Canakinumab as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients With Completely Resected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Effective treatments for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited and relapse rates are high. The interleukin (IL)-1ß pathway has been linked with tumor development and progression, including in the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes cardiovascular study in which IL-1ß pathway inhibition with canakinumab reduced lung cancer incidence and mortality in an exploratory analysis. METHODS: CANOPY-A (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03447769) is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of canakinumab versus placebo for adult patients with stage II-IIIA or IIIB (T >5 cm, N2-positives II-IIIB; American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control version 8), completely resected NSCLC who had received adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) and the key secondary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 1,382 patients were randomized to 200 mg canakinumab (n = 693) or placebo (n = 689) once every 3 weeks for 18 cycles. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 20.8% and 19.6% of patients receiving canakinumab and placebo, respectively; AEs led to discontinuation in 4.3% and 4.1% of patients in these groups, respectively. This study did not meet its primary end point. Median DFS was 35.0 months (canakinumab arm) and 29.7 months (placebo arm; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.14; one-sided P = .258). DFS subgroup analyses did not show any meaningful differences between arms. As expected, because of canakinumab-driven IL-1ß pathway inhibition, C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels decreased in the canakinumab arm versus placebo arm, but had no correlation with differential clinical outcomes. OS was not formally tested as DFS was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CANOPY-A did not show a DFS benefit of adding canakinumab after surgery and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with resected, stage II-III NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified with canakinumab.

A five-year follow-up of untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia treated with ofatumumab and chlorambucil: final analysis of the Complement 1 phase 3 trial.

The Complement 1 trial investigated the efficacy and safety of ofatumumab + chlorambucil with chlorambucil monotherapy in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). On long-term follow-up in the chemoimmunotherapy arm vs. the chemotherapy arm there was an estimated 12% (not significant) and 39% risk reduction in overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. A high rate (61%) of treatment with next-line therapies in both the treatment arms may dilute any potential OS difference and confound the interpretation of the OS results. Addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability as a frontline treatment option in patients unfit for fludarabine-containing therapy, with no new safety concerns.

Switching to nilotinib versus imatinib dose escalation in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase with suboptimal response to imatinib (LASOR): a randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase with suboptimal cytogenetic response remains undetermined. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of switching to nilotinib vs imatinib dose escalation for patients with suboptimal cytogenetic response on imatinib. METHODS: We did a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase with suboptimal cytogenetic response to imatinib according to the 2009 European LeukemiaNet criteria, in Latin America, Europe, and Asia (59 hospitals and care centres in 12 countries). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Before enrolment, all patients had received 3-18 months of imatinib 400 mg once daily and had a suboptimal cytogenetic response according to 2009 ELN recommendations, established through bone marrow cytogenetics. By use of an interactive response technology using fixed blocks, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) to switch to nilotinib 400 mg twice per day or an escalation of imatinib dose to 600 mg once per day (block size of 4). Investigators and participants were not blinded to study treatment. Crossover was allowed for loss of response or intolerance at any time, or for patients with no complete cytogenetic response at 6 months. The primary endpoint was complete cytogenetic response at 6 months in the intention-to-treat population. Efficacy endpoints were based on the intention-to-treat population, with all patients assessed according to the treatment group to which they were randomised (regardless of crossover); the effect of crossover was assessed in post-hoc analyses, in which responses achieved after crossover were excluded. We present the final results at 24 months' follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00802841). FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2009, and Aug 29, 2012, we enrolled 191 patients. 96 patients were randomly assigned to nilotinib and 95 patients were randomly assigned to imatinib. Complete cytogenetic response at 6 months was achieved by 48 of 96 patients in the nilotinib group (50%, 95·18% CI 40-61) and 40 of 95 in the imatinib group (42%, 32-53%; difference 7·9% in favour of nilotinib; 95% CI -6·2 to 22·0, p=0·31). Excluding responses achieved after crossover, 48 (50%) of 96 patients in the nilotinib group and 34 (36%) of 95 patients in the imatinib group achieved complete cytogenic response at 6 months (nominal p=0·058). Grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events occurring in more than one patient were headache (nilotinib group, n=2 [2%, including 1 after crossover to imatinib]; imatinib group, n=1 [1%]), blast cell crisis (nilotinib group, n=1 [1%]; imatinib group, n=1 [1%]), and QT prolongation (nilotinib group, n=1 [1%]; imatinib group, n=1 [1%, after crossover to nilotinib]). Serious adverse events on assigned treatment were reported in 11 (11%) of 96 patients in the nilotinib group and nine (10%) of 93 patients in the imatinib group. Seven (7%) of 96 patients died in the nilotinib group and five (5%) of 93 patients died in the imatinib group; no deaths were treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: While longer-term analyses are needed to establish whether the clinical benefits observed with switching to nilotinib are associated with improved long-term survival outcomes, our results suggest that patients with suboptimal cytogenetic response are more likely to achieve improved cytogenetic and molecular responses with switching to nilotinib than with imatinib dose escalation, although the difference was not statistically significant when responses achieved after crossover were included. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.