Pembrolizumab+chemotherapy versus atezolizumab+chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

METHODS

This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials.

RESULTS

After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score.

CONCLUSIONS

In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

Efficacy of rechallenge immunotherapy after immune monotherapy resistance in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Drug resistance inevitably occurs despite the encouraging results of immunotherapy. This study attempted to investigate immunotherapy rechallenge treatment regimens and factors associated with outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to resistance status.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with advanced NSCLC who received immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy and immune rechallenge between March 2016 and December 2022. Primary resistance (RR) was defined by an absence of response after treatment administered for less than 6 months before progression. Acquired resistance (AR) was defined as a response to immunotherapy treatment administered for more than 6 months before progression. Disease progression in as many as three lesions was defined as systemic progression, whereas disease progression in fewer than three lesions was defined as oligo-progression.

RESULTS

Of 40 patients, 18 (45%) had primary resistance, and 22 (55%) developed AR. Overall survival (OS) was not reached. A significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in individuals rechallenged with ICIs after AR and RR (7.0 months vs. 2.1 months, P = 0.003). Patients receiving interval treatment before rechallenge achieved longer PFS than those who did not (6.2 months vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.027). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that systemic progression was a risk factor significantly associated with PFS after ICI rechallenge (P = 0.006). After AR, ICI rechallenge prolonged the duration of PFS if patients developed oligo-progression (5.4 months vs. 1.1 months, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ICI rechallenge is likely to be an option for patients with oligo-progression during rechallenge, particularly after AR.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: maximizing benefit whilst minimizing toxicity

INTRODUCTION

The advent of immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer; anti-tumor efficacy has been observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in ~20 different cancer types with durable responses in some cases. However, the risk of toxicity in the form of immune-related adverse events (irAE) partially counterbalances these benefits, and there are no FDA-approved biomarkers to categorize patients by likelihood of response or risk of irAEs.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a thorough review of the literature of clinical studies regarding ICI and their toxicities. In this review, we synthesize the current body of literature about ICI treatment and irAE by summarizing the classes and uses of ICI, how to identify patients at risk for irAE, present the current understanding of irAE development, describe ongoing research into biomarkers of irAE, examine opportunities for irAE prevention, described management of steroid refractory irAE, and highlight future directions for development of prevention and management strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

While ongoing biomarker studies are promising, it is unlikely that there will be a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to categorizing irAE risk. In contrast, improved management and irAE prophylaxis are potentially in reach, and ongoing trials will help elucidate best practices.

Clinical efficacy and safety of pemetrexed with or without either Bevacizumab or Pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pemetrexed was approved by United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) in combination with platinum for the treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and malignant mesothelioma. Bevacizumab and pembrolizumab can be added to chemotherapy for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC with benefits but there has not been any dedicated head-to-head comparison between pembrolizumab-pemetrexed-platinum (PAC) and bevacizumab-pemetrexed-platinum (BAC) on their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center cohort study conducted in Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong. The study included 451 patients with advanced stage nonsquamous NSCLC that received first-line pemetrexed and platinum with or without bevacizumab or pembrolizumab. Patients who received pemetrexed-platinum (AC) were compared with those who received PAC and BAC. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The median PFS for patients that received PAC was significantly longer than those who received BAC and AC (9 months vs. 6.8 months vs. 4.8 months, p < 0.05 among all three groups), with OR of 0.578 (95% CI, 0.343-0.976; p = 0.040) and 0.430 (95% CI, 0.273-0.675; p < 0.001) when compared to BAC and AC, respectively. Patients who received PAC also had a higher disease control rate and higher likelihood to receive continuation maintenance therapy than those on AC. There is no statistically significant difference in the grade 3 to 4 toxicity among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both regimens are superior to pemetrexed-platinum alone, data from this retrospective single center study suggested a better PFS in  advanced stage nonsquamous NSCLC patient treated with first-line pembrolizumab-pemetrexed-platinum than bevacizumab-pemetrexed-platinum without an obvious increase in significant toxicity.

Comparison of Chemotherapy Plus Pembrolizumab vs. Chemotherapy Alone in EGFR-Mutant Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Platinum doublet chemotherapy is the standard of care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation who had disease progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). We aimed to assess immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of sensitive EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients who progressed after EGFR-TKIs and received platinum doublet chemotherapy plus immunotherapy between 2015 and 2021. Efficacy outcomes, including overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, were assessed and compared with those of patients who had received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the total 869 patients, 82 treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy and 82 with only chemotherapy were selected. The median progression-free survival in patients administered pembrolizumab was significantly longer than those not administered pembrolizumab (6.7 months; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.0-8.5 vs. 4.2 months; 95% CI 3.3-5.0, hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.89, P = .0076). Improved median overall survival was also observed in patients receiving pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (26.7 [95% CI 22.6-30.8] vs. 13.4 months [95% CI 10.4-16.4], HR, 0.49 [95% CI 0.31-0.75], P = .0052). In addition, the overall response rate was higher in patients treated with than patients treated without pembrolizumab (34.1% and 20.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The combination of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy is associated with improved efficacy and survival in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC after TKI resistance, but these findings need to be confirmed in further prospective studies.

Therapeutic targets and biomarkers of tumor immunotherapy: response versus non-response

Cancers are highly complex diseases that are characterized by not only the overgrowth of malignant cells but also an altered immune response. The inhibition and reprogramming of the immune system play critical roles in tumor initiation and progression. Immunotherapy aims to reactivate antitumor immune cells and overcome the immune escape mechanisms of tumors. Represented by immune checkpoint blockade and adoptive cell transfer, tumor immunotherapy has seen tremendous success in the clinic, with the capability to induce long-term regression of some tumors that are refractory to all other treatments. Among them, immune checkpoint blocking therapy, represented by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (nivolumab) and CTLA-4 inhibitors (ipilimumab), has shown encouraging therapeutic effects in the treatment of various malignant tumors, such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma. In addition, with the advent of CAR-T, CAR-M and other novel immunotherapy methods, immunotherapy has entered a new era. At present, evidence indicates that the combination of multiple immunotherapy methods may be one way to improve the therapeutic effect. However, the overall clinical response rate of tumor immunotherapy still needs improvement, which warrants the development of novel therapeutic designs as well as the discovery of biomarkers that can guide the prescription of these agents. Learning from the past success and failure of both clinical and basic research is critical for the rational design of studies in the future. In this article, we describe the efforts to manipulate the immune system against cancer and discuss different targets and cell types that can be exploited to promote the antitumor immune response.

PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of three randomised trials

Background

To date, none of randomised trials aim to compare the efficacy of programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor plus chemotherapy and bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis pooled prospective data to compare the survival benefits of the two regimens for advanced NSCLC without targetable genetic mutations.

Methods

Data were pooled from three randomised phase III clinical trials: NCT03607539, NCT03134872 and NCT02954172. 466 patients received PD-1 inhibitor (200 mg) plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) and platinum (cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 mg/mL/min), while 432 patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min). Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio was performed to balance baseline characteristics of the two arms. The endpoints of this analysis were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Results

In total, 375 patients in each arm were matched. With a median follow-up of 23 months (IQR 21–26), results showed that median PFS was significantly prolonged in the PD-1 inhibitor arm than in the bevacizumab arm (10.1 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.73, p<0.001). Improved OS was also demonstrated in the PD-1 inhibitor arm (27.9 vs 20.2 months; HR 0.75 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91, p=0.004). ORR in the PD-1 inhibitor arm was 56.8%, while that in the bevacizumab arm was 45.1%. However, exploratory subgroup analysis indicated that median PFS and median OS of the two arms were comparable in patients with negative programmed death ligand 1 expression or in patients aged ≥65 years old.

Conclusions

PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy was associated with significant survival benefits compared with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, which provides evidence support to guide clinical practice. Nonetheless, the comparative survival outcomes in several subgroups indicated that bevacizumab plus chemotherapy still mattered.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment beyond progression with prior immunotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

Background

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) provide unprecedented survival improvement for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), disease progression inevitably occurs. After ICIs failure, limited data exist on whether ICI-based treatment beyond progression (TBP) may be beneficial to advanced NSCLC. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this treatment approach in advanced NSCLC and identify potential beneficial factors.

Methods

Patients with stage IV NSCLC who received ICI-based treatment after the failure of prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor treatments (monotherapy or combination therapy) between January 2016 and July 2020 were enrolled. Their clinical characteristics and treatment procedures were collected, and the follow-up would be performed.

Results

A total of 204 patients were included. All patients had disease progression after prior immunotherapy, with 49.5% (101/204) of patients presenting with new metastasis lesions and the rest 50.5% (103/204) of patients' progression on originate lesions. Within the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) of ICI-based TBP with prior immunotherapy were 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.5-5.5 months) and 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.7-16.8 months), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 9.3% and 74.0%, respectively. According to the multivariate analysis, ICI-based combination therapy [PFS: hazard ratio (HR), 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-0.84, P=0.011] (OS: HR, 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23-0.85, P=0.014), not having targetable gene alterations (PFS: HR, 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40-0.79, P=0.001) (OS: HR, 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37-0.87, P=0.009), and good response to prior immunotherapy (PFS: HR, 0.36, 95% CI: 0.24-0.53, P<0.0001) (OS: HR, 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.52, P<0.0001) were independently associated with improved PFS and OS. Moreover, disease progression due to appearances of new metastasis (OS: HR, 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.84, P=0.005) was only associated with better OS.

Conclusions

While the ORR in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving ICI-based TBP with prior immunotherapy was limited, the DCR was relatively high in our study which is encouraging. ICI-based treatment strategy may be a reasonable option for patients who progressed from prior immunotherapy. Further prospective studies on larger sample size are warranted.

Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer

Aim: This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using pooled individual patient data from KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 and published aggregate data from CheckMate 227 Part 1A, with platinum doublet chemotherapy as the anchor. Results: After matching, estimated hazard ratios (95% CI) of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab for overall survival and progression-free survival were 1.07 (0.82, 1.39) and 1.16 (0.93, 1.45), respectively. For objective response rate, the estimated risk ratio (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.71, 1.22) and the risk difference (95% CI) was -2.86%(-11.38, 5.67). Conclusion: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results demonstrated comparable effectiveness between pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor-proportion score ≥1%.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Tepotinib with Other MET Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced NSCLC with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations

INTRODUCTION

MET exon 14 skipping in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), can be targeted with MET inhibitors including tepotinib, capmatinib, savolitinib, and crizotinib. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methodology was used to compare outcomes data between agents and to address bias from differences in baseline characteristics.

METHODS

Patient-level data from the VISION study (tepotinib) were weighted for comparison with aggregate data from the GEOMETRY mono-1 (capmatinib), NCT02897479 (savolitinib) and PROFILE 1001 (crizotinib) studies in patients with aNSCLC, using baseline characteristics prognostic for overall survival (OS) in VISION. Overall response rate (ORR), OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) were compared. Patients were stratified by line of therapy: overall (all lines), previously treated, and treatment-naïve.

RESULTS

Improvements in ORR and all time-to-event endpoints were predicted for tepotinib compared with crizotinib and savolitinib in the different populations, although comparisons with savolitinib were hindered by considerable differences in baseline patient populations. Tepotinib appeared to be associated with prolonged PFS and OS compared with capmatinib in previously treated patients (PFS HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36-0.83; OS HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42-1.06) and the overall populations (PFS HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.86; OS HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.49-1.05), with smaller improvements in DOR. The ORR comparisons between tepotinib and capmatinib identified a swing of up to ± 6 percentage points in the weighted tepotinib ORR depending on the population studied (treatment-naïve vs. previously treated patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The MAIC identified potential differences in efficacy endpoints with the different MET inhibitors, and predicted prolonged PFS and OS with tepotinib compared with capmatinib and crizotinib. Although MAIC cannot balance for unobserved factors, it remains an informative method to contextualize single-arm studies, where head-to-head trials are unlikely to be feasible.