Author
Ronnie Shapira-Frommer
Other affiliations: University of Sydney
Bio: Ronnie Shapira-Frommer is an academic researcher from Sheba Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pembrolizumab & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 95 publications receiving 12475 citations. Previous affiliations of Ronnie Shapira-Frommer include University of Sydney.
Topics: Pembrolizumab, Medicine, Internal medicine, Olaparib, PARP inhibitor
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.
Abstract: Background The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progressionfree and overall survival. Results The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P = 0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P = 0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). Conclusions The anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials .gov number, NCT01866319.)
4,612 citations
University College London1, University of Duisburg-Essen2, University of Edinburgh3, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven4, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust5, Royal Melbourne Hospital6, Sheba Medical Center7, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center8, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis9, AstraZeneca10, Harvard University11
TL;DR: Olaparib as maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer and the toxicity profile of olaparIB in this population was consistent with that in previous studies.
Abstract: randomization on completion of chemotherapy; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.49; P<0.001). Subgroup analyses of progression-free survival showed that, regardless of subgroup, patients in the olaparib group had a lower risk of progression. Adverse events more commonly reported in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (by more than 10% of patients) were nausea (68% vs. 35%), fatigue (49% vs. 38%), vomiting (32% vs. 14%), and anemia (17% vs. 5%); the majority of adverse events were grade 1 or 2. An interim analysis of overall survival (38% maturity, meaning that 38% of the patients had died) showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio with olaparib, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS Olaparib as maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Interim analysis showed no overall survival benefit. The toxicity profile of olaparib in this population was consistent with that in previous studies. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00753545.)
1,490 citations
University of California, Los Angeles1, Vanderbilt University2, University of Zurich3, University of Duisburg-Essen4, University of Paris-Sud5, Harvard University6, Sheba Medical Center7, New York University8, University of Colorado Denver9, University of Arizona10, Netherlands Cancer Institute11, Durham University12, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance13, University of Tübingen14, University of Pennsylvania15, Temple University16, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill17, University of Pittsburgh18, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center19, Merck & Co.20, University of California, San Francisco21
TL;DR: In this article, the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma were compared.
Abstract: Summary Background Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Methods We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF V600 mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0–1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF V600 mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. Findings Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45–0·73; p Interpretation These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.
1,333 citations
University College London1, University of Duisburg-Essen2, University of Edinburgh3, University of New South Wales4, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven5, Mount Vernon Hospital6, Royal Melbourne Hospital7, Sheba Medical Center8, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center9, Indiana University10, AstraZeneca11, Harvard University12
TL;DR: The hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment is supported.
Abstract: Summary Background Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. Methods We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Findings Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3–not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0–5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10–0·31]; p BRCA , although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5–10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7–5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34–0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64–1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45–1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63–1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [ BRCA and the overall population. Interpretation These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. Funding AstraZeneca.
1,168 citations
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, Hebron University4, European Institute of Oncology5, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute6, University of Manchester7, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart8, French Institute of Health and Medical Research9, Auckland City Hospital10, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital11, Ohio State University12, Johns Hopkins University13, University of Washington14, University of California, Los Angeles15, University of Glasgow16, Royal Melbourne Hospital17, Foundation Medicine18, University College London19, Ghent University Hospital20
TL;DR: This trial assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity.
1,139 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1) that has antitumor activity in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with increased activity in tumors that express PD-L1 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: BackgroundPembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1) that has antitumor activity in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with increased activity in tumors that express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). MethodsIn this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 305 patients who had previously untreated advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumor cells and no sensitizing mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene or translocation of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene to receive either pembrolizumab (at a fixed dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy. Crossover from the chemotherapy group to the pembrolizumab group was permitted in the event of disease progression. The primary end point, progression-free survival, was assessed by means of blinded, independent, central radiologic review. Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. ResultsMedi...
7,053 citations
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust1, European Institute of Oncology2, University of Colorado Denver3, Aix-Marseille University4, Baylor University5, University of Michigan6, University of Zurich7, Cross Cancer Institute8, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre9, Netherlands Cancer Institute10, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón11, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center12, Huntsman Cancer Institute13, Yale University14, University of Melbourne15, University of Sydney16, Cornell University17, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research18, University of Utah19, Yale Cancer Center20, Odense University Hospital21, Bristol-Myers Squibb22, Harvard University23
TL;DR: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipILimumab alone, and in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone.
Abstract: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1–negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)
6,318 citations
TL;DR: This review summarizes the clinical efficacy, perspectives, and future challenges of using PD-1/PD-L1-directed antibodies in the treatment of breast cancer.
Abstract: Immune checkpoint inhibition represents a major recent breakthrough in the treatment of malignant diseases including breast cancer. Blocking the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and its ligand, PD-L1, has shown impressive antitumor activity and may lead to durable long-term disease control, especially in the triple-negative subtypes of breast cancer (TNBC). Although immune checkpoint blockade is generally well tolerated, specific immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may occur. This review summarizes the clinical efficacy, perspectives, and future challenges of using PD-1/PD-L1-directed antibodies in the treatment of breast cancer.
5,777 citations
TL;DR: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population and for the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors.
Abstract: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
5,516 citations
Cornell University1, University of Colorado Denver2, Aix-Marseille University3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Michigan5, Swansea University6, German Cancer Research Center7, Cross Cancer Institute8, University of Zurich9, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre10, Netherlands Cancer Institute11, University of Sydney12, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven13, Complutense University of Madrid14, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre15, University of Paris16, University of Melbourne17, Northwestern University18, Bristol-Myers Squibb19, University of Duisburg-Essen20
TL;DR: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with n ivolumAB alone than with ipil optimumab alone.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. MethodsWe randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival a...
3,794 citations