Health-related quality-of-life analysis from KEYNOTE-590: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-590 study, first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided statistically significant improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared with chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Change from baseline to week 18 in the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) and QLQ-Esophageal cancer module (OES18) dysphagia, pain, and reflux scales were evaluated. RESULTS: The HRQoL analysis included 730 patients who received treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment. Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 18 was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 reflux scales. The QLQ-OES18 dysphagia (LSM difference, -5.54; 95% CI, -10.93 to -0.16) and pain (LSM difference, -2.94; 95% CI, -5.86 to -0.02) scales favored pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy. Median time to confirmed deterioration (TTD) was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 dysphagia and reflux scales. Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy prolonged median TTD, as seen on the QLQ-OES18 pain scale (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: The use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained HRQoL at week 18 relative to baseline and was comparable with placebo plus chemotherapy. These HRQoL results together with published reports of efficacy, support the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced/metastatic esophageal cancer. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT03189719.

LEAP-014: first-line lenvatinib + pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) are improving. Current guidelines recommend first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic ESCC, which has led to improvements in survival outcomes. Antiangiogenic therapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors can act synergistically to convert the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment to an immune supportive microenvironment, thus enhancing antitumor immune responses. In preclinical models, the antiangiogenic agent lenvatinib combined with an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic antitumor activity. We describe the design and rationale for the randomized, open-label, phase III LEAP-014 study of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. Overall survival and progression-free survival are the dual primary end points.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04949256 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

[Box: see text].

Clinical Outcomes for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although second-line treatments improve survival compared to best supportive care in patients with advanced gastric cancer with disease progression on first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to quantify the efficacy of second-or-later line systemic therapies in this target population. METHODS: A systematic literature review (January 1, 2000 to July 6, 2021) of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL with additional searches of 2019-2021 annual ASCO and ESMO conferences was conducted to identify studies in the target population. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed among studies involving chemotherapies and targeted therapies relevant in treatment guidelines and HTA activities. Outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) presented as Kaplan-Meier data. Randomized controlled trials reporting any of the outcomes of interest were included. For OS and PFS, individual patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Forty-four trials were eligible for the analysis. Pooled ORR (42 trials; 77 treatment arms; 7256 participants) was 15.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.5%). Median OS from the pooled analysis (34 trials; 64 treatment arms; 60,350 person-months) was 7.9 months (95% CI 7.4-8.5). Median PFS from the pooled analysis (32 trials; 61 treatment arms; 28,860 person-months) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-3.7). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms poor prognosis among patients with advanced gastric cancer, following disease progression on first-line therapy. Despite the approved, recommended, and experimental systemic treatments available, there is still an unmet need for novel interventions for this indication.

Pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard of care chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: Asian subgroup analysis of KEYNOTE-062.

OBJECTIVE: First-line pembrolizumab with/without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was evaluated in programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1, locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer/gastrooesophageal junction cancer in the KEYNOTE-062 study. We present results for patients enrolled in Asia. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin + 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) or placebo plus chemotherapy Q3W. End points included overall survival (primary) in combined positive score ≥1 and combined positive score ≥10 populations and safety and tolerability (secondary). RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were enrolled in Asia (pembrolizumab, n = 62; pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 64; chemotherapy, n = 61). Compared with the global population, higher proportions of patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 and a diagnosis of stomach cancer. In the programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1 population, median overall survival was numerically longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (22.7 vs 13.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.82) and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (16.5 vs 13.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.16). In the programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score ≥10 population, median overall survival was also numerically longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (28.5 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.89) and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (17.5 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.64). The grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rate was 19.4%, 75.8% and 64.9% for patients receiving pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis showed pembrolizumab monotherapy was associated with numerically improved overall survival and a favourable tolerability profile versus chemotherapy in Asians with programmed death ligand 1-positive advanced gastric cancer/gastrooesophageal junction cancer.This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02494583.

Association of Tumor Mutational Burden with Efficacy of Pembrolizumab±Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Gastric Cancer in the Phase III KEYNOTE-062 Study.

PURPOSE: This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association between tumor mutational burden (TMB) status and outcomes of first-line pembrolizumab±chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-062. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In patients with advanced gastric cancer and evaluable TMB data, we evaluated the association between TMB (continuous variable; square root scale) assessed with FoundationOne CDx and clinical outcomes [objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)] using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards (PFS, OS) regression models. Clinical utility of TMB was assessed using the prespecified cutoff of 10 mut/Mb. RESULTS: TMB data were available for 306 of 763 patients (40.1%; pembrolizumab, 107; pembrolizumab+chemotherapy, 100; chemotherapy, 99). TMB was significantly associated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab+chemotherapy (ORR, PFS, and OS; all P < 0.05) but not with chemotherapy (all P > 0.05). The overall prevalence of TMB ≥10 mut/Mb was 16% across treatment groups; 44% of patients who had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb had high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) tumors. Improved clinical outcomes (ORR, PFS, and OS) were observed in pembrolizumab-treated patients (pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab+chemotherapy) with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb. When the analysis was limited to the non-MSI-H subgroup, both the positive association between clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab+chemotherapy and TMB as a continuous variable and the clinical utility of pembrolizumab (with or without chemotherapy) versus chemotherapy by TMB cutoff were attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-062 suggests an association between TMB and clinical efficacy with first-line pembrolizumab-based therapy in patients with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. However, after the exclusion of patients with MSI-H tumors, the clinical utility of TMB was attenuated.

The KEYNOTE-811 trial of dual PD-1 and HER2 blockade in HER2-positive gastric cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2, also known as ERBB2) amplification or overexpression occurs in approximately 20% of advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas1-3. More than a decade ago, combination therapy with the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and chemotherapy became the standard first-line treatment for patients with these types of tumours4. Although adding the anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy does not significantly improve efficacy in advanced HER2-negative gastric cancer5, there are preclinical6-19 and clinical20,21 rationales for adding pembrolizumab in HER2-positive disease. Here we describe results of the protocol-specified first interim analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III KEYNOTE-811 study of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic, HER2-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma22 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03615326). We show that adding pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy markedly reduces tumour size, induces complete responses in some participants, and significantly improves objective response rate.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: First-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer is currently limited to fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the antitumour activity of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced oesophageal cancer and Siewert type 1 gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study across 168 medical centres in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, histologically or cytologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer or Siewert type 1 gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (regardless of PD-L1 status), measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (chemotherapy), once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, histology, and performance status. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to group assignment and PD-L1 biomarker status. Primary endpoints were overall survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more, and overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and in all randomised patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03189719, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2017, and June 3, 2019, 1020 patients were screened and 749 were enrolled and randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=373 [50%]) or placebo plus chemotherapy (n=376 [50%]). At the first interim analysis (median follow-up of 22·6 months), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to placebo plus chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (median 13·9 months vs 8·8 months; hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·43-0·75]; p<0·0001), oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (12·6 months vs 9·8 months; 0·72 [0·60-0·88]; p=0·0006), PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (13·5 months vs 9·4 months; 0·62 [0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001), and in all randomised patients (12·4 months vs 9·8 months; 0·73 [0·62-0·86]; p<0·0001). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to placebo plus chemotherapy for progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (6·3 months vs 5·8 months; 0·65 [0·54-0·78]; p<0·0001), PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (7·5 months vs 5·5 months; 0·51 [0·41-0·65]; p<0·0001), and in all randomised patients (6·3 months vs 5·8 months; 0·65 [0·55-0·76]; p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 266 (72%) patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 250 (68%) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated, advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and in all randomised patients regardless of histology, and had a manageable safety profile in the total as-treated population. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Assessment of Pembrolizumab Therapy for the Treatment of Microsatellite Instability-High Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Among Patients in the KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Immunotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes among patients who have received previous treatment for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab therapy vs chemotherapy among patients with MSI-H advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-059 (third-line treatment or higher) single-arm trial and the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 (second-line treatment) and KEYNOTE-062 (first-line treatment) randomized trials included patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer from 52 sites in 16 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-059, 148 sites in 30 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-061, and 200 sites in 29 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-062. Patients were enrolled from March 2, 2015, to March 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-059; from June 4, 2015, to July 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-061; and from September 18, 2015, to May 26, 2017, in KEYNOTE-062, with data cutoff dates of August 8, 2018; October 26, 2017; and March 26, 2019; respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy in KEYNOTE-059, pembrolizumab monotherapy or chemotherapy (paclitaxel) in KEYNOTE-061, and pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), or chemotherapy alone in KEYNOTE-062. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response was assessed centrally using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), version 1.1; MSI-H status was determined centrally by polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 7 of 174 patients (4.0%) in KEYNOTE-059, 27 of 514 patients (5.3%) in KEYNOTE-061, and 50 of 682 patients (7.3%) in KEYNOTE-062 had MSI-H tumors. Among those with MSI-H tumors, the median overall survival was not reached (NR) for pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 or for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-062. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for pembrolizumab was NR (95% CI, 1.1 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-059 and 17.8 months (95% CI, 2.7 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-061 (vs 3.5 months [95% CI, 2.0-9.8 months] for chemotherapy). In KEYNOTE-062, the median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 1.5 months to NR) for pembrolizumab, NR (95% CI, 3.6 months to NR) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) for chemotherapy. The objective response rate (ORR) for pembrolizumab was 57.1% in KEYNOTE-059 and 46.7% (vs 16.7% for chemotherapy) in KEYNOTE-061. In KEYNOTE-062, the ORR was 57.1% for pembrolizumab , 64.7% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 36.8% for chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings from this study indicate that MSI-H status may be a biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy among patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583.

Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy for Advanced Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer with Programmed Death Ligand 1 Combined Positive Score ≥10.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab demonstrated efficacy in PD-L1-positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in the first-, second-, and third-line setting in KEYNOTE-062, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-059, respectively. To better delineate the specificity of CPS as a predictor of clinical outcomes, we analyzed pembrolizumab efficacy in patients with CPS ≥ 10 in these trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Included were patients with CPS ≥ 10 tumors from KEYNOTE-059 cohort 1 (pembrolizumab, n = 46; post hoc), KEYNOTE-061 (pembrolizumab, n = 53; chemotherapy, n = 55; post hoc), and KEYNOTE-062 (pembrolizumab, n = 92; chemotherapy, n = 90; primary). Efficacy outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). RESULTS: In KEYNOTE-059, median follow-up was 6 months, median OS was 8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.8-11.1], ORR was 17%, and median (range) DOR was 21 months (3+ to 35+). In KEYNOTE-061, median follow-up was 9 months, median OS (pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy) was 10 versus 8 months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02), median PFS was 3 months versus 3 months (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33), ORR was 25% versus 9%, and median (range) DOR was not reached (4 to 26+ months) versus 7 months (3-7). In KEYNOTE-062, median follow-up was 11 months, median OS (pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy) was 17 months versus 11 months (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), median PFS was 3 months versus 6 months (HR, 1.09, 95% CI; 0.79-1.49), ORR was 25% versus 38%, and median (range) DOR was 19 months (1+ to 34+) versus 7 months (2+ to 30+). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis showed consistent improvements toward more favorable clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab across lines of therapy in patients with CPS ≥ 10 G/GEJ cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab or Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With First-line, Advanced Gastric Cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Safe and effective therapies for untreated, advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer remain an unmet need. Objective: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. Design, Setting, and Participants: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-062 randomized, controlled, partially blinded interventional trial enrolled 763 patients with untreated, locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic G/GEJ cancer with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater from 200 centers in 29 countries between September 18, 2015, and May 26, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m2/d on day 1 plus fluorouracil 800 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily), or chemotherapy plus placebo, every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater or 10 or greater. Results: A total of 763 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab (n = 256), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 257), or chemotherapy (n = 250). The median (range) age of all patients in the study cohort was 62 (20-87) years; 554 of 763 (72.6%) were men. At final analysis, after a median (range) follow-up of 29.4 (22.0-41.3) months, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 10.6 vs 11.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 99.2% CI, 0.69-1.18). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 1 or greater. Pembrolizumab prolonged OS vs chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 10 or greater (median, 17.4 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), but this difference was not statistically tested. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (12.5 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03; P = .05) or CPS of 10 or greater (12.3 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17; P = .16) or for PFS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (6.9 vs 6.4 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .04). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse event rates for pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and chemotherapy were 17%, 73%, and 69%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that among patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy, with fewer adverse events observed. Pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for the OS and PFS end points tested. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494583.

Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from the phase II nonrandomized KEYNOTE-059 study.

BACKGROUND: The multicohort, phase II, nonrandomized KEYNOTE-059 study evaluated pembrolizumab ± chemotherapy in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Results from cohorts 2 and 3, evaluating first-line therapy, are presented. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old had previously untreated recurrent or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Cohort 3 (monotherapy) had programmed death receptor 1 combined positive score ≥ 1. Cohort 2 (combination therapy) received pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (up to 6 cycles), and 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of each 3-week cycle (or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily in Japan). Primary end points were safety (combination therapy) and objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by central review, and safety (monotherapy). RESULTS: In the combination therapy and monotherapy cohorts, 25 and 31 patients were enrolled; median follow-up was 13.8 months (range 1.8-24.1) and 17.5 months (range 1.7-20.7), respectively. In the combination therapy cohort, grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 patients (76.0%); none were fatal. In the monotherapy cohort, grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven patients (22.6%); one death was attributed to a treatment-related adverse event (pneumonitis). The objective response rate was 60.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 38.7-78.9] (combination therapy) and 25.8% (95% CI 11.9-44.6) (monotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and was well tolerated as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02335411.

KEYNOTE-590: Phase III study of first-line chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab for advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer are limited. Current guidelines for first-line treatment of advanced esophageal or EGJ cancer recommend chemotherapy containing a platinum and a fluoropyrimidine agent. Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in previously treated patients with advanced esophageal cancer and in patients with gastroesophageal junction cancer. AIM: To describe the design and rationale for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III KEYNOTE-590 study, which will be conducted to investigate pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophageal or EGJ cancer. Clinical trial registry & ID: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03189719.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the cardiovascular safety of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Omarigliptin is a once-weekly (q.w.) oral DPP-4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. To support approval of omarigliptin in the United States, the clinical development program included a cardiovascular (CV) safety study. Subsequently, a business decision was made not to submit a marketing application for omarigliptin in the United States, and the CV safety study was terminated. Herein we report an analysis of data from that early-terminated study. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, 4202 patients with T2DM and established CV disease were assigned to either omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo in addition to their existing diabetes therapy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to summarize the primary endpoint of time to first major adverse CV event (MACE, the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and the analysis of first event of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF). RESULTS: The median follow-up was approximately 96 weeks (range 1.1-178.6 weeks). The primary MACE outcome occurred in 114/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (5.45%; 2.96/100 patient-years) and 114/2100 patients in the placebo group (5.43%; 2.97/100 patient-years), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.29). The hHF outcome occurred in 20/2092 patients in the omarigliptin group (0.96%; 0.51/100 patient-years) and 33/2100 patients in the placebo group (1.57%; 0.85/100 patient-years), with an HR of 0.60 (95% CI 0.35, 1.05). After 142 weeks, the least-squares mean difference (omarigliptin vs. placebo) in glycated hemoglobin levels was -0.3% (95% CI -0.46, -0.14). The numbers of patients with adverse events, serious adverse events or discontinued from study medication due to adverse events were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this CV safety study of patients with T2DM and established CV disease, omarigliptin did not increase the risk of MACE or hHF and was generally well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01703208. Registered 05 October 2012.

A Multiregional, Randomized Evaluation of the Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

This phase 3, multiregional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy/safety profile of anacetrapib added to ongoing therapy with statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia who were not at their low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) goal (as per the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies and with LDL-C ≥70 to <115, ≥100 to <145, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, or low CHD risk or at LDL-C goal (per CHD risk category) with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 290) or placebo (n = 293) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug phase. The co-primary end points were % change from baseline in LDL-C and HDL-C and the safety profile of anacetrapib. Treatment with anacetrapib reduced LDL-C (BQ) by 37% (95% confidence interval -42.5, -31.0) and increased HDL-C by 118% (95% confidence interval 110.6, 125.7) relative to placebo (p <0.001 for both). Anacetrapib also reduced non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein a and increased apolipoprotein AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the anacetrapib and placebo groups in the % patients who discontinued drug due to an adverse event or in abnormalities in liver enzymes, creatine kinase, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events. Treatment with anacetrapib substantially reduced LDL-C and also increased HDL-C and was well tolerated over 24 weeks in statin-treated patients with hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C.

Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

To assess the effects of anacetrapib added to statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia and not at their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal (as per National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of moderate/high-intensity statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies with LDL-C ≥70, ≥100, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, and low coronary heart disease risk, respectively, or at LDL-C goal with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl, were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by background therapy use, to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 153), anacetrapib 25 mg (n = 152), or placebo (n = 154) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug reversal phase. The primary end points were percent change from baseline in LDL-C (beta-quantification method) and HDL-C, as well as the safety profile of anacetrapib. Both doses of anacetrapib reduced LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (Apo) B, and lipoprotein a and increased HDL-C and Apo AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no meaningful differences between the anacetrapib 25 mg, 100 mg, and placebo groups in the proportions of discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events (0.7%, 1.3% vs 1.3%) or in abnormalities in liver enzymes (0%, 0% vs 0.7%), creatine kinase elevations overall (0%, 0.7% vs 0%) or with muscle symptoms (none seen), blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events (0.7%, 0.7% vs 1.3%). In conclusion, treatment with anacetrapib resulted in substantial reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C and was generally well tolerated.

Anacetrapib as lipid-modifying therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (REALIZE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Present guidelines emphasise the importance of low concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. In most patients with the disease, however, these concentrations are not achieved with present treatments, so additional treatment is therefore warranted. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein has been shown to reduce LDL-C concentrations in addition to regular statin treatment in patients with hypercholesterolaemia or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of anacetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, patients aged 18-80 years with a genotype-confirmed or clinical diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, on optimum lipid-lowering treatment for at least 6 weeks, and with an LDL-C concentration of 2·59 mmol/L or higher without cardiovascular disease or 1·81 mmol/L or higher with cardiovascular disease from 26 lipid clinics across nine countries were eligible. We randomly allocated participants with a computer-generated allocation schedule (2:1; block size of six; no stratification) to oral anacetrapib 100 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, with a 12 week post-treatment follow-up afterwards. We masked patients, care providers, and those assessing outcomes to treatment groups throughout the study. The primary outcome was percentage change from baseline in LDL-C concentration. We did analysis using a constrained longitudinal repeated measures model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01524289. FINDINGS: Between Feb 10, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 204 patients to anacetrapib and 102 to placebo. One patient in the anacetrapib group did not receive the drug. At week 52, anacetrapib reduced mean LDL-C concentration from 3·3 mmol/L (SD 0·8) to 2·1 mmol/L (0·8; percentage change 36·0% [95% CI -39·5 to -32·5] compared with an increase with placebo from 3·4 mmol/L (1·2) to 3·5 mmol/L (1·6; percentage change 3·7% [-1·2 to 8·6], with a difference in percentage change between anacetrapib and placebo of -39·7% (95% CI -45·7 to -33·7; p<0·0001). The number of cardiovascular events was increased in patients given anacetrapib compared with those given placebo (4 [2%] of 203 vs none [0%] of 102; p=0·1544), but the proportion with adverse events leading to discontinuation was similar (12 [6%] of 203 vs five [5%] of 102). INTERPRETATION: In patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, treatment with anacetrapib for 1 year was well tolerated and resulted in substantial reductions in LDL-C concentration. Whether this change leads to a reduction of cardiovascular events will be answered in an outcome study. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Effects of anacetrapib on plasma lipids in specific patient subgroups in the DEFINE (Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP INhibition with AnacEtrapib) trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) INhibition with AnacEtrapib (DEFINE) trial, anacetrapib added to statin produced robust low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)-raising vs placebo in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Predictors of the degree of LDL-C and HDL-C responses to anacetrapib, however, are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: Lipid effects of anacetrapib in patient subgroups within the DEFINE trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00685776) are reported. METHODS: The percent of placebo-corrected changes from baseline for LDL-C (estimated by Friedewald calculation [Fc-LDL-C]) and HDL-C after 24 weeks of anacetrapib 100 mg/day were compared among patients by age, gender, race, diabetes status, type of concomitant statin with or without other lipid therapies, and baseline HDL-C, Fc-LDL-C, and triglyceride (TG) levels. RESULTS: Percent decreases in Fc-LDL-C and increases in HDL-C with anacetrapib were similar (magnitude of difference generally <1/5 of the overall treatment effect) across subgroups by age, gender, diabetes status, lipid-modifying regimen, and baseline Fc-LDL-C, HDL-C, or TG. On the other hand, anacetrapib effects on Fc-LDL-C (-24% vs -41%) and HDL-C (+75% vs +139%) appeared to be less in black vs white patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Effects of anacetrapib on Fc-LDL-C and HDL-C were generally comparable across subgroups, including being relatively independent of baseline Fc-LDL-C, HDL-C, or TG levels. The clinical impact of the lipid-modifying effects of anacetrapib is being evaluated in the cardiovascular disease outcomes trial, Randomized EValuation of the Effects of Anacetrapib though Lipid-modification (REVEAL).

Lipids, safety parameters, and drug concentrations after an additional 2 years of treatment with anacetrapib in the DEFINE study.

Anacetrapib is a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor that has previously been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients with or at high risk of coronary heart disease in the 76-week, placebo-controlled, Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP Inhibition with Anacetrapib (DEFINE) trial. Here, we report the results of the 2-year extension to the DEFINE study where patients (n = 803) continued on the same assigned treatment as in the original 76-week study. Treatment with anacetrapib during the 2-year extension was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to patients on placebo. No clinically important abnormalities in liver enzymes, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adverse experiences were observed during the extension. At the end of the extension study, relative to the original baseline value, anacetrapib reduced Friedewald-calculated LDL-C by 39.9% and increased HDL-C by 153.3%, compared to placebo. The apparent steady state mean plasma trough concentration of anacetrapib was ∼640 nmol/L. Geometric mean plasma concentrations of anacetrapib did not appear to increase beyond week 40 of the 2-year extension of the 76-week DEFINE base study. In conclusion, an additional 2 years of treatment with anacetrapib were well tolerated with durable lipid-modifying effects on LDL-C and HDL-C.

Evaluation of lipids, drug concentration, and safety parameters following cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease.

The aim of this study was to assess the effects on lipids and safety during a 12-week reversal period after 18 months of treatment with anacetrapib. The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib was previously shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 39.8% (estimated using the Friedewald equation) and increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol by 138.1%, with an acceptable side-effect profile, in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease in the Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP Inhibition With Anacetrapib (DEFINE) trial. A total of 1,398 patients entered the 12-week reversal-phase study, either after completion of the active-treatment phase or after early discontinuation of the study medication. In patients allocated to anacetrapib, placebo-adjusted mean percentage decreases from baseline were observed at 12 weeks off the study drug for Friedewald-calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (18.6%), non-HDL cholesterol (17.6%), and apolipoprotein B (10.2%); placebo-adjusted mean percentage increases were observed for HDL cholesterol (73.0%) and apolipoprotein A-I (24.5%). Residual plasma anacetrapib levels (about 40% of on-treatment apparent steady-state trough levels) were also detected 12 weeks after cessation of anacetrapib. No clinically important elevations in liver enzymes, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adverse experiences were observed during the reversal phase. Preliminary data from a small cohort (n = 30) revealed the presence of low concentrations of anacetrapib in plasma 2.5 to 4 years after the last anacetrapib dose. In conclusion, after the cessation of active treatment, anacetrapib plasma lipid changes and drug levels decreased to approximately 40% of on-treatment trough levels at 12 weeks after dosing, but modest HDL cholesterol elevations and low drug concentrations were still detectable 2 to 4 years after the last dosing.

Measurement of LDL-C after treatment with the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib.

Estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) using the Friedewald (FR) formula is often inaccurate when triglycerides are elevated or VLDL particle composition is altered. We hypothesized that LDL-C estimation by the FR formula and other measurement methods might also be inaccurate in individuals treated with a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor. An assay comparison study was conducted using pre and posttreatment serum samples from 280 of the 811 patients treated with the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib in the DEFINE study (determining the efficacy and tolerability of CETP inhibition with anacetrapib). After 24 weeks of treatment with anacetrapib, mean LDL-C values by FR formula, Roche direct method (RDM) and Genzyme direct method (GDM) deviated from that measured by the ß-quantification (BQ) reference method by -12.2 ± 7.5, -10.2 ± 6.6, -10.8 ± 8.8 mg/dl, respectively. After treatment with anacetrapib, the FR formula and detergent-based direct methods provided lower LDL-C values than those obtained by the BQ reference method. The bias by the FR formula appeared to be due to an overestimation of VLDL-C by the TG/5 component of the formula. Evaluation of the clinical significance of these findings awaits comprehensive lipid and cardiovascular outcome data from ongoing Phase III clinical studies of anacetrapib.