Tristan L Lim, Kamaneh Montazeri, Eric Wehrenberg-Klee, Antoine Desilets, Rino Seedor, Marlana Orloff, Takami Sato, Michael Caplan, Mariam El-Ashmawy, Benjamin Izar, Shaheer Khan, Inderjit Mehmi, Aleigha Lawless, Theodore S Hong, Omid Hamid, Richard D Carvajal, Alexander Shoushtari, Ryan J Sullivan
{"title":"同时局部治疗延长了替本他福在转移性葡萄膜黑色素瘤患者中的临床获益。","authors":"Tristan L Lim, Kamaneh Montazeri, Eric Wehrenberg-Klee, Antoine Desilets, Rino Seedor, Marlana Orloff, Takami Sato, Michael Caplan, Mariam El-Ashmawy, Benjamin Izar, Shaheer Khan, Inderjit Mehmi, Aleigha Lawless, Theodore S Hong, Omid Hamid, Richard D Carvajal, Alexander Shoushtari, Ryan J Sullivan","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tebentafusp has significantly improved overall survival in HLA-A*02:01+ metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients even in those with a best objective response of progressive disease. Thus, strategies to maintain tebentafusp therapy are critical. Here, we examine the efficacy and safety of adding concurrent local therapy (CLT) to tebentafusp upon radiological progression with tebentafusp alone.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This multicenter retrospective study included mUM patients treated with tebentafusp and CLT, consisting of extrahepatic soft tissue irradiation and liver-directed therapies (LDTs). Efficacy of target and nontarget sites were assessed per RECIST version 1.1. PFS with tebentafusp alone (PFS1) was compared to that after adding CLTs to tebentafusp upon progression (PFS1+PFS2). ctDNA responses were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 30 eligible patients, 21 (70%) received concurrent LDT, 7 (23%) had extrahepatic irradiation, and 2 (7%) had both. The objective response rate (ORR) was 12% (95% CI, 3-32) for tebentafusp alone and 28% (95% CI, 14-47) after adding CLTs. The disease-control rate with tebentafusp alone was 44% (95% CI, 25-65) versus 63% (95% CI, 44-78) after CLT. Median PFS1 was 5.8 months (95% CI, 2.8-13.4), while median PFS1+PFS2 was 14.8 months (95% CI, 9.2-NA). CLT thereby allowed treatment beyond progression with tebentafusp for approximately 9 months. Two patients (66%) had decreased ctDNA with tebentafusp alone, while four (100%) had decreased ctDNA after CLT. There were no treatment discontinuations due to toxicities from tebentafusp with CLT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CLT with tebentafusp was well-tolerated, extending the duration of tebentafusp benefit in a highly selected mUM population. This merits further studies to assess clinical utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concurrent local therapy extends clinical benefit of tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma patients.\",\"authors\":\"Tristan L Lim, Kamaneh Montazeri, Eric Wehrenberg-Klee, Antoine Desilets, Rino Seedor, Marlana Orloff, Takami Sato, Michael Caplan, Mariam El-Ashmawy, Benjamin Izar, Shaheer Khan, Inderjit Mehmi, Aleigha Lawless, Theodore S Hong, Omid Hamid, Richard D Carvajal, Alexander Shoushtari, Ryan J Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tebentafusp has significantly improved overall survival in HLA-A*02:01+ metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients even in those with a best objective response of progressive disease. Thus, strategies to maintain tebentafusp therapy are critical. Here, we examine the efficacy and safety of adding concurrent local therapy (CLT) to tebentafusp upon radiological progression with tebentafusp alone.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This multicenter retrospective study included mUM patients treated with tebentafusp and CLT, consisting of extrahepatic soft tissue irradiation and liver-directed therapies (LDTs). Efficacy of target and nontarget sites were assessed per RECIST version 1.1. PFS with tebentafusp alone (PFS1) was compared to that after adding CLTs to tebentafusp upon progression (PFS1+PFS2). ctDNA responses were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 30 eligible patients, 21 (70%) received concurrent LDT, 7 (23%) had extrahepatic irradiation, and 2 (7%) had both. The objective response rate (ORR) was 12% (95% CI, 3-32) for tebentafusp alone and 28% (95% CI, 14-47) after adding CLTs. The disease-control rate with tebentafusp alone was 44% (95% CI, 25-65) versus 63% (95% CI, 44-78) after CLT. Median PFS1 was 5.8 months (95% CI, 2.8-13.4), while median PFS1+PFS2 was 14.8 months (95% CI, 9.2-NA). CLT thereby allowed treatment beyond progression with tebentafusp for approximately 9 months. Two patients (66%) had decreased ctDNA with tebentafusp alone, while four (100%) had decreased ctDNA after CLT. There were no treatment discontinuations due to toxicities from tebentafusp with CLT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CLT with tebentafusp was well-tolerated, extending the duration of tebentafusp benefit in a highly selected mUM population. This merits further studies to assess clinical utility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf323\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf323","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concurrent local therapy extends clinical benefit of tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma patients.
Background: Tebentafusp has significantly improved overall survival in HLA-A*02:01+ metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients even in those with a best objective response of progressive disease. Thus, strategies to maintain tebentafusp therapy are critical. Here, we examine the efficacy and safety of adding concurrent local therapy (CLT) to tebentafusp upon radiological progression with tebentafusp alone.
Patients and methods: This multicenter retrospective study included mUM patients treated with tebentafusp and CLT, consisting of extrahepatic soft tissue irradiation and liver-directed therapies (LDTs). Efficacy of target and nontarget sites were assessed per RECIST version 1.1. PFS with tebentafusp alone (PFS1) was compared to that after adding CLTs to tebentafusp upon progression (PFS1+PFS2). ctDNA responses were explored.
Results: Of the 30 eligible patients, 21 (70%) received concurrent LDT, 7 (23%) had extrahepatic irradiation, and 2 (7%) had both. The objective response rate (ORR) was 12% (95% CI, 3-32) for tebentafusp alone and 28% (95% CI, 14-47) after adding CLTs. The disease-control rate with tebentafusp alone was 44% (95% CI, 25-65) versus 63% (95% CI, 44-78) after CLT. Median PFS1 was 5.8 months (95% CI, 2.8-13.4), while median PFS1+PFS2 was 14.8 months (95% CI, 9.2-NA). CLT thereby allowed treatment beyond progression with tebentafusp for approximately 9 months. Two patients (66%) had decreased ctDNA with tebentafusp alone, while four (100%) had decreased ctDNA after CLT. There were no treatment discontinuations due to toxicities from tebentafusp with CLT.
Conclusions: CLT with tebentafusp was well-tolerated, extending the duration of tebentafusp benefit in a highly selected mUM population. This merits further studies to assess clinical utility.
期刊介绍:
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.