A global phase II randomized trial comparing oral taxane ModraDoc006/r to intravenous docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

STUDY AIM: ModraDoc006, an oral formulation of docetaxel, is co-administered with the cytochrome P450-3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor, ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. The preliminary efficacy and safety of oral ModraDoc006/r was evaluated in a global randomized phase II trial and compared to the current standard chemotherapy regimen of intravenous (i.v.) docetaxel and prednisone. METHODS: 103 mCRPC patients, chemotherapy-naïve with/without abiraterone and/or enzalutamide pretreated, with adequate organ function and evaluable disease per RECIST v1.1 and PCWG3 guidelines were randomized 1:1 into two cohorts. In Cohort 1, 49 patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (Q3W). In Cohort 2, 52 patients received ModraDoc006/r; 21 patients with a starting dose of ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 200 mg in the morning and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/200-100 mg) bi-daily-once-weekly (BIDW) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle. To alleviate tolerability, the starting dose was amended to ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg in another 31 patients. All patients received prednisone 10 mg daily. Primary endpoint was rPFS. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rPFS between the 2 arms (p = 0.1465). Median rPFS was 9.5 months and 11.1 months (95% CI) for ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. Partial response was noted in 44.1% and 38.7% measurable disease patients, and 50% decline of PSA was seen in 23 (50%) and 26 (56.5%) evaluable cases treated with ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. The safety profile of ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg dose was significantly better than i.v. docetaxel, with mild (mostly Grade 1) gastrointestinal toxicities, no hematologic adverse events, and neuropathy and alopecia incidence of 11.5% and 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ModraDoc006/r potentially represents a widely applicable, convenient, effective, and better tolerated oral taxane therapy option for mCRPC. Further investigation of ModraDoc006/r in a large randomized trial is warranted.

Blood tumor mutational burden and response to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE-782.

BACKGROUND: First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefit in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regardless of tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status. Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB), assessed using plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), may be a surrogate for tTMB. The KEYNOTE-782 study evaluated the correlation of bTMB with the efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in NSCLC. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC received pembrolizumab 200 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and investigator's choice of carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 for 4 cycles, then pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed for ≤31 additional cycles every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to evaluate the association of baseline bTMB with objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment; primary), progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs; all secondary). A next-generation sequencing assay (GRAIL LLC) with a ctDNA panel that included lung cancer-associated and immune gene targets was used to measure bTMB. RESULTS: 117 patients were enrolled; median time from first dose to data cutoff was 19.3 months (range, 1.0-35.5). ORR was 40.2 % (95 % CI 31.2-49.6 %), median PFS was 7.2 months (95 % CI 5.6-9.8) and median OS was 18.1 months (95 % CI 13.5-25.6). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 113 patients (96.6 %; grade 3-5, n = 56 [47.9 %]). Of patients with evaluable bTMB (n = 101), the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for continuous bTMB to discriminate response was 0.47 (95 % CI 0.36-0.59). Baseline bTMB was not associated with PFS or OS (posterior probabilities of positive association: 16.8 % and 7.8 %, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AEs were consistent with the established safety profile of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in NSCLC. Baseline bTMB did not show evidence of an association with efficacy.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Pembrolizumab With or Without Lenvatinib for First-Line Metastatic NSCLC With Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Tumor Proportion Score of at least 1% (LEAP-007): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960). RESULTS: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-604: Pembrolizumab or Placebo Added to Etoposide and Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC.

Introduction: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-604 study (NCT03066778), pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum chemotherapy (EP) significantly (p = 0.0023) improved progression-free survival versus placebo plus EP in previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from KEYNOTE-604. Methods: Patients with stage IV SCLC were randomized 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for 35 cycles plus four cycles of EP. Secondary end points included mean change from baseline to week 18 in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scale and time to deterioration in the composite outcome of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13. Two-sided, nominal p values are reported. Results: A total of 439 patients completed at least one QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13 assessment (pembrolizumab + EP, n = 221; placebo + EP, n = 218). GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 18: least squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) changes were 8.7 (5.3-12.1) for pembrolizumab plus EP and 4.2 (0.9-7.5) for placebo plus EP. Between-group differences in least squares mean scores were improved for pembrolizumab plus EP (4.4 [95% CI: 0.2-8.7], p = 0.040]). Median time to deterioration for the composite end point was not reached and 8.7 (95% CI: 5.9-not reached) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.56-1.14], p = 0.208). Conclusions: First-line pembrolizumab plus EP therapy maintained HRQoL in patients with ES-SCLC and may be associated with greater improvement than placebo plus EP. Together with the efficacy and safety findings in KEYNOTE-604, HRQoL data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Efficacy and Safety of Half-Dose Gadopiclenol versus Full-Dose Gadobutrol for Contrast-enhanced Body MRI.

Background Gadopiclenol is a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) with higher relaxivity compared with standard GBCAs, potentially allowing gadolinium dose reduction without decreasing efficacy. Purpose To investigate whether gadopiclenol at 0.05 mmol/kg is noninferior to gadobutrol at 0.1 mmol/kg for lesion visualization in body MRI. Materials and Methods A randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase 3 study was conducted between August 2019 and December 2020 at 33 centers in 11 countries. Adults with at least one suspected focal lesion in one of three different body regions (head and neck; breast, thorax, abdomen, or pelvis; or musculoskeletal system) underwent two contrast-enhanced MRI examinations, randomized to start with either gadopiclenol or gadobutrol. MRI examinations were read by three blinded expert readers for each respective body region. Readers rated border delineation, internal morphologic characteristics, and visual contrast enhancement. Three additional blinded readers assessed reader preference. For safety analysis, adverse events were recorded. The differences between gadopiclenol- and gadobutrol-enhanced MRI in terms of lesion visualization were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model using a two-sided paired t test. Results Among 273 participants (mean age, 57 years ± 13 [SD]; 162 women) who underwent both gadopiclenol- and gadobutrol-enhanced MRI and had at least one correlating lesion, 260 participants without major protocol deviations were analyzed for noninferiority. Gadopiclenol was noninferior to gadobutrol for all qualitative visualization parameters and for all readers (lower limit 95% CI of the difference of at least -0.10, which was above the noninferiority margin [-0.35]; P < .001). For most participants (75%-83% [206-228 of 276]), readers reported no preference between gadopiclenol- and gadobutrol-enhanced images. Adverse events did not differ in frequency, intensity, type, or association with GBCA injection (12 of 288 participants receiving gadopiclenol and 16 of 290 receiving gadobutrol). Conclusion Gadopiclenol at 0.05 mmol/kg was comparable with gadobutrol at 0.1 mmol/kg for lesion evaluation at contrast-enhanced body MRI and had a similar safety profile. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03986138 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bashir and Thomas in this issue.

Baseline Mutations and ctDNA Dynamics as Prognostic and Predictive Factors in ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Prognostic and predictive biomarkers to cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors are lacking. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used to profile these patients and dynamic changes in ctDNA could be an early predictor of treatment efficacy. Here, we conducted plasma ctDNA profiling in patients from the PEARL trial comparing palbociclib+fulvestrant versus capecitabine to investigate associations between baseline genomic landscape and on-treatment ctDNA dynamics with treatment efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Correlative blood samples were collected at baseline [cycle 1-day 1 (C1D1)] and prior to treatment [cycle 1-day 15 (C1D15)]. Plasma ctDNA was sequenced with a custom error-corrected capture panel, with both univariate and multivariate Cox models used for treatment efficacy associations. A prespecified methodology measuring ctDNA changes in clonal mutations between C1D1 and C1D15 was used for the on-treatment ctDNA dynamic model. RESULTS: 201 patients were profiled at baseline, with ctDNA detection associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS). Detectable TP53 mutation showed worse PFS and OS in both treatment arms, even after restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. ESR1 mutations were associated with worse OS overall, which was lost when restricting population to baseline ctDNA detection. PIK3CA mutations confer worse OS only to patients on the palbociclib+fulvestrant treatment arm. ctDNA dynamics analysis (n = 120) showed higher ctDNA suppression in the capecitabine arm. Patients without ctDNA suppression showed worse PFS in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: We show impaired survival irrespective of endocrine or chemotherapy-based treatments for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer harboring plasma TP53 mutations. Early ctDNA suppression may provide treatment efficacy predictions. Further validation to fully demonstrate clinical utility of ctDNA dynamics is warranted.

Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population. FUNDING: HUTCHMED.

Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive therapy (SOLSTICE): a randomised, open-label phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab has shown efficacy in previous phase 2 studies including patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to investigate first-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive treatment. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer, ineligible for full-dose doublet or triplet chemotherapy and curative resection across 25 countries and regions. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab or capecitabine plus bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using an interactive web response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2), primary tumour location (right vs left colon), and the main reason for not being a candidate for intensive therapy (clinical condition vs non-clinical condition). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to radiological progression or death from any cause, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients having taken at least one dose of the study drug. The trial is ongoing, findings presented here are those of the primary analysis of progression-free survival, conducted after 629 events had occurred. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03869892. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2019, and Sept 14, 2020, 856 patients (54% male, 46% female) were randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n=426) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (n=430). After a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 16·5-17·1), the hazard ratio for progression-free survival for trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab was 0·87 (0·75-1·02; p=0·0464; protocol-defined significance level of p=0·021 not met). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 9·1-10·9) with trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus 9·3 months (8·9-9·8) with capecitabine plus bevacizumab. The most common grade 3 and higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (220 [52%] of 423 patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group vs six [1%] of 427 in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group), decreased neutrophil count (78 [18%] vs four [<1%]), anaemia (60 [14%] vs 16 [4%]), and hand-foot syndrome (none vs 61 [15%]). Nine deaths (five in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group and four in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group) were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab was not superior to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population. As expected, the safety profile differed between the two treatments, but there were no new safety concerns. Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab represents a feasible alternative to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population. FUNDING: Servier International Research Institute, Suresnes, France.

Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis of the PEARL phase III study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over capecitabine in aromatase inhibitor-resistant, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients (N = 601) were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine or palbociclib plus ET (exemestane, Cohort 1; fulvestrant, Cohort 2). OS was analysed in Cohort 2, the wild-type ESR1 population and the overall population. Additionally, we analysed subsequent systemic therapies and explored PFS2 (time from randomization to the end of the first subsequent therapy/death). RESULTS: OS was 31.1 months for palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 32.8 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.50, P = 0.550). In the wild-type ESR1 population, OS was 37.2 months for palbociclib plus ET and 34.8 months for capecitabine (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.683). In OS analyses, no subgroup showed superiority for palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine. OS in the overall population was 32.6 months for palbociclib plus ET and 30.9 months for capecitabine (P = 0.995). Subsequent systemic therapy was given to 79.8% and 82.9% of patients with palbociclib plus ET and capecitabine, respectively. Median PFS2 was similar between study arms (Cohort 2, P = 0.941; wild-type ESR1 population, P = 0.827). No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus ET did not show a statistically superior OS compared to capecitabine in MBC patients progressing on aromatase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov), 2013-003170-27 (EudraCT).

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy, Docetaxel, and Prednisone vs Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The VIABLE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. RESULTS: A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111577.

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Novel adjuvant strategies are needed to optimise outcomes after complete surgical resection in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS: IMpower010 was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study done at 227 sites in 22 countries and regions. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with completely resected stage IB (tumours ≥4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC per the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permuted-block method (block size of four) to receive adjuvant atezolizumab (1200 mg every 21 days; for 16 cycles or 1 year) or best supportive care (observation and regular scans for disease recurrence) after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (one to four cycles). The primary endpoint, investigator-assessed disease-free survival, was tested hierarchically first in the stage II-IIIA population subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (SP263), then all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, and finally the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (stage IB-IIIA). Safety was evaluated in all patients who were randomly assigned and received atezolizumab or best supportive care. IMpower010 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02486718 (active, not recruiting). FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Sept 19, 2018, 1280 patients were enrolled after complete resection. 1269 received adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1005 patients were eligible for randomisation to atezolizumab (n=507) or best supportive care (n=498); 495 in each group received treatment. After a median follow-up of 32·2 months (IQR 27·4-38·3) in the stage II-IIIA population, atezolizumab treatment improved disease-free survival compared with best supportive care in patients in the stage II-IIIA population whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (HR 0·66; 95% CI 0·50-0·88; p=0·0039) and in all patients in the stage II-IIIA population (0·79; 0·64-0·96; p=0·020). In the ITT population, HR for disease-free survival was 0·81 (0·67-0·99; p=0·040). Atezolizumab-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 53 (11%) of 495 patients and grade 5 events in four patients (1%). INTERPRETATION: IMpower010 showed a disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC, with pronounced benefit in the subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells, and no new safety signals. Atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy offers a promising treatment option for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EUDRACT STUDY NUMBER: 2013-003170-27.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy reduces the usage of supportive care interventions for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: Pooled analysis of three randomized phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions used to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM), including granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, are burdensome to patients and associated with greater costs to health care systems. We evaluated the utilization of supportive care interventions and their relationship with the myeloprotective agent, trilaciclib. METHODS: Data were pooled from three independent randomized phase 2 clinical trials of trilaciclib or placebo administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The impact of supportive care on the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN), and occurrence of RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was analyzed across cycles 1-4. Concordance and association between grade 3/4 anemia, RBC transfusions on/after week 5, and ESA administration was also evaluated. RESULTS: The use of G-CSFs, ESAs, or RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was significantly lower among patients receiving trilaciclib versus placebo (28.5% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.0001; 3.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0254; and 14.6% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.0252, respectively). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib significantly reduced DSN and SN, irrespective of G-CSF administration. RBC transfusions and ESAs were most often administered in patients with grade 3/4 anemia; however, patients typically received RBC transfusions over ESA administration. CONCLUSIONS: By improving CIM and reducing the need for associated supportive care, trilaciclib has the potential to reduce the burden of myelosuppression on patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447).

Pathologic Complete Response Rates After Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab with Chemotherapy in Early Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer - Increasing Rates of Breast Conserving Surgery: A Real-World Experience.

Purpose: The neoadjuvant use of pertuzumab and trastuzumab with chemotherapy improves the pathologic complete response (pCR) in early HER2+ breast cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the pCR rate obtained with dual HER2 blockade in routine clinical practice. The secondary and tertiary objective was to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) on performing breast-conserving surgery and survival data. Methods: This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational study in patients with stage II and III HER2+ early breast cancer who received pertuzumab and trastuzumab-based NST. Data were collected from patients' medical records. Results: Eighty-two patients were included in the study treated in 8 cancer centers in Hungary between March 2015 and January 2020. The study included women with a median age of 50.3 years. The majority of the patients (95%) received a sequence of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by docetaxel. pCR was achieved in 54% of the cases. As a result of NST a significant increase of conservative breast surgeries (33% vs. 3.6% planned, p = 0.0001) was observed. Ki67 expression and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) significantly predicted pCR. None of the variables were independent predictors of DFS. Conclusion: The pCR rate achieved in our study demonstrates the reproducibility of trial data in a real-world population. The rate of breast-conserving surgery was significantly increased.

Exploratory composite endpoint demonstrates benefit of trilaciclib across multiple clinically meaningful components of myeloprotection in patients with small cell lung cancer.

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is an acute, dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib protects haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from chemotherapy-induced damage (myeloprotection). To assess the totality of the myeloprotective benefits of trilaciclib, including analysis of several clinically relevant but low-frequency events, an exploratory composite endpoint comprising five major adverse haematological events (MAHE) was prospectively defined: all-cause hospitalisations, all-cause chemotherapy dose reductions, febrile neutropenia (FN), prolonged severe neutropenia (SN) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions on/after Week 5. MAHE and its individual components were assessed in three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trials in patients receiving a platinum/etoposide or topotecan-containing chemotherapy regimen for ES-SCLC and in data pooled from the three trials. A total of 242 patients were randomised across the three trials (trilaciclib, n = 123; placebo, n = 119). In the individual trials and the pooled analysis, administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the cumulative incidence of MAHE compared to placebo. In the pooled analysis, the cumulative incidences of all-cause chemotherapy dose reductions, FN, prolonged SN and RBC transfusions on/after Week 5 were significantly reduced with trilaciclib vs placebo; however, no significant difference was observed in rates of all-cause hospitalisations. Additionally, compared to placebo, trilaciclib significantly extended the amount of time patients remained free of MAHE. These data support the myeloprotective benefits of trilaciclib and its ability to improve the overall safety profile of myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens used to treat patients with ES-SCLC.

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

BACKGROUND: PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02853305. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7-36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5-8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4-7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65-0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5-19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3-16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72-1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1-17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3-16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6-19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6-23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77-1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Five-Year Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50.

PURPOSE: We report the first 5-year follow-up of any first-line phase III immunotherapy trial for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KEYNOTE-024 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02142738) is an open-label, randomized controlled trial of pembrolizumab compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated NSCLC with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score of at least 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations. Previous analyses showed pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles) or platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients in the chemotherapy group with progressive disease could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival; OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned: 154 to pembrolizumab and 151 to chemotherapy. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff (June 1, 2020) was 59.9 (55.1-68.4) months. Among patients initially assigned to chemotherapy, 99 received subsequent anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy, representing a 66.0% effective crossover rate. Median OS was 26.3 months (95% CI, 18.3 to 40.4) for pembrolizumab and 13.4 months (9.4-18.3) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.81). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 5-year OS rate were 31.9% for the pembrolizumab group and 16.3% for the chemotherapy group. Thirty-nine patients received 35 cycles (ie, approximately 2 years) of pembrolizumab, 82.1% of whom were still alive at data cutoff (approximately 5 years). Toxicity did not increase with longer treatment exposure. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provides a durable, clinically meaningful long-term OS benefit versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of at least 50%.

Pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Etoposide and Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III KEYNOTE-604 Study.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumor activity in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study compared pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum (EP) with placebo plus EP for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage (ES) SCLC. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles plus 4 cycles of EP. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST version 1.1, blinded central review) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response were secondary end points. Prespecified efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = .0048 for PFS and .0128 for OS. RESULTS: Of the 453 participants, 228 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus EP and 225 to placebo plus EP. Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91; P = .0023). Twelve-month PFS estimates were 13.6% with pembrolizumab plus EP and 3.1% with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab plus EP prolonged OS, the significance threshold was not met (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98; P = .0164). Twenty-four-month OS estimates were 22.5% and 11.2%, respectively. ORR was 70.6% in the pembrolizumab plus EP group and 61.8% in the placebo plus EP group; the estimated proportion of responders remaining in response at 12 months was 19.3% and 3.3%, respectively. In the pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP groups, respectively, any-cause adverse events were grade 3-4 in 76.7% and 74.9%, grade 5 in 6.3% and 5.4%, and led to discontinuation of any drug in 14.8% and 6.3%. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS compared with placebo plus EP as first-line therapy for patients with ES-SCLC. No unexpected toxicities were seen with pembrolizumab plus EP. These data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.