Phase 1 trial evaluates safety and activity of anti-LAG-3 and anti-PD-1 in recurrent glioblastoma, suggesting promising clinical response.
Lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) is an immune checkpoint implicated in T cell exhaustion and a potential therapeutic target in glioblastoma (GBM). We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase 1 study with sequential allocation to evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of the anti-LAG-3 antibody relatlimab, administered alone or with the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab, in patients with recurrent GBM. Forty-six patients were treated (23 per cohort). The primary endpoint of safety was met, with maximum tolerated doses of 800 mg relatlimab for monotherapy and 160 mg relatlimab/240 mg nivolumab for combination therapy. Treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 6 of 23 patients receiving combination therapy and were not observed with monotherapy. Neoadjuvant administration was associated with increased intratumoral CD8+ T cell infiltration for both monotherapy and combination therapy. Exploratory analyses suggested that tumors with elevated baseline interferon signaling and increased T cell clonality were enriched among patients with durable responses to combination therapy. Twelve-month overall survival was 34.8% with relatlimab alone and 52.2% with combination therapy; however, this study was not designed to assess efficacy. These findings demonstrate an acceptable safety profile and provide preliminary immunologic and clinical signals supporting further evaluation of LAG-3 blockade in GBM. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02658981 . In a non-randomized phase 1 trial, patients with recurrent glioblastoma received anti-LAG-3 relatlimab with or without anti-PD-1 nivolumab, showing that both monotherapy and combination therapy are safe and result in encouraging preliminary clinical response signals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: