Preliminary Results of a Phase 2 Study of Camidanlumab Tesirine (Cami), a Novel Pyrrolobenzodiazepine-Based Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

Introduction: Novel approaches to treating patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have improved outcomes but some pts do not respond or, despite initial response, develop progressive disease and have limited treatment options. Camidanlumab tesirine (ADCT-301; Cami) is an antibody‐drug conjugate composed of a human IgG1 anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody stochastically conjugated to a potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer warhead, which triggers cell death via formation of highly cytotoxic interstrand cross-links. Data from a Phase (Ph) 1 dose‐escalation, dose-expansion trial demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) in pts with cHL of 86.5% (48.6% complete response [CR] rate) at the 45 μg/kg dose. Cami had a generally acceptable safety profile at Ph 1 but there were 5/77 cases (6.5%) of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS)/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: 4 GBS and 1 radiculopathy) (Collins et al, ICML June 18–22, 2019, Lugano, Switzerland, Abstract 055). Here, we present preliminary efficacy and safety results of a Ph 2 trial of single-agent Cami in pts with R/R cHL (NCT04052997).

Methods: A single-arm, multi-center, open-label, Ph 2 trial is currently enrolling pts ≥16 yrs (US) and ≥18 yrs (outside US) with R/R cHL following ≥3 prior treatment lines (or ≥2 lines in pts ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation). Eligible pts had prior treatment with brentuximab vedotin and PD-1 blockade, measurable disease per 2014 Lugano Classification, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. The primary objective is to evaluate efficacy of single-agent Cami by ORR as determined by central review. Secondary objectives include further characterization of additional efficacy endpoints and safety. Pts receive 30-min IV infusions of Cami on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle at a dose of 45 μg/kg for 2 cycles, followed by 30 μg/kg for subsequent cycles for up to 1 yr or until discontinuation due to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reasons. Pts deriving clinical benefit at 1 yr may be able to continue treatment on a case-by-case basis.
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs occurring/worsening from time of first dose to either 30 days post last dose or to start of new anticancer therapy/procedure, whichever occurs first.
This analysis was conducted after meeting a protocol-specified criterion for pausing enrollment (≥2 cases of GBS or other relevant severe neurologic toxicity).

Results: As of June 15, 2020, 47 pts with R/R cHL were enrolled and are included in this analysis. Median age was 36 (range 23–74) yrs and pts had received a median of 7 (range 3–20) lines of prior therapy, including transplant (Table 1). Pts received a median of 5 (range 2–10; mean 4.9 [SD 1.86]) cycles of Cami. ORR was 80.9% (38/47 pts), with 18 (38.3%) and 20 (42.6%) pts attaining CR and partial response, respectively; 6 pts (12.8%) had stable disease (Figure 1).

TEAEs were experienced by all 47 pts; the most common (≥20% of pts) were fatigue (22, 46.8%); nausea, pyrexia, and maculopapular rash (18, 38.3% each); anemia and headache (12, 25.5% each); pruritus (11, 23.4%); arthralgia, constipation, diarrhea, hypophosphatemia, and rash (10, 21.3% each). TEAEs thought to be PBD-associated included skin reactions and nail disorders (36, 76.6%), liver function test abnormalities (14, 29.8%), and edema or effusion (7, 14.9%). There were 3 (6.4%) pts with GBS/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: grade 4 subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, grade 2 radiculopathy, and grade 2 peripheral motor and sensory neuropathy updated to GBS after data cut-off date). In total, 27 (57.4%) pts had grade ≥3 TEAEs; the most common (≥5% of pts) were hypophosphatemia (6, 12.8%) and gamma-glutamyltransferase increased (3, 6.4%). Overall, 3 (6.4%) pts had TEAEs leading to dose reduction/delay and 6 (12.8%) pts had TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation.

Conclusions: Current data show that therapy with Cami has encouraging anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated pts with R/R cHL. Safety was consistent with that reported at Ph 1, with no new safety concerns identified and similar incidence of GBS/polyradiculopathy. Following a positive risk-benefit assessment, the enrollment pause was lifted, and pts continue to be enrolled. Updated efficacy and safety results will be presented at the meeting.

Funding: Study funded by ADC Therapeutics SA.