. Looking at the three trials between Dr. Corcoran’s Dr. Kopetz and Dr. Atreya’s it seems that the BRAF and immunotherapy are similar. What’s different is the EGFR versus the MEK. Would you speak something to that? Is there I mean, your study is leaning towards the EGFR versus Dr. Corcoran’s is looking more at the MEK inhibitor?

Dr. Morris 45:39
Yeah, I mean, I think that’s what he’s seeing and the rationale for what we did what we did was similar, I don’t think that we know that BRAF, EGFR PD1 is any better or worse than BRAF MEK PD1, I think for us we realized several years ago that with the SWOG data that probably BRAF EGFR was going to get approved. And how we were going to be able to develop a strategy to, if successful to roll this out to our patients. It made sense in the context of a BRAF EGFR setting. So that’s why we we kind of went with that for approach years ago. He ‘s done a lot of work in the BRAF, MEK. I mean, I can’t speak to why they chose that, but I don’t think that we know that there’s a difference or why or if there’s a difference. Thank you.

Manju George 46:54
Okay, again, I’m going back to the CMS1 and CMS4 subtypes. So in our group, we have patients, we have one patient who has been almost NED, she’s been on the Beacon triplet, and she’s that one patient,who has gotten a phenomenal response. For most of the patients, we see that they’re on the triplet for a certain time, and then you know, things start growing, and then they get back on FOLFIRI + bev and that seems to work really well. So we have a group of patients for whom the FOLFIRI plus bev or FOLFOXIRI plus bev seems to give the best response. So again, I was kind of wondering whether, you know, that goes back to what you said about the BRAF, MEK, ERK pathway being important versus the cell cycle one, because then in that case, the cell cycle one would be more susceptible to chemo, right.?

Dr. Morris 48:01
Yeah, I mean, in theory, yes, but kind of given the fact that, these patients don’t respond in a treatment-refractory setting very well to chemotherapy, whether that translates into, clinical reality, I don’t think we know yet.

Manju George 48:22
Again, like, my push will be to if there could be an assay to tell you what kind of BRAF you are, from a patient perspective, that could make a big difference to patients as to how they approach the different treatments.

Dr. Morris 48:33
It would help us to Yeah, I mean, I think we’re very interested in understanding the different biologies, because again, we recognize it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach here.

Manju George 48:53
I think if there are no more questions, thank you very much for your time, and I guess that people, there are about 250 members many of them will watch the video because we’re going to post this in our group. And then there may be more questions, so then I’ll probably get them to you either by email or on Twitter. And thank you so much for your time.

Dr. Morris 49:20
Thank you, I appreciate it so much.

Manju George 49:23
Bye. Bye. Thanks, everyone.

DocTalk
2020
Dr. Morris
BRAF
Immunotherapy

Dr. Van Morris from MD Anderson discussed combining targeted therapies and immunotherapy for BRAF patients in this COLONTOWN Doc Talk, recorded in August 2020. 

More Videos

BOT+BAL trial for MSS CRC
Dr. DeVito
2025
Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer
Dr. Sharif
2023
CAMILLA trial — Cabo + Durva for metastatic refractory MSS CRC
Dr. Saeed
2022
Immunotherapy in MSS Colorectal Cancer
Dr. Fakih
2022
Targeted therapies and immunotherapy
Dr. Morris
2020
BREAKWATER: 2026 Update
Dr. Kopetz
2026
BRAF Poster
Dr. Maddalena
2025
Early-stage BRAF V600E MSS colon cancer — What’s next after adjuvant treatment
Dr. Yaeger
2024