Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Pelareorep (Pel) is a type 3 oncolytic reovirus that upregulates PD-L1 expression. We determined the objective response rate (ORR) with paclitaxel (Pac), Pac + Pel, or Pac + Pel + avelumab (Ave). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor and had not received chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer were eligible. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pac, Pac/Pel, or Pac/Pel/Ave after a three-patient run-in confirmed safety of the triplet regimen. Response was assessed every 8 weeks until week 16 and then every 12 weeks using RECIST v1.1. The primary endpoint was 16-week ORR. Statistical comparison across arms was not planned. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled, with 45 randomized. The 16-week ORR was 20%, 31%, and 14% in the Pac, Pac/Pel, and Pac/Pel/Ave arms, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 6.4, 12.1, and 5.8 months in the Pac, Pac/Pel, and Pac/Pel/Ave arms, respectively. There were more adverse events, particularly infusion reactions, in the combination arms than the Pac arm. Expansion of peripheral T-cell clones was observed by cycle 4 in Pac/Pel but not the Pac or Pac/Pel/Ave arms. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of Pel to Pac was associated with increased toxicity, expanded peripheral T-cell clones, and numerically increased the ORR and progression-free survival compared with Pac; Pac/Pel/Ave further increased toxicity and blunted T-cell responses without obvious increase in efficacy. Investigation of the Pac/Pel combination warrants consideration with careful attention to acute toxicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clark et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: