Pemigatinib for metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma with FGF/FGFR genomic alterations: final results from FIGHT-201

BACKGROUND

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations are oncogenic drivers of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Pemigatinib is a selective, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3 with antitumor activity. We report the efficacy and safety of pemigatinib in the open-label, single-arm, phase II study of previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 alterations (FIGHT-201; NCT02872714).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements (cohort A) and other FGF/FGFR alterations (cohort B) were included. Patients received pemigatinib 13.5 mg once daily continuously (CD) or intermittently (ID) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally confirmed objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 in cohort A-CD. Secondary endpoints included ORR in cohorts A-ID and B, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 260 patients were enrolled and treated (A-CD, n = 101; A-ID, n = 103; B, n = 44; unconfirmed FGF/FGFR status, n = 12). All discontinued treatment, most commonly due to progressive disease (68.5%). ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] in cohorts A-CD and A-ID was 17.8% (10.9% to 26.7%) and 23.3% (15.5% to 32.7%), respectively. Among patients with the most common FGFR3 mutation (S249C; n = 107), ORR was similar between cohorts (A-CD, 23.9%; A-ID, 24.6%). In cohorts A-CD/A-ID, median (95% CI) DOR was 6.2 (4.1-8.3)/6.2 (4.6-8.0) months, PFS was 4.0 (3.5-4.2)/4.3 (3.9-6.1) months, and OS was 6.8 (5.3-9.1)/8.9 (7.5-15.2) months. Pemigatinib had limited clinical activity among patients in cohort B. Of 36 patients with samples available at progression, 6 patients had 8 acquired FGFR3 secondary resistance mutations (V555M/L, n = 3; V553M, n = 1; N540K/S, n = 2; M528I, n = 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events overall were diarrhea (44.6%) and alopecia, stomatitis, and hyperphosphatemia (42.7% each).

CONCLUSIONS

Pemigatinib was generally well tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements.

Randomized open-label controlled study of cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus chemotherapy in HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with resistance to immunotherapy: ATALANTE-1

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) ultimately progress either rapidly (primary resistance) or after durable benefit (secondary resistance). The cancer vaccine OSE2101 may invigorate antitumor-specific immune responses after ICB failure. The objective of ATALANTE-1 was to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ATALANTE-1 was a two-step open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSE2101 compared to standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT). Patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2-positive advanced NSCLC without actionable alterations, failing sequential or concurrent CT and ICB were randomized (2 : 1) to OSE2101 or SoC (docetaxel or pemetrexed). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim OS futility analysis was planned as per Fleming design. In April 2020 at the time of interim analysis, a decision was taken to prematurely stop the accrual due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Final analysis was carried out in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with ICB secondary resistance defined as failure after ICB monotherapy second line ≥12 weeks.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (139 OSE2101, 80 SoC); 118 had secondary resistance to sequential ICB. Overall, median OS non-significantly favored OSE2101 over SoC {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.86 [0.62-1.19], P = 0.36}. In the secondary resistance subgroup, OSE2101 significantly improved median OS versus SoC [11.1 versus 7.5 months; HR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.38-0.91), P = 0.017], and significantly improved post-progression survival (HR 0.46, P = 0.004), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status deterioration (HR 0.43, P = 0.006) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status compared to SoC (P = 0.045). Six-month disease control rates and progression-free survival were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse effects occurred in 11.4% of patients with OSE2101 and 35.1% in SoC (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and secondary resistance to immunotherapy, OSE2101 increased survival with better safety compared to CT. Further evaluation in this population is warranted.

Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed.

RESULTS

In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high/mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer in the KEYNOTE-158 study

OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab demonstrated a clinically meaningful objective response rate in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer in the multicohort phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results for these patients.

METHODS

This analysis included patients from cohorts D (endometrial cancer with any MSI status) and K (any MSI-H/dMMR solid tumor except colorectal) who had previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires were administered at baseline, at regular intervals during treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Pre-specified exploratory analyses included changes from baseline to week 9 in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (VAS) score for all patients and by best overall response.

RESULTS

84 of 90 enrolled patients completed ≥1 HRQoL questionnaire and were included in the analysis. QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L compliance rates were 90% and 94%, respectively, at baseline, and 92% and 93% at week 9. Mean (95% CI) QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 by 6.08 (0.71-11.46) points in the overall population, with greater improvement in patients who achieved complete or partial response (11.67 [5.33-18.00]-point increase). Mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-3L VAS scores improved by 6.00 (2.25-9.75) points in the overall population and 9.11 (5.24-12.98) points in patients with CR/PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab maintained or improved HRQoL in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer, further supporting efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-158 and pembrolizumab use in this setting.

Phase II multicohort study of atezolizumab monotherapy in multiple advanced solid cancers

BACKGROUND

The programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab had shown clinical activity against several advanced malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase II, open-label basket study (NCT02458638) was conducted in 16 main cohorts of patients aged ≥18 years with stage III or IV solid tumors. In stage I, 12 patients were enrolled into each cohort. Treatment was atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-progression rate (NPR) at 18 weeks in treated, assessable patients. NPR ≤20% was not of interest for development as monotherapy, and NPR ≥40% was defined as the threshold of benefit/success. If ≥3 patients had non-progressive disease in stage I (interim analysis), 13 additional patients could be enrolled into stage II (final analysis). Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 474 patients were enrolled and treated; 433 were included in the efficacy set. Due partly to slow recruitment because of competing trials and limited efficacy at interim analyses, enrollment was stopped early, including in cohorts that passed stage I boundaries of success. NPR was >20% in five cohorts: cervical cancer {n = 27; NPR 44.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.5% to 64.7%]}; follicular/papillary thyroid cancer [n = 11; 54.5% (95% CI 23.4% to 83.3%)]; thymoma [n = 13; 76.9% (95% CI: 46.2% to 95.0%)]; gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) and lung neuroendocrine tumors [NETs; n = 24; 41.7% (95% CI 22.1% to 63.4%)], and low/intermediate grade carcinoid GEP and lung NETs [n = 12; 58.3% (95% CI 27.7% to 84.8%)]. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55.3% of patients overall, and at grade 3, 4, and 5 in 10.3%, 1.7%, and 0.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab monotherapy was effective in the cervical cancer cohort. The interim benefit threshold was crossed in patients with follicular/papillary thyroid cancer, thymoma, and GEP and lung NETs, but recruitment was stopped before these signals could be confirmed in stage II. Safety was consistent with previous findings.

Skip pattern approach toward the early access of innovative anticancer drugs

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of innovative anticancer treatments, the optimization of tools able to accelerate the access of new drugs to the market by the regulatory authority is a major issue. The aim of the project was to propose a reliable methodological pathway for the assessment of clinical value of new therapeutic innovative options, to objectively identify drugs which deserve early access (EA) priority for solid and possibly in other cancer scenarios, such as the hematological ones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive review of the European Public Assessment Report of 21 drugs, to which innovation had previously been attributed by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA), an expert panel formulated an algorithm for the balanced use of three parameters: Unmet Medical Need (UMN) according to AIFA criteria, Added Benefit (AB) according to the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) criteria and Quality of Evidence (QE) assessed by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. By sequentially combining the above indicators, a final priority status (i.e. EA or not) was obtained using the skip pattern approach (SPA).

RESULTS

By applying the SPA to the non-curative setting in solid cancers, the EA status was obtained by 5 out of 14 investigated drugs (36%); by enhancing the role of some categories of the UMN, additional 4 drugs, for a total of 9 (64%), reached the EA status: 2 and 3 drugs were excluded for not achieving an adequate score according to AB and QE criteria, respectively. For hematology cancer, only the UMN criteria were found to be adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of this model may represent a reliable tool for assessment available to the various stakeholders involved in the EA process and may help regulatory agencies in a more comprehensive and objective definition of new treatments' value in these contexts. Its generalizability in other national contexts needs further evaluation.