Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Chemotherapy With or Without Bevacizumab for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer: Subgroup Analyses From the KEYNOTE-826 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The KEYNOTE-826 randomized clinical trial showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Treatment effects in patient subgroups of the study population are unknown.

Objective

To assess efficacy outcomes in patient subgroups of KEYNOTE-826.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted in a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Participants included women with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix that had not been treated with systemic chemotherapy and was not amenable to curative treatment. This subanalysis was conducted from November 20, 2018, to May 3, 2021.

Interventions

Pembrolizumab, 200 mg, every 3 weeks or placebo for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, plus cisplatin, 50 mg/m2, or carboplatin AUC 5 [area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration vs time curve]) with or without bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in subgroups defined by use of bevacizumab (yes or no), choice of platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin), prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT) exposure only (yes or no), and histologic type (squamous or nonsquamous) in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1-positive tumors (defined as a combined positive score [CPS] ≥1) and in the intention-to-treat population.

Results

A total of 617 patients (median age, 51 years; range, 22-82 years) were enrolled in the trial. In the CPS greater than or equal to 1 population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85) and cisplatin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.04), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), and squamous (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.20) histologic type. In the intention-to-treat population, HRs for OS also favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89) or cisplatin (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.32-1.09), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97), and squamous (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.23) histologic type. Similar to OS, the addition of pembrolizumab prolonged PFS across all subgroups in the CPS greater than or equal to 1 and intention-to-treat populations.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this trial suggest that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved OS across subgroups of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635567.

First-Line Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy Versus Placebo + Chemotherapy for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer: Final Overall Survival Results of KEYNOTE-826

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The phase III, double-blind KEYNOTE-826 trial of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, showed statistically significant survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (primary data cutoff: May 3, 2021). This article reports the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) results tested in the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. At the final data cutoff (October 3, 2022), the median study follow-up duration was 39.1 months (range, 32.1-46.5 months). In the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 (N = 548), all-comer (N = 617), and CPS ≥10 (N = 317) populations, median OS with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was 28.6 months versus 16.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74]), 26.4 months versus 16.8 months (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77]), and 29.6 months versus 17.4 months (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78]), respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 82.4% with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 75.4% with placebo-chemotherapy. These results show that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, continued to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OS for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed.

RESULTS

Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma

Survival and Response with Nivolumab and RelatlimabIn this follow-up, patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab + relatlimab or nivolumab alone. After approximately 6 months of additional follow-up, the combination's median progression-free survival was 10.2 months versus 4.6 months for monotherapy. The difference in overall survival rates was not statistically significant.

A plain language summary of the CheckMate 649 study: nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for untreated advanced or metastatic cancer of the stomach or esophagus

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a summary of the 1-year results of a clinical research study known as CheckMate 649 published in The Lancet in June 2021. The 2-year results on the participants' health and overall quality of life from the same study are in a second publication in Nature in March 2022. Until recently, chemotherapy was the only first treatment option for people with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who had not been treated before. Patients receiving chemotherapy lived on average for less than 1 year. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that works by activating a person's immune system to fight back against cancer cells. The goal of CheckMate 649 was to find out if the combination of nivolumab and chemotherapy would help patients with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma live longer and without their cancer getting worse.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

Results from the final analysis are reported here. Of 1581 people who took part in the study, 789 received nivolumab and chemotherapy and 792 received chemotherapy. Researchers found that, on average, participants who received nivolumab and chemotherapy lived longer overall than those who received chemotherapy alone. The length of time participants lived without their cancer getting worse was also longer on average with nivolumab and chemotherapy than chemotherapy treatment alone. However, more participants in the nivolumab and chemotherapy group had side effects than those in the chemotherapy group. The three most common side effects in both types of treatment were nausea (urge to vomit), diarrhea and peripheral neuropathy. Participants who received nivolumab and chemotherapy had a lower risk of their cancer symptoms worsening and reported that they were 'less bothered' from side effects of treatment than those receiving chemotherapy alone.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

The nivolumab and chemotherapy combination is considered a new standard treatment option and is approved in several countries as a treatment for adults who have not been treated before for their advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer based on results from CheckMate 649. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02872116 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Addressing the unmet needs of patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma in Latin America: Expert perspective

Melanoma represents an increasing public health burden with extensive unmet needs in Latin America (LA). A mutation in the BRAF gene is present in approximately 50% of all melanomas in White populations and is a target of precision medicine, with the potential to dramatically improve patient outcomes. Thus, increased access to BRAF testing and therapy is LA must be explored. At a multi-day conference, a panel of Latin American experts in oncology and dermatology were provided with questions to address the barriers limiting access to testing for BRAF mutation in patients with melanoma in LA, who may be eligible for targeted therapy to improve their prognosis. During the conference, responses were discussed and edited until a consensus on addressing the barriers was achieved. Identified challenges included ignorance of BRAF-status implications, limited human and infrastructural resources, affordability and reimbursement, fragmented care delivery, pitfalls in the sample journey, and lack of local data. Despite the clear benefits of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutated melanoma in other regions, there is no clear path to prepare LA for a sustainable personalized medicine approach to this disease. Due to melanoma’s time-sensitive nature, LA must aim to provide early access to BRAF testing and consider mutational status within treatment decision making. To this end, recommendations are provided and include establishing multidisciplinary teams and melanoma referral centers and improving access to diagnosis and treatment.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (KEYNOTE-826): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826.

METHODS

KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m² plus cisplatin 50 mg/m² or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003).

INTERPRETATION

Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Abstract CT129: A multicohort, open-label, phase 2 basket study of the coformulation of vibostolimab with pembrolizumab, with or without other anticancer therapies, in select solid tumors

Background: T-cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT) is coexpressed with PD-1 on both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in tumors. Preclinical models and early clinical data have shown enhanced antitumor activity when an anti-TIGIT antibody is co-administered with an anti-PD-1 antibody. The efficacy and safety of a novel coformulation of the anti-TIGIT antibody vibostolimab and the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab (vibostolimab/pembrolizumab), alone or in combination with other anticancer therapies, will be investigated in select advanced solid tumors in a multicohort, open-label, phase 2 basket trial (NCT05007106).

Trial Design: Key eligibility criteria are histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced (locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic) solid tumor naive to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy (Table 1). Patients will be assigned to treatment randomly (cohort A1) or nonrandomly (cohorts A2-G) by tumor type and biomarker status (Table 1). All patients will be treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient/physician decision to withdraw, or 35 cycles of vibostolimab/pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab alone. Primary end points are objective response rate (all cohorts) and progression-free survival (PFS; cohort A1) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (cohort A1) or investigator (cohorts A2-G). Secondary end points include PFS per RECIST v1.1 assessed by the investigator (cohorts A2-G), quality of life (cohort A1), and duration of response, overall survival, and safety (all cohorts). Enrollment is ongoing.

Table 1. Patient Population and Treatment by Cohort Cohort Patient Population Treatmenta A1b PD-L1-positive (CPS ≥1) cervical cancer that progressed on ≥1 line of therapy Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV A2 PD-L1-negative (CPS &lt;1) cervical cancer that progressed on ≥1 line of therapy Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV B1 dMMR endometrial cancer that progressed after 1 prior systemic, platinum-based chemotherapy Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV B2 pMMR endometrial cancer that progressed after 1 prior systemic, platinum-based chemotherapy Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV + lenvatinib 20 mg QD PO C PD-L1-positive (CPS ≥1) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (previously untreated) Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV D Biliary tract cancer that progressed after 1 prior systemic therapy Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV E Esophageal cancer (previously untreated) Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV + 5-FU 800 mg/m2/day on days 1-5 Q3W IV + cisplatin 80 mg/m2 Q3W IV for ≤6 cycles F Triple-negative breast cancer (previously untreated) Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV + paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 Q4W IV G Hepatocellular carcinoma (previously untreated) Vibostolimab 200 mg/pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W IV + lenvatinib 12 mg/8 mg QD PO 5-FU, fluorouracil; CPS, combined positive score; dMRR, mismatch repair-deficient; IV, intravenously; pMRR, mismatch repair-proficient; PO, orally; Q3W, every 3 weeks; Q4W, every 4 weeks; QD, once daily. aAll treatments are ≤35 cycles unless otherwise indicated. bPatients in cohort A1 will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one of the 2 treatments; analysis will be stratified by prior bevacizumab use.

Citation Format: Iwona Lugowska, Carlos Rojas, Alejandro Falcon Gonzalez, Lucia Gonzalez Cortijo, Chih-Hung Hsu, Chia-Jui Yen, Sun Young Rha, Kan Yonemori, Daneng Li, Ravit Geva, Pamela Salman, Eduardo Yanez Ruiz, Qi Liu, Tanya Keenan, Jane Healy, Mariusz Kwiatkowski. A multicohort, open-label, phase 2 basket study of the coformulation of vibostolimab with pembrolizumab, with or without other anticancer therapies, in select solid tumors [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 CT129.

Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of KEYNOTE-826

5506

Background: In KEYNOTE-826 (NCT03635567),pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) ± bevacizumab (bev) provided statistically significant, clinically meaningful PFS and OS improvements in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In the present analysis of KEYNOTE-826, we assessed outcomes in several key patient subgroups. Methods: Eligible adult patients had persistent, recurrent, or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix not previously treated with chemo and not amenable to curative treatment; measurable disease per RECIST v1.1; ECOG PS 0–1; and a tumor sample to determine PD-L1 status. Patients were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or placebo (pbo) for up to 35 cycles + chemo (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 + cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5) ± bev 15 mg/kg. Dual primary endpoints are PFS by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 and OS in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥1, all comers, and CPS ≥10. Treatment effects on PFS and OS were examined in patient subgroups defined by bev use (yes or no), histology (squamous or non-squamous [including adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous]), platinum use (carboplatin or cisplatin), and prior chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were based on a stratified Cox regression model. Results: 617 patients were randomized (pembro + chemo ± bev, n=308; pbo + chemo ± bev, n=309). At the May 3, 2021 data cutoff, median follow-up was 22 months. Pembro + chemo prolonged PFS and OS vs pbo + chemo in all subgroups evaluated in the all-comer population (Table). Similar benefits of pembro + chemo on PFS and OS were also seen in the protocol-specified CPS ≥1 and CPS ≥10 populations. Conclusions: Pembro + chemo ± bev prolonged PFS and OS vs pbo + chemo ± bev among the subgroups defined by bev use, histology, platinum use, and prior CRT and provided clinically meaningful benefits similar to the broader population of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03635567. [Table: see text]

Nivolumab (NIVO) + relatlimab (RELA) versus NIVO in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: OS and ORR by key subgroups from RELATIVITY-047

9505

Background: In the phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial, NIVO + RELA as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) significantly improved the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Secondary endpoints showed a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), although not statistically significant, and a higher objective response rate (ORR). As previously reported, PFS and OS favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO across prespecified stratification factors (LAG-3 expression, PD-L1 expression, BRAF V600 mutation status, and metastasis stage). Here we report the first disclosure of ORR analyzed by prespecified stratification factors and OS and ORR in additional subgroups. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 480 mg + RELA 160 mg FDC or NIVO 480 mg intravenously Q4W. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST v1.1 assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were OS and ORR by BICR, tested in hierarchy. Exploratory analyses were performed for PFS, OS, and ORR by prespecified subgroups. Results: PFS continued to favor NIVO + RELA over NIVO across key subgroups. OS and ORR also favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO across key subgroups including those associated with poor prognosis (Table). ORR favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO for pts with LAG-3 expression ≥ 1% (47% vs 35%) and < 1% (31% vs 24%), PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% (53% vs 45%) and < 1% (36% vs 24%), and BRAF wild-type (43% vs 34%) and mutant (43% vs 31%) melanoma, respectively. Additional key prespecified subgroups will be presented. In all treated pts, NIVO + RELA maintained a manageable safety profile with no new or unexpected safety signals. Conclusions: NIVO + RELA was favored over NIVO across key subgroups for PFS, OS, and ORR, and findings appeared consistent with outcomes in the overall population. NIVO + RELA had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922. [Table: see text]

Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: Overall survival and response rates from RELATIVITY-047 (CA224-047)

360385

Background: RELATIVITY-047, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study, met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Relatlimab and nivolumab (RELA + NIVO) as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) demonstrated a significant PFS benefit (median PFS was 10.1 months [mo]; 95% CI, 6.4–15.7) with RELA + NIVO vs. 4.6 mo (95% CI, 3.4–5.6) with NIVO; hazard ratio (HR) 0.75 (95% CI, 0.6–0.9; p = .0055), with a manageable safety profile, compared to NIVO alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma (Lipson EJ et al. J Clin Oncol 2021;39[15_suppl]:9503P). Here we report updated PFS and the first disclosure of secondary endpoints, overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive RELA 160 mg + NIVO 480 mg FDC or NIVO 480 mg alone, given intravenously every 4 weeks, as previously described (Lipson EJ et al. J Clin Oncol 2021;39[15_suppl]:9503P). The primary endpoint of PFS per RECIST v1.1 was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were OS and ORR by BICR, to be tested hierarchically. The OS boundary for statistical significance was p < .04302 (2-sided) based on 69% power for a target HR of 0.75. Results: Patients (714 patients) were randomly selected to receive RELA + NIVO (355 patients) or NIVO (359 patients). Median follow-up was 19.3 mo. Updated median PFS was 10.2 mo (95% CI, 6.5–14.8) with RELA + NIVO vs. 4.6 mo (95% CI, 3.5–6.4) with NIVO (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.6–0.9). Median OS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 34.2–NR) with RELA + NIVO vs. 34.1 mo (95% CI. 25.2–NR) with NIVO (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.6–1.0; p = .0593). OS rates at 12 mo were 77.0% (95% CI, 72.2–81.1) vs. 71.6% (95% CI, 66.6–76.0) and at 24 mo were 63.7% (95% CI, 58.1–68.7) vs. 58.3% (95% CI, 52.7–63.4) with RELA + NIVO vs. NIVO, respectively. Subsequent systemic therapy rates and types were generally similar between treatment groups. Confirmed ORR per BICR was 43.1% (95% CI, 37.9–48.4) with RELA + NIVO vs. 32.6% (95% CI, 27.8–37.7) with NIVO. Complete responses were observed in 16.3% of patients on RELA + NIVO vs. 14.2% on NIVO. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in 75 (21.1%) patients on RELA + NIVO and 40 (11.1%) on NIVO. There were four treatment-related deaths in the RELA + NIVO group and two in the NIVO group. TRAEs (any grade) leading to treatment discontinuation were observed in 54 (15.2%) patients on RELA + NIVO and 26 (7.2%) on NIVO. Conclusions: RELA + NIVO continued to demonstrate a PFS benefit vs. NIVO alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma, consistent with the primary analysis. RELA + NIVO demonstrated a 20% reduction in risk of death and numerically improved OS rates vs. NIVO, although statistical significance was not reached for this secondary endpoint. ORR was higher with RELA + NIVO vs. NIVO. The safety profile of RELA + NIVO remained manageable with no new or unexpected safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922.

Pembrolizumab for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab has efficacy in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic or unresectable cervical cancer that has progressed during chemotherapy. We assessed the relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

METHODS

In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy and, per investigator discretion, bevacizumab. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival, each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more. The combined positive score is defined as the number of PD-L1-staining cells divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100. All results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis.

RESULTS

In 548 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, median progression-free survival was 10.4 months in the pembrolizumab group and 8.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.77; P<0.001). In 617 patients in the intention-to-treat population, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P<0.001). In 317 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 53.0% in the pembrolizumab group and 41.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81; P<0.001), 50.4% and 40.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84; P<0.001), and 54.4% and 44.6% (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84; P = 0.001), respectively. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were anemia (30.3% in the pembrolizumab group and 26.9% in the placebo group) and neutropenia (12.4% and 9.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with placebo among patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer who were also receiving chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-826 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03635567.).

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for the Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries

PURPOSE

To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for the biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) as acquired through a questionnaire administered at the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

METHODS

A total of 27 questions were identified as relating to this topic. Responses from the clinician were tallied and are presented in percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging in staging, treatment recommendations across different patient scenarios of life expectancy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time, and follow-up for nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa.

RESULTS

A consensus agreed that in optimal conditions, positron emission tomography-computed tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen would be used although in limited resource situations the combined use of CT of the abdomen and pelvic (or pelvic MRI), a bone scan, and a CT of the thorax or chest x-ray was recommended. In cases when PSA levels double in < 10 months, more than 90% of clinicians agreed on the use of apalutamide or enzalutamide, regardless of life expectancy. With a doubling time of more than 10 months, > 54% of experts recommended no treatment independent of life expectancy. More than half of the experts, regardless of resources, recommended follow-up with a physical examination and PSA levels every 3-6 months and imaging only in the case of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data.

First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

First-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma has a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year. We aimed to evaluate first-line programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor-based therapies in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We report the first results for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 649), we enrolled adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated, unresectable, non-HER2-positive gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 29 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 while all three groups were open) via interactive web response technology (block sizes of six) to nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks) plus chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks or leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin every 2 weeks), nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were OS or progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review, in patients whose tumours had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of five or more. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872116.

FINDINGS

From March 27, 2017, to April 24, 2019, of 2687 patients assessed for eligibility, we concurrently randomly assigned 1581 patients to treatment (nivolumab plus chemotherapy [n=789, 50%] or chemotherapy alone [n=792, 50%]). The median follow-up for OS was 13·1 months (IQR 6·7-19·1) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 11·1 months (5·8-16·1) for chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant improvements in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [98·4% CI 0·59-0·86]; p<0·0001) and PFS (HR 0·68 [98 % CI 0·56-0·81]; p<0·0001) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of five or more (minimum follow-up 12·1 months). Additional results showed significant improvement in OS, along with PFS benefit, in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of one or more and all randomly assigned patients. Among all treated patients, 462 (59%) of 782 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 341 (44%) of 767 patients in the chemotherapy alone group had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25%) were nausea, diarrhoea, and peripheral neuropathy across both groups. 16 (2%) deaths in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and four (1%) deaths in the chemotherapy alone group were considered to be treatment-related. No new safety signals were identified.

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to show superior OS, along with PFS benefit and an acceptable safety profile, in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in previously untreated patients with advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard first-line treatment for these patients.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb, in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

First-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo in advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC): Expanded efficacy and safety data from CheckMate 649

4002

Background: CheckMate 649 is the largest randomized, global phase 3 study of 1L programmed death (PD)-1 inhibitor–based therapy in GC/GEJC/EAC. 1L NIVO + chemo demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo, with progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and an acceptable safety profile in pts whose tumors expressed PD-ligand (L)1 at combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5 and ≥ 1, and in all randomized pts (Moehler et al. Ann Oncol 2020). We report additional data for all randomized pts. Methods: Eligible pts had previously untreated, unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC. Known HER2-positive pts were excluded. Pts were randomized to receive NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and PFS by blinded central review in PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 pts. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints were OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and all randomized pts. Results: At 12-month minimum follow-up for 1581 randomized pts, NIVO + chemo had a statistically significant OS benefit vs chemo (HR 0.80 [99.3% CI 0.68–0.94; P = 0.0002]) in all randomized pts; PFS benefit was also seen (HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.68–0.87]). OS benefit was observed in multiple prespecified subgroups, consistent with the primary population. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 59% (NIVO + chemo) and 44% (chemo) of pts. TRAEs with potential immunologic etiology (select TRAEs; sTRAEs) are shown in the table. Pts in the NIVO + chemo arm had decreased risk of symptom deterioration on treatment vs those in the chemo arm (HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.63–0.95; P = 0.0129]). Tolerability as measured by the FACT-Ga GP5 item was similar in both treatment groups. Conclusions: The addition of NIVO to chemo demonstrated improved OS and PFS benefit in all randomized pts, along with an acceptable safety profile and maintained tolerability as well as QoL, providing further support for NIVO + chemo as a standard 1L treatment for advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116. [Table: see text]

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC With 1% or Greater Tumor PD-L1 Expression: Patient-Reported Outcomes From CheckMate 227 Part 1

INTRODUCTION

In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4-12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2-16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5-12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55-0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4-17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9-20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5-12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and asthenia (tjree [1%] vs eight [2%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk-benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Total neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FLOT scheme in resectable adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma: impact on pathological complete response and safety

Background

Gastric cancer is the fifth cause of cancer incidence worldwide. Multidisciplinary approaches that improve the survival are needed. Perioperative chemotherapies show improvement in pathological complete remission (pCR) and overall survival (OS), but less than 50% of the patients completed the chemotherapeutic regimen. The recent 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel-4 (FLOT4) study shows OS 50 months and pCR 16.6%, but only 46% of the patients completed pre- and postoperative treatment. This case series report evaluated pCR and safety in patients that received complete preoperative chemotherapeutic with FLOT.

Methods

Patients received eight cycles FLOT regimen before surgery. Each cycle comprised 50 mg/m² docetaxel intravenous (iv) on day 1, 85 mg/m² oxaliplatin iv on day 1, 200 mg/m² leucovorin iv on day 1 and 2,600 mg/m² 5-fluorouracil iv in a 24-hour infusion on day 1, every 2 weeks.

Results

Fifty-nine patients were evaluated, 58 patients received preoperative cycles. Thirty-one patients received all eight cycles of preoperative therapy. 65.5% patients presented any major adverse event. Thirty-nine patients underwent surgery. Thirty-three biopsy reports were obtained. Six patients (18.2%) presented pCR, 13 patients (39.4%) had no lymph node involvement. OS was 21.32 months. Patients with histology of signet ring carcinoma cells had a shorter survival than other histologies.

Conclusion

Total neoadjuvant with FLOT chemotherapy presents an adequate safety profile, a similar pathologic regression rate, and a slightly higher rate of completing treatment to report in perioperative FLOT regimen studies. A prospective clinical study with suitable diagnostic, staging tools and an adequate follow-up may prove total neoadjuvant chemotherapy’s efficacy.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.

RESULTS

Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02231749.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting.

METHODS

In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related.

INTERPRETATION

The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Thirty-month follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) or sunitinib (S) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC)

547

Background: N+I showed superior OS v S in ITT (IMDC any risk) and intermediate/poor-risk (I/P) pts with aRCC in CheckMate 214 at 17.5 mo min follow-up. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to N3 mg/kg + I1 mg/kg Q3W×4 and then N3 mg/kg Q2W, or S 50 mg daily for 4 wk on, 2 wk off. Co-primary endpoints were OS, RECISTv1.1 ORR and PFS per IRRC in I/P pts. PFS and ORR were assessed by investigator (inv) at 30 mo. Results: At 30 mo min follow-up, OS remains significantly improved in ITT and I/P pts with N+I v S; the HR for OS in favorable (fav) risk pts has improved for N+I v the previous analysis (1.22 [95% CI 0.73–2.04] v 1.45 [99.8% CI 0.51‒4.12]). Per previous IRRC ORR (N+I, 42% [95% CI 37‒47]; S, 27% [95% CI 22‒31]), ORR per inv was higher with N+I v S in ITT and I/P pts. ORR CIs overlapped in fav pts, CR was doubled with N+I v S. Increasing PFS benefit with N+I v S is emerging in ITT and I/P pts; PFS CIs between arms remain overlapping in fav pts (Table). 15% v 9% of N+I and S ITT pts remain on therapy, and 48% v 61% have received 2nd-line systemic therapy; 39% of S pts received subsequent immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Among pts who were alive with CR, 50% v 10% remain on treatment with N+I (n = 56) v S (n = 10). 5 N+I and 7 S additional pts developed Gr 3–4 drug-related AEs; 1 N+I and 3 S additional pts had AEs leading to discontinuation. No new drug-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: At 30 mo min follow-up, OS and ORR remain improved with N+I v S in ITT and I/P CheckMate 214 pts. No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749. [Table: see text]

Evidence of response to pembrolizumab in a patient with Lynch syndrome-related metastatic colon cancer

Patients with Lynch Syndrome (LS) are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer at an early age. Germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes and microsatellite instability are clear signatures of this autosomal dominant disorder. Here, we report the clinical history of a 38-year-old patient with LS-related metastatic colon cancer treated in Chile with immunotherapy (pembrolizumab). The patient exhibited a pathogenic deletion in Epithelial cell Adhesion Molecule (EPCAM) and mutS homolog 2 (MSH2) genes, and after diagnosis received 12 cycles of FOLFOX. The tumor mass, however, continued to grow, and a new metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma of 13 mm appeared at the level of the 11th right dorsal vertebra. To treat these lesions, the patient received immunotherapy scheme with pembrolizumab (200 mg every 21 days). After only four cycles, the patient’s symptoms improved and the lesions showed less metabolic activity. After 12 cycles with pembrolizumab, the patient started palliative radiation and systemic second-line treatment with FOLFIRI and Avastin. The immunotherapy scheme with pembrolizumab was capable of delaying the second-line treatment for at least 8 months, becoming a useful therapeutic option for this patient. Thus, our study highlights the importance of implementing immunotherapy treatment programs for LS-colorectal cancer patients in South American countries.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase).

METHODS

We enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy. ical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826 .).

CONCLUSIONS

Progression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceut

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.

RESULTS

A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Global Cancer Institute multidisciplinary tumor boards as a tool to improve patterns of clinical practice for breast and gynecologic cancer in resource-limited settings

6556

Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are commonly practiced in high-income countries (HICs) to ensure adherence to guidelines through a team approach to patient care. The Global Cancer Institute (GCI) established online MTBs in 2012 to facilitate live telemedicine discussions of breast and gynecologic case scenarios between specialists in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and expert specialists in HICs. GCI MTBs aim to improve clinical knowledge and patterns of practice for specialists in LMICs through an interactive online forum. Methods: In each monthly MTB, three patient case scenarios are presented by specialists in LMICs for live discussion with an expert panel of specialists based in HICs. Guideline or clinical trial-based discussions are held for each case scenario. Best practices for clinical care in limited resource settings are also discussed. Links to clinical practice guidelines, clinical trials, and resources are provided to all MTB attendees. For educational purposes, each MTB is live streamed and uploaded to a private YouTube channel for viewing by community oncologists and trainees worldwide. Results: The GCI MTBs program has recruited over 500 LMIC participants from 48 hospitals in 24 countries across Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. 17 expert breast cancer specialists and 13 expert gynecologic cancer specialists provide multidisciplinary guidance. To date, 130 breast cancer case scenarios and 80 gynecologic cancer case scenarios have been presented. For breast MTBs, 73% of case scenarios were invasive ductal carcinomas. Common subtypes presented were ER/PR+ (63%), HER2+ (30%), and triple negative disease (28%). 56 cases involved advanced disease management (43%). For gynecologic MTBs, common gynecologic cancer case scenarios were cervical (74%) and ovarian (15%). 37 cases involved advanced disease management (46%). Conclusions: GCI MTBs are a useful educational tool for specialists in LMICs to improve patterns of clinical practice and engage in multidisciplinary discussions. GCI continues to expand its MTBs to cancer facilities in LMICs.

Impact of Diabetes, Insulin, and Metformin Use on the Outcome of Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Primary Breast Cancer: Analysis From the ALTTO Phase III Randomized Trial

Purpose Previous studies have suggested an association between metformin use and improved outcome in patients with diabetes and breast cancer. In the current study, we aimed to explore this association in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 ) -positive primary breast cancer in the context of a large, phase III adjuvant trial. Patients and Methods The ALTTO trial randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive breast cancer to receive 1 year of either trastuzumab alone, lapatinib alone, their sequence, or their combination. In this substudy, we evaluated whether patients with diabetes at study entry-with or without metformin treatment-were associated with different disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with patients without diabetes. Results A total of 8,381 patients were included in the current analysis: 7,935 patients (94.7%) had no history of diabetes at diagnosis, 186 patients (2.2%) had diabetes with no metformin treatment, and 260 patients (3.1%) were diabetic and had been treated with metformin. Median follow-up was 4.5 years (0.16 to 6.31 years), at which 1,205 (14.38%), 929 (11.08%), and 528 (6.3%) patients experienced DFS, DDFS, and OS events, respectively. Patients with diabetes who had not been treated with metformin experienced worse DFS (multivariable hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.94; P = .043), DDFS (multivariable HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.22; P = .013), and OS (multivariable HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.85; P = .004). This effect was limited to hormone receptor-positive patients. Whereas insulin treatment was associated with a detrimental effect, metformin had a salutary effect in patients with diabetes who had HER2-positive and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Conclusion Metformin may improve the worse prognosis that is associated with diabetes and insulin treatment, mainly in patients with primary HER2-positive and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Lapatinib in Combination With Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Advanced or Metastatic Gastric, Esophageal, or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: TRIO-013/LOGiC—A Randomized Phase III Trial

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of adding lapatinib to capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) in patients with previously untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –amplified advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Patients and Methods

Patients with HER2-positive advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to CapeOx plus lapatinib 1,250 mg or placebo daily. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2 amplification in the primary efficacy population.

Results

A total of 545 patients were randomly assigned, and 487 patients comprised the primary efficacy population. Median OS in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 12.2 (95% CI, 10.6 to 14.2) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 11.3), respectively, which was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12). Median progression-free survival in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 6.0 (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.0) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.7), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.00; P = .0381). Response rate was significantly higher in the lapatinib arm: 53% (95% CI, 46.4 to 58.8) compared with 39% (95% CI, 32.9 to 45.3) in the placebo arm (P = .0031). Preplanned exploratory subgroup analyses showed OS in the lapatinib arm was prolonged in Asian and younger patients. No correlation was observed between HER2 immunohistochemistry status and survival. There were increased toxicities in the lapatinib arm, particularly diarrhea.

Conclusion

Addition of lapatinib to CapeOx did not increase OS in patients with HER2-amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. There were clear differences in the effect of lapatinib depending on region and age. Future studies could examine this correlation.

Subgroup analyses of METEOR, a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)

499

Background: Cabozantinib (C) inhibits tyrosine kinases including VEGFRs, MET, and AXL. The METEOR phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in PFS with C versus everolimus (E) in pts with advanced clear cell RCC and prior exposure to VEGFR TKIs (7.4 mo median PFS [C] vs 3.8 mo [E], HR = 0.58, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The improvement in PFS was accompanied by a significant improvement in ORR and a trend for improved OS at an interim analysis. Safety profiles of C and E in this trial were similar to prior experience with each drug in this pt population. This analysis further evaluates PFS and ORR across pt subgroups. Methods: Pts had advanced RCC with clear cell component, measurable disease per RECIST 1.1, KPS ≥ 70%, and were stratified by MSKCC prognostic criteria and number of prior VEGFR TKIs. Pts must have progressed during treatment or within 6 months of the last dose of their most recent VEGFR TKI. 658 pts were randomized 1:1 to receive C (60 mg QD) or E (10 mg QD). The primary endpoint was PFS among the first 375 pts randomized. ORR was a secondary endpoint. Results: In the PFS group, 187 pts were randomized to C and 188 to E. 73% pts had 1 and 27% pts ≥ 2 prior VEGFR TKIs; 43% pts had favorable, 41% intermediate, and 15% poor risk by MSKCC criteria. Across multiple subgroups defined by baseline characteristics, PFS HRs favored C over E. PFS HRs were similar for subgroups defined by prior number of TKIs (HR = 0.56 [1 prior] and 0.67 [ ≥ 2 prior]), and showed higher activity of C over E in pts with fewer MSKCC risk factors (HR = 0.54 [0 factors], 0.56 [1 factor], 0.84 [ ≥ 2 factors]) or with metastases in various organs (HR = 0.47 [lung mets], 0.53 [liver mets], 0.50 [bone mets]). Detailed analysis of the clinical activity of C and E (PFS and ORR) across pt subgroups will be presented, including treatment duration with first VEGFR TKI ( < or ≥ 6mo), receipt of prior anti-PD1/PDL1 agents, time to progression after most recent TKI ( < or ≥ 3mo), and frequency/location of metastases. Conclusions: The METEOR trial met its primary endpoint of improved PFS, and subgroup analyses of the endpoints PFS and ORR generally favored C over E in patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01865747.

Post-hoc analyses of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the TRIO-013/LOGiC trial of lapatinib (L) in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOx)

133

Background: Results of the primary and secondary endpoints (OS and PFS, respectively) in the primary efficacy population for the randomized, phase III trial (TRIO-013/LOGiC; NCT00680901), conducted in patients with advanced, HER2-positive upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma were previously presented (Hecht JR et al, ASCO 2013). Differences in OS were non-significant between the lapatinib (CapeOx + L) and placebo (CapeOx + P) arms. In prespecified analyses, a treatment effect of L was observed in Asian (majority Chinese or South Korean) patients and patients <60 years (y) when comparing OS in the two arms. Methods: Here, we present the results of post-hoc analyses in TRiO-013/LOGiC which assessed OS, PFS and safety by age and by region. Results: In the Asian subgroups, median OS was longer with L compared with P (see Table). In the rest of the world (ROW) subgroups, median OS was longer in patients <60 y but shorter in patients ≥60 y with L compared with P (see Table). Similar findings were observed for PFS in the 4 subgroups (see Table).More adverse events (AEs) were observed in the Asian subgroups; overall, the incidence of AEs (by region) was similar between age subgroups. Conclusions: OS and PFS were improved in Asian patients (both age subgroups) and younger patients in ROW given CapeOx + L, compared with CapeOx + P. The lower OS and PFS observed in older patients in the ROW subgroups may have affected the overall data. Further trials with CapeOx + L in Asian populations are being considered. Clinical trial information: NCT00680901. [Table: see text]

Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOx) in HER2-positive advanced or metastatic gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (AC): The TRIO-013/LOGiC Trial

LBA4001

Background: HER2 amplification is common in upper GI tract (UGIT) adenocarcinomas and inhibition improves clinical outcomes. Lapatinib ditosylate (L), a dual anti EGFR and anti HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor with preclinical activity against these cancers, was investigated in a phase III, randomized, double blind trial evaluating efficacy and safety in combination with CapeOx as first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic HER2+ UGIT ACs. Methods: Subjects had measurable and/or non-measurable disease with overexpression or amplification of HER2 (IHC2+ and FISH amplified, or IHC 3+, or FISH, CISH, or SISH amplified). HER2 status was reviewed by the central lab. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to CapeOx q3w (oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 day 1; capecitabine 850mg/m2/BID days 1 – 14), and daily L (1250mg) (CapeOx+L) or placebo (CapeOx+P). The primary efficacy population (PEP) comprised all subjects whose tumors were centrally confirmed to be FISH amplified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of the PEP. Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: 545 pts were randomized and 487 had HER2+ centrally confirmed. The primary endpoint was not reached with a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of CapeOx+L compared to CapeOx+P of 0.91 (95% CI 0.73, 1.12, p=0.35); median 12.2 vs. 10.5 months, respectively. HR for uncensored PFS was 0.86 (95% CI 0.71 - 1.04, p=0.10); median 6.0 vs. 5.4 months. The analysis of PFS censored by the time of subsequent anticancer therapy as per protocol showed a HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.68, 1.00, p=0.04). ORR was 53% in the CapeOx+L arm and 40% in the CapeOx+P arm. Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in OS in Asian pts (HR= 0.68) and those under 60 years (HR=0.69). There was no association between IHC and OS. Toxicity profiles were similar except for increased overall diarrhea, and skin toxicity and grade 3+ diarrhea (12 vs 3%) with CapeOx+L. Conclusions: The addition of L to CapeOx did not reach its primary endpoint, though certain subgroups showed improvement. Further clinical and molecular analyses will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT00680901.

Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOx) in HER2 positive advanced or metastatic gastric (A/MGC), esophageal (EAC), or gastroesophageal (GEJ) adenocarcinoma: The LOGiC trial

LBA4001

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June, 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Clinical outcome according to tumor HER2 status and EGFR expression in advanced gastric cancer patients from the EXPAND study

4021

Background: In the EXPAND study adding cetuximab to first-line capecitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy (CT) failed to improve clinical outcome in patients (pts) with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. This analysis assessed treatment outcome according to tumor HER2 status (a pre-defined subgroup) and EGFR expression in EXPAND study pts. Methods: Tumor HER2 status was determined primarily by immunohistochemistry (IHC), HER2 +ve tumors were IHC 3+ or IHC 2+ and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) +ve. EGFR expression was assessed by IHC. A continuous scoring system (scale of 0–300) was used to determine the level of EGFR expression. Biomarker status was correlated with clinical outcome. Results: In both treatment arms, pts with HER2 +ve tumors (n=144) vs HER2 -ve tumors (n=535) had a longer median overall survival (OS): 13.3 (95% CI 10.9–15.5) vs 9.2 (95% CI 8.1–10.5) months in the CT + cetuximab arm and 14.0 (95% CI 11.3–17.1) vs 9.7 (95% CI 8.6–11.0) months in the CT arm, and a better overall response rate, 51.4 (95% CI 39.3–63.3) vs 27.0 (95% CI 21.9–32.6) % and 37.5 (95% CI 26.4–49.7) vs 26.4 (95% CI 21.1–32.3) % respectively. In stepwise multivariable models, pts with HER2 -ve vs HER2 +ve tumors showed an increased risk of death (adjusted hazards ratio 1.552, 95% CI 1.244–1.936) and reduced odds of response (adjusted odds ratio 0.477, 95% CI 0.316–0.720). EGFR tumor expression was evaluable in 774 pts from the intent to treat population (n=904). The EGFR IHC score was low (median 0, range 0–300). No discriminating threshold for the IHC score was identified. However in pt subgroups defined by a series of cut-off points from an IHC score of 10 upwards (rising incrementally by 10), there was a tendency for improved OS, progression-free survival, and tumor response when adding cetuximab to CT in pts with high tumor EGFR IHC scores. Conclusions: In this analysis of EXPAND study pts, those with HER2 +ve tumors were associated with better outcome irrespective of the treatment arm compared with pts with HER2 -ve tumors. Tumor EGFR expression was generally low. Adding cetuximab to CT failed to improve outcome overall, but may benefit a small proportion of pts with high EGFR tumor expression. Clinical trial information: 2007-004219-75.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer.

METHODS

In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (on days 1-14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75.

FINDINGS

Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4.4 months (95% CI 4.2-5.5) compared with 5.6 months (5.1-5.7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29; p=0.32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3-4 adverse events, including grade 3-4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3-4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial.

FUNDING

Merck KGaA.

A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final overall survival results and safety update

BACKGROUND

In this randomised phase III study (VEG105192; NCT00334282), pazopanib previously demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results are now reported.

METHODS

Treatment-naive or cytokine-pretreated mRCC patients (n=435) stratified and randomised (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg daily or placebo, were treated until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon progression, placebo patients could receive pazopanib through an open-label study. Final OS in the intent-to-treat population was analysed using a stratified log-rank test. Rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses were performed post-hoc to adjust for crossover.

FINDINGS

The difference in final OS between pazopanib- and placebo-treated patients was not statistically significant (22.9 versus 20.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.16; one-sided P=.224). Early and frequent crossover from placebo to pazopanib and prolonged duration of crossover treatment confounded the OS analysis. In IPCW analyses, pazopanib decreased mortality (HR=0.504; 95% CI, 0.315-0.762; two-sided P=.002). Similar, albeit non-significant, results were obtained in RPSFT analyses (HR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.215-1.388; two-sided P=.172). Since the last cutoff, cumulative exposure to pazopanib increased by 30%. The pazopanib safety profile showed no new safety signals or changes in the type, frequency and severity of adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Although no significant difference in OS was observed in this study, extensive crossover from placebo to pazopanib confounded final OS analysis. Post-hoc analyses adjusting for crossover suggest OS benefit with pazopanib treatment for mRCC patients.

Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial

PURPOSE Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. Results Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Diagnosis of pneumonia and monitoring of infection eradication

Pneumonia can be classified as community-acquired (CAP) or hospital-acquired (nosocomial). Both are frequent infections that demand a great amount of medical resources. The diagnosis of CAP is based on clinical signs and the presence of a pulmonary infiltrate visible on chest radiograph. For practical purposes, CAP has been classified as typical, with an acute onset in which the most representative microorganism is Streptococccus pneumoniae, and atypical, with a subacute onset (Mycoplasma pneumoniae). Nevertheless, so far no studies have clearly demonstrated the utility of this classification in predicting the aetiology. Guidelines on CAP recommend associating the aetiology of CAP with comorbidity, age and severity. The microbiological diagnosis relies mainly on Gram stain and sputum culture, but this technique has disadvantages such as frequent contamination of the sample with oropharyngeal commensal flora, frequent sterile cultures associated with previous antibiotic treatment, and the fact that approximately 40% of patients are not able to expectorate. Other diagnostic techniques such as blood cultures, serological tests and fibreoptic bronchoscopy must be reserved for patients who are hospitalised, especially if they need admission to an intensive care unit. Compared with CAP, nosocomial pneumonia has major diagnostic problems due to the presence of other diseases able to mimic pneumonia and frequent bacterial colonisation of the lower respiratory tract. Most of the diagnostic techniques produce a high percentage of false-negative and false-positive results. This is especially true for ventilator-associated pneumonia. There is controversy over using a comprehensive aetiological work-up based on bronchoscopic techniques or only on quantitative culture of endotracheal aspiration. By contrast, there is consensus about the importance of the adequacy of empirical antibiotic treatment, since mortality rates are higher in patients who are inadequately treated. Once treatment of pneumonia has begun, it must be maintained for 48 to 72 hours because this is the minimum time to evaluate a clinical response. Antibacterial agents have to be adjusted according to microbiological findings. In nonresponding patients, pneumonia-related complications and the presence of multiresistant micro-organisms or non-covered pathogens must be ruled out.

[MALT lymphoma of the bladder: report of a case]

Primary malignant lymphomas of the bladder are infrequent. We report a 70 year old woman presenting with hematuria, dysuria, malaise and a 5 kg weight loss. Pelvic ultrasound examination showed a 8 x 8 x 8 cm solid and cystic mass adjacent to the bladder and uterus. Cystoscopic biopsy disclosed a low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. She was treated with 6 cycles of chemotherapy with disappearance of the mass. Two years after admission, the patient is free of disease.