Safety and efficacy of nivolumab therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and impaired kidney function

INTRODUCTION

Patients with renal insufficiency, usually defined as those with creatinine clearance < 40 mL/min, were excluded from pivotal clinical trials, especially in studies involving nivolumab therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) stratified according to creatinine clearance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from mRCC patients treated with nivolumab were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into two categories according to their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); the first category (C1) included patients with eGFR < 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the second category (C2) included those with eGFR ≥ 40 mL/min/1.73 m2.

RESULTS

Of the 95 patients enrolled, 1. group included 26 patients (27.4%) and 2. group included 69 patients (72.6%). None of the pts in category 1 were on hemodialysis. Overall incidence of adverse events was not statistically different between the two groups (P = .469). The overall response rate ORR was 50% in the first group and 42.0% in the second group (P = .486). Median overall survival (OS) was longer with 23.3 months in the 2. group versus 11 months in the 1. group (P = .415).

CONCLUSION

Renal insufficiency is a common problem in patients with advanced renal cancer since they often undergo nephrectomy and their renal function may also worsen while receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. We found that there is no significant difference in the safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment between two groups. Nivolumab appears to be a safe and effective agent in patients with renal impairment.

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial

BACKGROUND

The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status.

OBJECTIVE

We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment.

INTERVENTION

Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone).

CONCLUSIONS

Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline with apalutamide therapy is associated with longer survival and improved outcomes in individuals with metastatic prostate cancer: a plain language summary of the TITAN study

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This summary describes the results from an additional (or post hoc) analysis of the TITAN study. The TITAN study looked at whether the prostate cancer treatment apalutamide could be used to treat individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (or mCSPC). A total of 1052 participants with mCSPC were included in the TITAN study. Treatment with apalutamide was compared with treatment with placebo. All participants received androgen deprivation therapy (or ADT), which is a type of hormone therapy that has been part of the main treatment for mCSPC for many years. The results showed that apalutamide plus ADT increased the length of time that participants remained alive compared with placebo plus ADT. Apalutamide plus ADT also controlled the growth of the cancer for a longer length of time compared with placebo plus ADT. Additionally, participants who received apalutamide plus ADT experienced a greater reduction in the blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (or PSA), called a deep PSA decline, compared with those who received placebo plus ADT. An additional (or post hoc) analysis was carried out to understand whether a decrease in blood PSA levels, in response to treatment, was associated with improved outcomes, including longer survival time.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS?

In participants who received apalutamide plus ADT, a deep PSA decline in response to treatment was associated with longer survival time and improved outcomes.

WHAT DO THESE RESULTS MEAN FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MCSPC?

These results demonstrate that individuals with mCSPC can benefit from treatment with apalutamide plus ADT. The association seen between deep PSA decline and the longer survival time and improved outcomes highlights how PSA measurements can be used to help monitor cancer disease evolution in response to treatment. Monitoring PSA levels will assist doctors and other healthcare professionals to understand how effectively a treatment is working for a patient and to tailor their treatment approach to improve PSA decline.

Symptomatic Pneumonitis With Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC

Introduction

In the placebo-controlled, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.00251) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (PRP) was common in both arms. We report exploratory analyses evaluating the association of symptomatic (grade ≥2) PRP (G2+PRP) with baseline factors and clinical outcomes.

Methods

Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized (2:1) to 12 months of durvalumab or placebo, 1 to 42 days after cCRT. Associations between baseline factors and on-study G2+PRP in durvalumab-treated patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time-dependent G2+PRP plus covariates for randomization stratification factors without and with additional baseline factors.

Results

On-study G2+PRP occurred in 94 of 475 (19.8%) and 33 of 234 patients (14.1%) on durvalumab and placebo, respectively (median follow-up, 25.2 mo); grade greater than or equal to 3 PRP was uncommon (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). Time to onset and resolution of G2+PRP was similar with durvalumab and placebo. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified patients treated in Asia, those with stage IIIA disease, those with performance status of 1, and those who had not received induction chemotherapy as having a higher risk of G2+PRP. PFS and OS benefit favoring durvalumab versus placebo was maintained regardless of time-dependent G2+PRP.

Conclusions

Factors associated with higher risk of G2+PRP with durvalumab after cCRT were identified. Clinical benefit was maintained regardless of on-study G2+PRP, suggesting the risk of this event should not deter the use of durvalumab in eligible patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden

PURPOSE

In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672).

CONCLUSIONS

OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Avelumab Versus Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With High-Expression Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive Metastatic NSCLC: Primary Analysis From the Phase 3 JAVELIN Lung 100 Trial

INTRODUCTION

We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells).

RESULTS

A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT02576574.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design.

METHODS

In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial

BACKGROUND

Erdafitinib is an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in patients with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (FGFRalt) who progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy. FGFR-altered tumours are enriched in luminal 1 subtype and may have limited clinical benefit from anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] treatment. This cohort in the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study assessed erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-(L)1-naive patients with mUC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years with unresectable advanced/mUC, with select FGFRalt, disease progression on one prior treatment, and who were anti-PD-(L)1-naive were randomized 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib 8 mg once daily with pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg or pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population (median follow-up 33 months) comprised 175 and 176 patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between erdafitinib and pembrolizumab [median 10.9 versus 11.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.51; P = 0.18]. Median PFS for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab was 4.4 and 2.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.70-1.10). ORR was 40.0% and 21.6% (relative risk 1.85; 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and median duration of response was 4.3 and 14.4 months for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. 64.7% and 50.9% of patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms had ≥1 grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs); 5 (2.9%) and 12 (6.9%) patients, respectively, had AEs that led to death.

CONCLUSIONS

Erdafitinib and pembrolizumab had similar median OS in this anti-PD-(L)1-naive, FGFR-altered mUC population. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were better than assumed and aligned with previous reports in non- FGFR-altered populations. Safety results were consistent with the known profiles for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab in this patient population.

Targeted treatment for unresectable EGFR mutation-positive stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Emerging evidence and future perspectives

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are detected in up to one third of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current standard of care for unresectable stage III NSCLC is consolidation durvalumab for patients who have not progressed following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (the 'PACIFIC regimen'). However, the benefit of immunotherapy, specifically in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) tumors, is not well characterized, and this treatment approach is not recommended in these patients, based on a recent ESMO consensus statement. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) have demonstrated significant improvements in patient outcomes in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC. The benefits of these agents have also translated to patients with EGFRm early-stage resectable disease as adjuvant therapy. The role of EGFR-TKIs has yet to be prospectively characterized in the unresectable setting. Preliminary efficacy signals for EGFR-TKIs in unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC have been reported from a limited number of subgroup and retrospective studies. Several clinical trials are ongoing assessing the safety and efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in this patient population. Here, we review the current management of unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC. We outline the rationale for investigating EGFR-TKI strategies in this setting and discuss ongoing studies. Finally, we discuss the evidence gaps and future challenges for treating patients with unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC.

Effect of antibiotic treatment on immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Gut microbiotaplays a crucial role in immune response. Recent data have shown that antibiotic (ATB) usage influences efficacy of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) via altering microbiota of the gut.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICIs as monotherapy or combination with chemotherapy (ChT) at the one academic center. Those receiving ATB for the first 12 weeks of the initiation of ICIs were compared with those who did not. The primary objective of this study was to assess the impact of ATB use on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) during ICIs therapy.

RESULTS

90 patients were included in our analysis. Of these 90 patients, 27 (30%) received ATB in the first 12 weeks of the treatment. In patients who received ATB in the first 12 weeks of ICIs administration, PFS was significantly shorter (4.9 vs. 24.8 months, HR 2.52, 95% CI (1.52-4.18), p < 0.001). OS was also significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 37.8 months, HR 2.55, 95% CI (1.48-4.40), p = 0.001). We also examined the impact of ATB on ORR. Exposure to ATB for the first weeks consistently worsened the response rate; the ORR was 25.9% in the ATB group and 55.6% in the no ATB group (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the use of antibiotics around ICIs initiation was associated with decreased OS, PFS, and ORR in patients with NSCLC. This suggests that microbiota diversity may be one of the factors predicting the efficacy of ICIs.

First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression.

METHODS

EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.

FINDINGS

Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

FUNDING

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Association between gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer: exploratory analysis from the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial

BACKGROUND

In the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial, second-line pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1) advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer but did elicit a longer duration of response and offered a favorable safety profile. This prespecified exploratory analysis was conducted to evaluate associations between tumor gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes in the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial.

METHODS

Using RNA sequencing data obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded baseline tumor tissue samples, we evaluated the 18-gene T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (angiogenesis, glycolysis, granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (gMDSC), hypoxia, monocytic MDSC (mMDSC), MYC, proliferation, RAS, stroma/epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition/transforming growth factor-β, WNT). The association between each signature on a continuous scale and outcomes was analyzed using logistic (objective response rate (ORR)) and Cox proportional hazards regression (progression-free survival (PFS) and OS). One-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided (paclitaxel) p values were calculated for TcellinfGEP (prespecified α=0.05) and the 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (multiplicity-adjusted; prespecified α=0.10).

RESULTS

RNA sequencing data were available for 137 patients in each treatment group. TcellinfGEP was positively associated with ORR (p=0.041) and PFS (p=0.026) for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel (p>0.05). The TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR (p=0.077), PFS (p=0.057), and OS (p=0.033) for pembrolizumab, while the TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (p=0.018), MYC (p=0.057), and proliferation (p=0.002) signatures were negatively associated with OS for paclitaxel.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis of tumor TcellinfGEP showed associations with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab but not for paclitaxel. TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel. These data suggest myeloid-driven suppression may play a role in resistance to PD-1 inhibition in G/GEJ cancer and support a strategy of considering immunotherapy combinations which target this myeloid axis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02370498.

Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors of Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate clinical features, prognostic factors, and treatment preferences in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC).

METHODS

Patients with metastatic nccRCC were selected from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) database. Clinical features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients diagnosed with nccRCC were included in this study. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (interquartile range: 56-69). Papillary (57.6%) and chromophobe tumors (12.7%) are common histologic subtypes. Sarcomatoid differentiation was present in 19.5% of all patients. When the patients were categorized according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk scores, 66.9% of the patients were found to be in the intermediate or poor risk group. Approximately half of the patients (55.9%) received interferon in the first line. At the median follow-up of 53.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.7-71.8), the median OS was 19.3 months (95% CI: 14.1-24.5). In multivariate analysis, lung metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]:2.22, 95% CI: 1.23-3.99) and IMDC risk score (HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.01-5.44 for intermediate risk; HR: 8.86, 95% CI: 3.47-22.61 for poor risk) were found to be independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

In this study, survival outcomes are consistent with previous studies. The IMDC risk score and lung metastasis are the independent prognostic factors for OS. This is an area that needs research to better treat this group of patients and create new treatment options.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study

BACKGROUND

In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants.

METHODS

Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration.

RESULTS

In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

Abstract 2140: Association between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab (pembro) and paclitaxel (pac) in advanced gastric cancer (GC): Exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-061

Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (NCT02370498), second-line pembro did not significantly prolong OS vs pac in patients with PD-L1-positive (CPS ≥1) GC (N = 395) but did elicit a longer DOR and offered a favorable safety profile. We explored the association between tumor gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes.

Methods: In patients with tumor RNA-sequencing data, we analyzed the association of the 18-gene T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 10 other signatures (angiogenesis, glycolysis, gMDSC, hypoxia, mMDSC, MYC, proliferation, RAS, stroma/EMT/TGFβ, WNT) on a continuous scale with outcomes using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards (PFS; OS) regression. For TcellinfGEP, 1-sided (pembro) and 2-sided (pac) P values were calculated (prespecified significance, α = 0.05). For the 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures, 1-sided (pembro) and 2-sided (pac) multiplicity-adjusted P values were calculated (prespecified significance, α = 0.10). Clinical data cutoff was October 26, 2017.

Results: There were 274 patients with tumor RNA-sequencing data (n = 137 in each arm). Association with clinical outcomes for gene expression signatures are reported in the Table.

Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of patients with previously treated GC from KEYNOTE-061, tumor TcellinfGEP showed some association with clinical outcomes for pembro (ORR and PFS) but not pac (ORR, PFS, and OS). The TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with clinical outcomes for pembro (ORR, PFS, and OS), while the TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis, MYC, and proliferation signatures were negatively associated with OS for pac. This exploratory biomarker analysis suggests that myeloid-driven suppression may play a role in resistance to PD-1 inhibition and supports a strategy of considering immunotherapy combinations intended to target this myeloid axis.

Association between clinical outcomes and TcellinfGEP and non-TcellinfGEP signatures adjusted for TcellinfGEP Pembrolizumabn = 137 Paclitaxeln = 137 ORR PFS OS ORR PFS OS TcellinfGEPa 0.041 0.026 0.178 0.822 0.207 0.644 Angiogenesisb 0.077 0.298 0.623 0.220 0.462 0.263 Glycolysisb 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.223 0.097 0.018 gMDSCb 0.626 0.573 0.623 0.694 0.352 0.263 Hypoxiab 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.223 0.220 0.440 mMDSCb 0.077 0.057 0.033 0.694 0.932 0.263 MYCb 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.223 0.327 0.057 Proliferationb 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.223 0.071 0.002 RASb 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.223 0.327 0.440 Stroma/EMT/TGFβb 0.306 0.366 0.522 0.694 0.462 0.263 WNTb 0.934 0.861 0.956 0.097 0.327 0.440 aBolded P values (1-sided for pembrolizumab with hypothesized positive association and 2-sided for paclitaxel with no hypothesized association) indicate nominal statistical significance (α = 0.05); model includes additional covariates of ECOG PS. bBolded P values (1-sided for pembrolizumab with hypothesized negative association except for proliferation and 2-sided for paclitaxel with no hypothesized association) indicate multiplicity-adjusted statistical significance (α = 0.10); model includes additional covariates of ECOG PS and TcellinfGEP.

Citation Format: Kohei Shitara, Maria Di Bartolomeo, Mario Mandala, Min-Hee Ryu, Christian Caglevic, Tomasz Olesinski, Hyun C. Chung, Kei Muro, Eray Goekkurt, Raymond S. McDermott, Wasat Mansoor, Zev A. Wainberg, Chie-Schin Shih, Julie Kobie, Michael Nebozhyn, Razvan Cristescu, Z. Alexander Cao, Andrey Loboda, Mustafa Özgüroğlu. Association between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab (pembro) and paclitaxel (pac) in advanced gastric cancer (GC): Exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-061 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2140.

Tolerability of abiraterone (abi) combined with olaparib (ola) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Further results from the phase III PROpel trial

5019

Background: The Phase III PROpel (NCT03732820) trial demonstrated at interim analysis a statistically significant clinical benefit from combining ola + abi in the first-line (1L) mCRPC setting vs placebo (pbo) + abi. Benefit was seen irrespective of a pt’s homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status; median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) 24.8 for ola + abi vs 16.6 months for pbo + abi (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.81; P<0.0001). The safety profile of ola + abi was shown to be consistent with that for the individual drugs. We report additional interim safety analysis from PROpel. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years with mCRPC, had received no prior chemotherapy or next-generation hormonal agent treatment at mCRPC stage, and were unselected by HRRm status. Pts were randomized 1:1 to abi (1000 mg qd) plus prednisone/prednisolone with either ola (300 mg bid) or pbo. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed rPFS. Safety was assessed in all pts receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment by adverse event (AE) reporting (CTCAE v4.03). Results: 398 pts received ola + abi and 396 pbo + abi (safety analysis set). At data cut-off (July 30, 2021), median total duration of exposure for ola was 17.5 vs 15.7 months for pbo, and for abi 18.2 months in the ola + abi arm and 15.7 in the pbo + abi arm. Anemia (n=183) was the most common AE in the ola + abi arm, and 34% of these 183 events were managed by dose interruption, 23% by dose reduction, and 8% resulted in treatment discontinuation. Anemia and pulmonary embolism (PE) were the only Grade ≥3 AEs in ≥5% of pts (anemia: ola + abi, 15.1% vs pbo + abi, 3.3%; PE: 6.5% vs 1.8%, respectively). Most PEs were detected incidentally on radiographic imaging (69.2% and 71.4% in the ola + abi and pbo + abi arms, respectively) and no pts discontinued. More pts in the ola + abi arm experienced venous thromboembolism (Table). Arterial thromboembolism and cardiac failure AEs were balanced between the treatment arms. No AE of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia was reported in either treatment arm. COVID-19 was reported more frequently with ola + abi (8.3% vs 4.5%). Conclusions: PROpel demonstrated a predictable safety profile for ola + abi given in combination to pts with 1L mCRPC unselected by HRRm status. AEs of cardiac failure and arterial thromboembolism were reported at similar frequency in both treatment arms. The majority of PEs were asymptomatic. The safety profile of abiraterone was not adversely impacted by its combination with olaparib. Clinical trial information: NCT03732820. [Table: see text]

Adverse events self-reported by patients (pts) with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) treated with durvalumab (D) plus platinum-etoposide (EP) or EP in the CASPIAN study

8571

Background: The CASPIAN phase 3 study established D+EP as a global standard of care in ES-SCLC. Patient-Reported Outcomes - Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to complement standard adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology trials. Here we describe patient-reported symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE in CASPIAN, the first time the PRO-CTCAE tool has been piloted in SCLC research. Methods: In CASPIAN, treatment-naïve pts (WHO PS 0/1) with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of D+EP q3w followed by maintenance D q4w until progressive disease (PD), or up to 6 cycles of EP q3w. As part of exploratory analyses, where validated local language versions were available (in English, German, Japanese or Spanish), pts were asked to complete the PRO-CTCAE by e-device at baseline, q3w during EP (in both arms), then q4w until PD, followed by day 28 post-PD, 2 months post-PD, and q8w until second progression/death. Presence/absence, frequency or severity were examined during the first 24 weeks after starting treatment across 11 AEs selected as being relevant to pts with ES-SCLC (Table). Results: In total, 164 of the 537 pts randomized to D+EP and EP in CASPIAN (31%; D+EP: 83; EP: 81) were asked to complete the PRO-CTCAE. At baseline, the PRO-CTCAE was completed by 84% of these pts in the D+EP arm and 81% in the EP arm; compliance rates > 60% were achieved up to cycle 32 for D+EP and cycle 6 for EP. Examined AEs were reported by a minority of pts before starting treatment in both arms (range D+EP vs EP: 4% vs 3% for hand-foot syndrome to 34% vs 41% for dry mouth). Baseline AE rates were generally maintained in both arms up to 24 weeks after starting treatment, except for itchy skin, which showed a numerical increase from 13% at baseline to a peak of 34% at cycle 6 in the D+EP arm and 12% at baseline to a peak of 42% at cycle 8 in the EP arm; and dizziness, which showed a numerical increase from 16% at baseline to a peak of 40% at cycle 5 in the D+EP arm, while rates were maintained vs baseline in the EP arm. Most pts reporting these AEs indicated that they occurred rarely or occasionally, or were mild or moderate in severity. Conclusions: Self-reported data from pts in CASPIAN showed that the 11 AEs examined during the 24 weeks after starting treatment were reported by a minority of pts, mostly with rare or occasional occurrence, and mild to moderate severity. Rates and patterns of AEs over time were broadly similar in the D+EP and EP arms. These results complement the CASPIAN safety profile and give insight into pts’ experience of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03043872. [Table: see text]

Genomic aberrations associated with overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) treated with apalutamide (APA) or placebo (PBO) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in TITAN

5066

Background: TITAN, a phase 3 PBO-controlled study in patients (pts) with mCSPC, showed APA + ADT improved radiographic progression-free survival and OS vs PBO + ADT. In this exploratory analysis, we report the relationships between biomarkers and OS in TITAN. Methods: Circulating tumor (ct)DNA and genomic aberrations in 17 PC-related genes, including androgen receptor (AR), were assessed at baseline (BL; 114 pts) and end of study treatment (EOST; 129 pts) using next-generation sequencing. ctDNA was assessed qualitatively; genomic aberrations were assessed within ctDNA-positive samples as inactivation (heterozygous/homozygous deletion or single nucleotide variant [SNV]) or activation (amplification or SNV). Associations of detected ctDNA/aberrations at BL or EOST with OS, and biomarkers at EOST with OS on subsequent therapies, were evaluated using univariate or multivariate analyses and Cox proportional hazards model; results were stratified by treatment arm. Results: Among pts from both treatment groups, 36% had detectable ctDNA, of which 27% had any genomic AR aberration and 24% had AR gene amplification at BL; prevalence of these biomarkers increased significantly from BL to EOST (Table). The most prevalent non-AR aberrations at BL ( TP53, homologous recombination repair [HRR] pathway, PTEN, RB1, and PIK3CA genes) increased at EOST but not significantly (Table). Among assessed aberrations, presence of ctDNA or any AR genomic aberrations at BL (HR, 1.9 or 6.7; all p < 0.05) and any AR genomic aberrations or PI3K pathway activation at EOST (1.7, p < 0.05 or 2.2, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with poor OS in multivariate analyses from both treatment groups. In univariate analyses of pts who received subsequent therapy (chemotherapy: 106; hormonal therapy: 161), worse OS was associated only with PIK3CA activation, PI3K pathway activation, or TP53 inactivation at EOST (3.7, p < 0.05; 2.4, p < 0.05; 3.0, p < 0.01, respectively) in chemo-treated pts. A small sample size in some biomarker subgroups limits interpretation. Conclusions: These hypothesis-generating data from TITAN show that presence of ctDNA or select AR and non-AR biomarkers at BL or EOST were associated with poor OS. The predictive value of these biomarkers for survival in mCSPC needs further confirmation. Clinical trial information: NCT02489318. [Table: see text]

Brief report: Impact of brain metastases on treatment patterns and outcomes with first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN)

Introduction

In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases.

Methods

Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020.

Results

At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44–1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62–0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42–1.29 and 0.80, 0.66–0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%).

Conclusions

The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

Outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: an exploratory analysis from the PACIFIC trial

Background

The phase III PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461) established consolidation durvalumab as standard of care for patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no disease progression following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In some cases, patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are considered operable, but the relative benefit of surgery is unclear. We report a post hoc, exploratory analysis of clinical outcomes in the PACIFIC trial, in patients with or without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC.

Materials and methods

Patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after ≥2 cycles of platinum-based, concurrent CRT were randomized 2 : 1 to receive durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; once every 2 weeks for up to 12 months) or placebo, 1-42 days after CRT. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by blinded independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects within subgroups were estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) from unstratified Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Of 713 randomized patients, 287 (40%) had stage IIIA-N2 disease. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC. With a median follow-up of 14.5 months (range: 0.2-29.9 months), PFS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in both patients with [HR = 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.65] and without (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.48-0.80) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Similarly, with a median follow-up of 25.2 months (range: 0.2-43.1 months), OS was improved with durvalumab versus placebo in patients with (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.39-0.79) or without (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.06) stage IIIA-N2 disease. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile irrespective of stage IIIA-N2 status.

Conclusions

Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, treatment benefits with durvalumab were confirmed in patients with stage IIIA-N2, unresectable NSCLC. Prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for patients who are deemed operable.

•

The PACIFIC trial established durvalumab after CRT as standard of care for unresectable, stage III NSCLC.

•

The optimum multimodal treatment strategy for patients with potentially resectable, stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC is unknown.

•

Survival benefit with durvalumab was observed in patients with stage IIIA-N2, unresectable NSCLC in this post hoc analysis.

•

Durvalumab after CRT also exhibited a manageable safety profile in this subpopulation from PACIFIC.

•

Studies of surgical vs. non-surgical strategies are needed to establish the best approach for potentially operable patients.

Evaluating Alternative Ramucirumab Doses as a Single Agent or with Paclitaxel in Second-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Results from Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Studies

Simple Summary

Ramucirumab is indicated at a dosage of 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel for second-line advanced/metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. A post hoc analysis of the phase III trials REGARD and RAINBOW suggested a positive correlation between ramucirumab exposure and efficacy. Studies JVDB and JVCZ explored different ramucirumab dosing regimens as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel, respectively. Here we report results from these studies, in which JVDB evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of the currently registered dosing regimen for ramucirumab monotherapy and three exploratory dosing regimens, and JVCZ evaluated the efficacy and safety of a higher dosing regimen of ramucirumab in combination with paclitaxel in second-line gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Overall, the safety profiles were similar between the registered dose and the exploratory dosing regimens. However, a lack of a dose/exposure-response relationship supports the standard dose of ramucirumab as second-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Abstract

Studies JVDB and JVCZ examined alternative ramucirumab dosing regimens as monotherapy or combined with paclitaxel, respectively, in patients with advanced/metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. For JVDB, randomized patients (N = 164) received ramucirumab monotherapy at four doses: 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (registered dose), 12 mg/kg Q2W, 6 mg/kg weekly (QW), or 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 (D1D8) every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were the safety and pharmacokinetics of ramucirumab monotherapy. For JVCZ, randomized patients (N = 245) received paclitaxel (80 mg/m²-D1D8D15) plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg- or 12 mg/kg-Q2W). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) of 12 mg/kg-Q2W arm versus placebo from RAINBOW using meta-analysis. Relative to the registered dose, exploratory dosing regimens (EDRs) led to higher ramucirumab serum concentrations in both studies. EDR safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. In JVDB, serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the 8 mg/kg-D1D8-Q3W arm versus the registered dose; 6 mg/kg-QW EDR had a higher incidence of bleeding/hemorrhage. In JVCZ, PFS was improved with the 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel combination versus placebo in RAINBOW; however, no significant PFS improvement was observed between the 12 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg arms. The lack of a dose/exposure-response relationship in these studies supports the standard dose of ramucirumab 8 mg/kg-Q2W as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes From the PACIFIC Trial: Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non–small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned.

METHODS

Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS.

CONCLUSION

These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in older and younger patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 study (TAGS)

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine and tipiracil (FTD/TPI) demonstrated survival benefit vs placebo and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (mGC/GEJC) in the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TAGS study. This subgroup analysis of TAGS examined efficacy/safety outcomes by age.

METHODS

In TAGS, patients with mGC/GEJC and ≥ 2 prior therapies were randomized (2:1) to receive FTD/TPI 35 mg/m² or placebo, plus best supportive care. A preplanned subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years.

RESULTS

Among 507 randomized patients (n = 337 FTD/TPI; n = 170 placebo), 55%, 45%, and 14% were aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Overall survival hazard ratios for FTD/TPI vs placebo were 0.67 (95% CI 0.51-0.89), 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.02), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.33-1.37) in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Regardless of age, patients receiving FTD/TPI experienced improved progression-free survival and stayed longer on treatment than those receiving placebo. Among FTD/TPI-treated patients, frequencies of any-cause grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age subgroups (80% each), although grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was more frequent in older patients [40% (≥ 65 and ≥ 75 years); 29% (< 65 years)]; AE-related discontinuation rates did not increase with age [14% (< 65 years), 12% (≥ 65 years), and 12% (≥ 75 years)].

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this subgroup analysis show the efficacy and tolerability of FTD/TPI treatment regardless of age in patients with mGC/GEJC who had received 2 or more prior treatments.

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated PD-L1-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: 2-year update of the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (cutoff: 10/26/2017), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong OS vs paclitaxel as second-line (2L) therapy in PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 gastric/GEJ cancer. We present results in CPS ≥ 1, ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 populations after two additional years of follow-up (cutoff: 10/07/2019).

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤ 35 cycles or standard-dose paclitaxel. Primary endpoints: OS and PFS (CPS ≥ 1 population). HRs were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

366/395 patients (92.7%) with CPS ≥ 1 died. Pembrolizumab demonstrated a trend toward improved OS vs paclitaxel in the CPS ≥ 1 population (HR, 0.81); 24-month OS rates: 19.9% vs 8.5%. Pembrolizumab incrementally increased the OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment (CPS ≥ 5: HR, 0.72, 24-month rate, 24.2% vs 8.8%; CPS ≥ 10: 0.69, 24-month rate, 32.1% vs 10.9%). There was no difference in median PFS among treatment groups (CPS ≥ 1: HR, 1.25; CPS ≥ 5: 0.98; CPS ≥ 10: 0.79). ORR (pembrolizumab vs paclitaxel) was 16.3% vs 13.6% (CPS ≥ 1), 20.0% vs 14.3% (CPS ≥ 5), and 24.5% vs 9.1% (CPS ≥ 10); median DOR was 19.1 months vs 5.2, 32.7 vs 4.8, and NR vs 6.9, respectively. Fewer treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred with pembrolizumab than paclitaxel (53% vs 84%).

CONCLUSION

In this long-term analysis, 2L pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS but was associated with higher 24-month OS rates than paclitaxel. Pembrolizumab also increased OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment among patients with PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer and led to fewer TRAEs than paclitaxel.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.

Impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer and visceral metastases over four years of follow-up: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the LATITUDE study

BACKGROUND

A post-hoc analysis of the phase-3 LATITUDE study assessed the impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P) on overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and visceral metastases (VM).

METHODS

Newly diagnosed mCSPC patients were randomized (1:1) to AA+P and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or placebo+ADT. Patients with VM in liver or lungs with or without other soft tissue and bone metastases (based on CT/MRI) at baseline were analyzed, after 51.8 months' median follow-up. Co-primary endpoints, OS and rPFS, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 1199 patients enrolled, 228 (19%) had VM at baseline (114 each in AA+P and placebo groups), of which 53 (23.2%; AA+P = 29, Placebo = 24) had liver metastases and 117 (51.3%; AA+P = 60, Placebo = 57) had lung metastases. In patients with VM, treatment with AA+P versus placebo showed an improvement in OS (median 55.4 vs 33.0 months; HR = 0.582; 95%CI = 0.406-0.835;P = 0.0029) and rPFS (median 30.7 vs 18.3 months; HR = 0.527; 95%CI = 0.366-0.759;P = 0.0005), comparable to that of patients without VM. AA+P versus placebo in lung metastases patients was associated with greater improvement in OS (HR = 0.60; 95%CI = 0.35-1.04;P = 0.0678) than in liver metastases patients (HR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.41-1.66;P = 0.5814). AA+P versus placebo showed improvement in rPFS in lung metastases patients (HR = 0.50; 95%CI = 0.29-0.89;P = 0.0157), but not in liver metastases patients (HR = 1.05; 95%CI = 0.53-2.09; P = 0.8970).

CONCLUSION

AA+P treatment improved both rPFS and OS in men with mCSPC and visceral disease, especially those with lung metastases. Men with liver metastases had a poorer prognosis and their optimal treatment remains to be defined.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285.

Comparison of iodine-125 plaque brachytherapy and gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery treatment outcomes for uveal melanoma patients

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacies of iodine-125 brachytherapy (IBT) and gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKRS) in the treatment of posterior uveal melanoma.

METHODS

The demographic data and tumor characteristics at diagnosis of 201 patients treated with IBT and 52 patients treated with GKRS were recorded. The two treatments were then compared in terms of complications, local control, eye retention, metastasis, and overall survival rate.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 56 months for the GKRS group and 45 months for the IBT group (p = 0.167). There were no significant differences in demographic data or tumor characteristics between the groups at diagnosis. Radiation retinopathy, radiation optic neuropathy, and neovascular glaucoma occurred at similar rates in both groups. However, radiation maculopathy and cataracts occurred more frequently in the GKRS group. The number of cases that have developed vision loss (worsening of best-corrected visual acuity on three or more lines on the Snellen chart) was significantly higher in the GKRS group (60%) compared to the IBT group (44%) (p = 0.048). Local control, metastasis, and 5-year overall survival rates were statistically similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

GKRS can be preferred as an eye-sparing treatment option for posterior uveal melanoma in cases where brachytherapy cannot be used.

Nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium database

Aim: The authors present real-world data on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: The Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) database includes patients with mRCC from 13 cancer centers in Turkey. Patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the second line and beyond were extracted from the TKCC database. Results: A total of 173 patients were included. The rates of patients treated with nivolumab in the second, third, fourth and fifth lines were 47.4%, 32.4%, 14.5% and 5.7%, respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 24.2 months and 9.6 months, respectively. Nivolumab was discontinued owing to adverse events in 11 (6.4%) patients. Conclusion: Nivolumab was effective in patients with mRCC and no new safety signal was observed.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Anti-CSF-1 Monoclonal Antibody Lacnotuzumab (MCS110) Combined with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Advanced Triple Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

This phase II study determined the efficacy of lacnotuzumab added to gemcitabine plus carboplatin (gem-carbo) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Female patients with advanced TNBC, with high levels of tumor-associated macrophages, and not amenable to curative treatment by surgery or radiotherapy, were enrolled. Lacnotuzumab was dosed at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W), {plus minus} a dose on Cycle 1, Day 8. Gem and carbo were given at 1000 mg/m² and area under curve 2 dose in mg, respectively, Q3W. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or discontinuation by physician/patient.

RESULTS

Patients received lacnotuzumab+gem-carbo (n=34) or gem-carbo (n=15). Enrollment was halted due to recruitment challenges owing to rapid evolution of the therapeutic landscape; formal hypothesis testing of the primary endpoint, was therefore not performed. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (90% CI: 4.47, 8.64) in the lacnotuzumab+gem-carbo arm and 5.5 months (90% CI: 3.45, 7.46) in the gem-carbo arm. Hematologic adverse events were common in both treatment arms; however, patients treated with lacnotuzumab experienced more frequent aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and creatine kinase elevations. Pharmacokinetic results showed that free lacnotuzumab at 10 mg/kg exhibited a typical IgG pharmacokinetic profile and target engagement of circulating CSF-1 ligand.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite successful target engagement and anticipated pharmacokinetic profile, lacnotuzumab+gem-carbo showed comparable antitumor activity to gem-carbo alone, with slightly poorer tolerability. However, the data presented in this manuscript would be informative for future studies testing agents targeting the CSF-1-CSF-1R pathway in TNBC.

Osimertinib Maintenance After Definitive Chemoradiation in Patients With Unresectable EGFR Mutation Positive Stage III Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: LAURA Trial in Progress

The LAURA trial (NCT03521154) will evaluate the efficacy and safety of osimertinib as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm), stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without disease progression during/following definitive platinum-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Eligible patients include adults aged ≥ 18 years (≥ 20 years in Japan) with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III NSCLC with local/central confirmation of an EGFR exon 19 deletion/L858R mutation. Patients must have received ≥ 2 cycles of concurrent/sequential platinum-based CRT, have no investigator-assessed progression, and have creatinine < 1.5 × upper limit of normal and creatinine clearance ≥ 30 mL/min. In this phase III trial, patients will be randomized 2:1 to once-daily osimertinib 80 mg or placebo, until objective radiological disease progression per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1, confirmed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of osimertinib per BICR-confirmed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives include central nervous system PFS, overall survival, PFS by mutation status and safety. Patients with BICR-confirmed disease progression (or investigator-confirmed progression if after primary PFS analysis) may be unblinded and receive open-label osimertinib; all will have post-progression follow-up. Serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest will be collected throughout the trial and survival follow-up. The first patient was enrolled in July 2018, with results expected in late 2022.

Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in a randomized, open-label, phase III trial in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival versus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 tumors. The association of tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status and clinical outcomes was determined, including the relationship with CPS and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In patients with whole exome sequencing (WES) data [420/592 (71%); pembrolizumab, 218; paclitaxel, 202], the association of tTMB with objective response rate (ORR; logistic regression), progression-free survival (PFS; Cox proportional hazards regression), and overall survival (OS; Cox proportional hazards regression) were measured using one-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided [paclitaxel] P values. tTMB was also evaluated using FoundationOne®CDx [205/592 (35%)]. Prespecified equivalent cut-offs of 175 mut/exome for WES and 10 mut/Mb for FoundationOne®CDx were used.

RESULTS

WES-tTMB was significantly associated with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated (all P < 0.001) but not paclitaxel-treated patients (all P > 0.6) in univariate analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for WES-tTMB and response was 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.81] for pembrolizumab and 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.63) for paclitaxel in univariate analysis. There was low correlation between WES-tTMB and CPS in both treatment groups (r ≤ 0.16). WES-tTMB remained significantly associated with all clinical endpoints with pembrolizumab after adjusting for CPS and with PFS and OS after excluding known MSI-H tumors (n = 26). FoundationOne®CDx-tTMB demonstrated a positive association with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated patients (all P ≤ 0.003) but not PFS or OS in paclitaxel-treated patients (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-061 is the first to demonstrate a strong association between tTMB and efficacy with pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel in patients with gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma in a randomized setting. Data further suggest tTMB is a significant and independent predictor beyond PD-L1 status.

Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m²] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m²] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02853305.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7-36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5-8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4-7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65-0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5-19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3-16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72-1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1-17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3-16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6-19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6-23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77-1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

A Challenging Task: Identifying Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) According to ESMO Guidelines: The CUPISCO Trial Experience

BACKGROUND

CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded.

RESULTS

As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology.

CONCLUSION

Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies.

Apalutamide in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Final Survival Analysis of the Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III TITAN Study

PURPOSE

The first interim analysis of the phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled TITAN study showed that apalutamide significantly improved overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Herein, we report final efficacy and safety results after unblinding and placebo-to-apalutamide crossover.

METHODS

Patients with mCSPC (N = 1,052) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive apalutamide (240 mg QD) or placebo plus ADT. After unblinding in January 2019, placebo-treated patients were allowed to receive apalutamide. Efficacy end points were updated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards model without formal statistical retesting and adjustment for multiplicity. Change from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score was assessed.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 44.0 months, 405 OS events had occurred and 208 placebo-treated patients (39.5%) had crossed over to apalutamide. The median treatment duration was 39.3 (apalutamide), 20.2 (placebo), and 15.4 months (crossover). Compared with placebo, apalutamide plus ADT significantly reduced the risk of death by 35% (median OS not reached v 52.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P < .0001) and by 48% after adjustment for crossover (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.64; P < .0001). Apalutamide plus ADT delayed second progression-free survival and castration resistance (P < .0001 for both). Health-related quality of life, per total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, in both groups was maintained through the study. Safety was consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSION

The final analysis of TITAN confirmed that, despite crossover, apalutamide plus ADT improved OS, delayed castration resistance, maintained health-related quality of life, and had a consistent safety profile in a broad population of patients with mCSPC.

A Phase II Trial of Prexasertib (LY2606368) in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor prexasertib in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a parallel-cohort phase II study of 105 mg/m² prexasertib once every 14 days for patients who progressed after no more than two prior therapies and had platinum-sensitive (Cohort 1) or platinum-resistant/platinum-refractory (Cohort 2) disease. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints included biomarker identification and assessment of an alternative regimen (Cohort 3: 40 mg/m² days 1-3, 14-day cycle).

RESULTS

In Cohort 1 (n = 58), ORR was 5.2%; DCR, 31%; median PFS, 1.41 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.64); and median OS, 5.42 months (95% CI, 3.75-8.51). In Cohort 2 (n = 60), ORR was 0%; DCR, 20%; median PFS, 1.36 months (95% CI, 1.25-1.45); and median OS, 3.15 months (95% CI, 2.27-5.52). The most frequent all-grade, related, treatment-emergent adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (Cohort 1, 69.6%; Cohort 2, 73.3%), decreased platelet count (Cohort 1, 51.8%; Cohort 2, 50.0%), decreased white blood cell count (Cohort 1, 28.6%; Cohort 2, 40.0%), and anemia (Cohort 1, 39.3%; Cohort 2, 28.3%). Eleven patients (19.6%) in Cohort 1 and one patient (1.7%) in Cohort 2 experienced grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia. Prexasertib pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior studies. Cohort 3 outcomes were similar to those of Cohorts 1 and 2. No actionable biomarkers were identified.

CONCLUSION

Prexasertib did not demonstrate activity to warrant future development as monotherapy in ED-SCLC.