Association of progression-free survival and overall response rate with overall survival in first-line randomized trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor–based regimens for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An FDA pooled analysis

9029

Background: Overall Survival (OS) has represented the endpoint of choice to support approvals of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) in first-line metastatic NSCLC. Despite continued interest in the use of earlier clinical endpoints as true surrogates for OS in this setting, the correlation of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Response Rate (ORR) with OS remain an area of active investigation. We conducted a patient-level and trial-level pooled analysis of first-line randomized trials of ICI-based regimens to assess correlations of early clinical endpoints of PFS and ORR with OS in first-line metastatic NSCLC. Methods: The analysis included randomized trials comparing ICI-based regimens (anti-PD-(L)1 with or without anti-CTLA4 antibodies, with or without platinum-based chemotherapy) to platinum-based chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC that were submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between July 2016 to March 2021 to support a marketing application. Patient-level associations were estimated using Spearman (rs) correlation coefficients for PFS and OS, and Cox Proportional Hazards models in RECIST response-based subgroups for ORR and OS. At the trial level, associations were estimated using R2 coefficients from weighted linear regression models, using the log of hazard-ratio (HRs) for PFS and OS and log-odds ratio for ORR. Results: The pooled analysis included 13 trials enrolling 9,285 patients total. Seven trials compared ICIs combined with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy; 6 trials compared ICIs alone vs chemotherapy. Among all patients, the distribution of PD-L1 expression was 31%, 66%, and 32% for PD-L1 <1%, ≥1%, and ≥50%, respectively. The table shows the correlation coefficients for PFS and OS, and ORR and OS at the patient and trial levels. At the patient level, the OS HR comparing ICI-based regimens to chemotherapy was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.61) for RECIST responders and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.02) for non-responders. Conclusions: This pooled analysis did not indicate a strong correlation between endpoints of PFS and ORR with OS at the patient and trial levels in first-line randomized trials of ICI-based regimens for metastatic NSCLC, potentially because of use of subsequent therapies, cross-over to ICIs, and continuation of ICIs beyond progression. Future research will explore the correlation of alternative endpoints with OS, such as time to treatment discontinuation. Our analysis supports the continued importance of OS as an endpoint for first-line NSCLC trials of ICI-based regimens.[Table: see text]

Benefit-Risk Summary of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Prior Fluoropyrimidine- and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY) for the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, active-control study (ATTRACTION-3) that randomized patients to receive nivolumab or investigator's choice of taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel or paclitaxel). The study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96; p = .0189) with an estimated median OS of 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm compared with 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Overall, fewer patients in the nivolumab arm experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade, grade 3-4 TEAEs, and serious adverse events compared with the control arm. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with ESCC was generally similar to the known safety profile of nivolumab in other cancer types with the following exception: esophageal fistula was identified as a new, clinically significant risk in patients with ESCC treated with nivolumab. Additionally, the incidence of pneumonitis was higher in the ESCC population than in patients with other cancer types who are treated with nivolumab. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab for the treatment of ESCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approval of nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy was based on an overall survival (OS) benefit from a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study called ATTRACTION-3. Prior to this study, no drug or combination regimen had demonstrated an OS benefit in a randomized study for patients with ESCC after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.

METHODS

For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts.

FINDINGS

Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669).

INTERPRETATION

Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile.

FUNDING

None.

FDA Approval of Nivolumab for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with BRAFV600 Wild-Type Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

On November 23, 2015, the FDA approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol-Myers Squibb) as a single agent for the first-line treatment of patients with BRAF^V600 wild-type, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. An international, double-blind, randomized (1:1) trial conducted outside of the United States allocated 418 patients to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 210) or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 208). Patients with disease progression who met protocol-specified criteria (∼25% of each trial arm) were permitted to continue with the assigned treatment in a blinded fashion until further disease progression is documented. Overall survival was statistically significantly improved in the nivolumab arm compared with the dacarbazine arm [hazard ratio (HR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-0.60; P < 0.0001]. Progression-free survival was also statistically significantly improved in the nivolumab arm (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56; P < 0.0001). The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) of nivolumab were fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, rash, and pruritus. Nivolumab demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile compared with dacarbazine, supporting regular approval; however, it remains unclear whether treatment beyond disease progression contributes to the overall clinical benefit of nivolumab. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3479-83. ©2017 AACR.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Progression On or After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

In the CheckMate 057 trial, an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy, improved overall survival and objective response rates were demonstrated with nivolumab compared with docetaxel. Progression-free survival did not differ between the two arms of the study.

On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the nivolumab metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indication to include patients with nonsquamous NSCLC after a 3.25-month review timeline. Approval was based on demonstration of an improvement in overall survival (OS) in an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial comparing nivolumab to docetaxel in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The CheckMate 057 trial enrolled 582 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive nivolumab or docetaxel. Nivolumab demonstrated improved OS compared with docetaxel at the prespecified interim analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (p = .0015), and a median OS of 12.2 months (95% CI: 9.7–15.0 months) in patients treated with nivolumab compared with 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.0–10.7 months) in patients treated with docetaxel. A statistically significant improvement in objective response rate (ORR) was also observed, with an ORR of 19% (95% CI: 15%–24%) in the nivolumab arm and 12% (95% CI: 9%–17%) in the docetaxel arm. The median duration of response was 17 months in the nivolumab arm and 6 months in the docetaxel arm. Progression-free survival was not statistically different between arms. A prespecified retrospective subgroup analysis suggested that patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-negative tumors treated with nivolumab had similar OS to those treated with docetaxel. The toxicity profile of nivolumab was consistent with the known immune-mediated adverse event profile except for 1 case of grade 5 limbic encephalitis, which led to a postmarketing requirement study to better characterize immune-mediated encephalitis.

Implications for Practice:

Based on the results from the CheckMate 057 clinical trial, nivolumab represents a new treatment option for patients requiring second-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The role of nivolumab in patients with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations is less clear. Until dedicated studies are performed to better characterize the role and sequence of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy, patients with EGFR or ALK alterations should have progressed on appropriate targeted therapy before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Some patients whose tumors lack programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also appear to have durable responses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted approval to Dako’s PD-L1 test, PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx, which the applicant claimed as a nonessential complementary diagnostic for nivolumab use.

Analysis of vascular closure devices after transbrachial artery access

INTRODUCTION

We seek to determine whether vascular closure devices (VCDs) are safe and effective for brachial artery access.

METHODS

A retrospective review of brachial artery access using either manual compression (MC) or a VCD for hemostasis from November 2005 to February 2011 was performed.

RESULTS

Brachial artery access was performed on 154 limbs: MC on 134 limbs and VCD on 20 limbs. The incidence of thrombotic (VCD n = 0 [0%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .37), hemorrhagic complications (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 7 [5.2%], P = .72), or major adverse events (VCD n = 1 [5%] vs MC n = 16 [12%], P = .32) was not significantly different between the techniques. After univariate and multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .07, relative risk [RR] = 5.7), sheath size > 6F (P = .008, RR = 14.6), and diagnostic versus interventional procedure (P = .04, RR = 0.4) all impacted the occurrence of thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of VCD in the brachial artery following an endovascular procedure showed equivalence to MC.

Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites

OBJECTIVE

Patients commonly refer to Internet health-related information. To date, no quantitative comparison of the accuracy and readability of common diagnoses in Pediatric Otolaryngology exist.

STUDY AIMS

(1) identify the three most frequently referenced Internet sources; (2) compare the content accuracy and (3) ascertain user-friendliness of each site; (4) inform practitioners and patients of the quality of available information.

METHODS

Twenty-four diagnoses in pediatric otolaryngology were entered in Google and the top five URLs for each were ranked. Articles were accessed for each topic in the three most frequently referenced sites. Standard rubrics were developed to include proprietary scores for content, errors, navigability, and validated metrics of readability.

RESULTS

Wikipedia, eMedicine, and NLM/NIH MedlinePlus were the most referenced sources. For content accuracy, eMedicine scored highest (84%; p<0.05) over MedlinePlus (49%) and Wikipedia (46%). The highest incidence of errors and omissions per article was found in Wikipedia (0.98±0.19), twice more than eMedicine (0.42±0.19; p<0.05). Errors were similar between MedlinePlus and both eMedicine and Wikipedia. On ratings for user interface, which incorporated Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Level and Flesch Reading Ease, MedlinePlus was the most user-friendly (4.3±0.29). This was nearly twice that of eMedicine (2.4±0.26) and slightly greater than Wikipedia (3.7±0.3). All differences were significant (p<0.05). There were 7 topics for which articles were not available on MedlinePlus.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of the quality of available information on the Internet improves pediatric otolaryngologists' ability to counsel parents. The top web search results for pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses are Wikipedia, MedlinePlus, and eMedicine. Online information varies in quality, with a 46-84% concordance with current textbooks. eMedicine has the most accurate, comprehensive content and fewest errors, but is more challenging to read and navigate. Both Wikipedia and MedlinePlus have lower content accuracy and more errors, however MedlinePlus is simplest of all to read, at a 9th Grade level.