Frontline pembrolizumab monotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression ≥50%: real-world outcomes in a US community oncology setting.

Background: This study investigated real-world time on treatment (rwToT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who initiated first-line (1L) pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also explored discontinuation reasons and subsequent treatments, stratified by number of cycles among those who completed ≥17 cycles of 1L pembrolizumab. Methods: Patients with mNSCLC without actionable genetic aberrations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2 and unknown, and PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% starting 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy between 24-Oct-2016 and 31-Dec-2018 within The US Oncology Network were identified retrospectively and evaluated using structured data, with a data cutoff of 30-Sep-2021. Patient characteristics and disposition were summarized using descriptive statistics. OS and rwToT were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method for all ECOG PS and PS 0-1. A subgroup of patients who completed ≥17 cycles were evaluated using supplemental chart review data to discern reasons for discontinuation. Results: Of the 505 patients with mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, 61% had ECOG PS 0-1, 23% had ECOG PS 2, and 65% had nonsquamous histology. Median rwToT and OS of pembrolizumab were 7.0 (95% CI, 6.0-8.4) months and 24.5 (95% CI, 20.1-29.3) months, respectively. In the subgroup with ECOG PS 0-1, they were 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.2) and 28.8 months (95% CI, 22.4-37.5), respectively. Of the 103 patients who completed ≥17 cycles, 57 (55.3%) patients received 17 - 34 cycles and 46 (44.7%) patients received ≥35 cycles. Approximately 7.7% of the study population received pembrolizumab beyond 35 cycles. Most common reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (38.6%) and toxicity (19.3%) among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab, and disease progression (13.0%) and completion of therapy (10.9%) among patients who received ≥35 cycles. Conclusion: Consistent with findings from KEYNOTE-024 and other real-world studies, this study demonstrates the long-term effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy as 1L treatment for mNSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. Among patients who completed ≥17 cycles, nearly half completed ≥35 cycles. Disease progression and toxicity were the most common reasons for discontinuation among patients who received 17-34 cycles of pembrolizumab. Reasons for discontinuation beyond 35 cycles need further exploration.

Outcomes for pembrolizumab stratified by pemetrexed maintenance post pembrolizumab-platinum-pemetrexed induction in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We assessed treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who initiated first-line pembrolizumab-platinum-pemetrexed (induction) in US community oncology settings. Methods: Patients initiating induction were retrospectively identified. Patients continuing pembrolizumab afterward underwent chart review. Clinical outcomes were described by maintenance pemetrexed exposure after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Median induction pembrolizumab and pemetrexed durations were 5.1 and 4.2 months. Among patients continuing pembrolizumab after induction, 64% received maintenance pemetrexed. Common discontinuation reasons for induction pemetrexed were completion of planned therapy (79%) and partial response (68%) and progressive disease (38%) and toxicity (29%) for maintenance pemetrexed. After IPTW, median overall survival and real-world progression-free survival were longer in patients continuing pembrolizumab with versus without maintenance pemetrexed (20.3 vs 12.0 months and 10.3 vs 5.8 months, respectively). Conclusion: Patient characteristics and planned treatment decisions affect maintenance pemetrexed utilization in the community oncology setting.

What is this summary about? Pembrolizumab is a drug that helps the lung cancer patient's immune system fight the cancer, even after the cancer has spread, or metastasized. After the patient gets better, the patient is treated with chemotherapy so the cancer will not come back. This is called 'maintenance treatment'. In KEYNOTE-189, a clinical trial, patients lived longer if they had pembrolizumab added to pemetrexed and platinum, which are chemotherapy drugs. If patients had maintenance treatment with pembrolizumab and pemetrexed, they also lived longer. However, do patients in community practices get those treatments? What were the results? We found that at cancer practices in the community instead of clinical trials, not all patients received pemetrexed in maintenance treatment. Many had finished their planned therapy and their tumors had shrunk. Also, some physicians chose not to give their patients pemetrexed. In addition, some women and some older and sicker patients did not get pemetrexed. Some patients had pemetrexed in maintenance but stopped because their cancer grew worse or because they had side effects. Those patients did not live as long as patients who did have maintenance pemetrexed. What do the results mean? Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the community practice do better on the treatments tested in clinical trials. However, certain patients do not get those treatments. The reasons need to be understood, to make sure that those patients get better treatments.

Brentuximab vedotin with dacarbazine or nivolumab as frontline cHL therapy for older patients ineligible for chemotherapy.

ABSTRACT: Older patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have inferior outcomes compared with younger patients, potentially due to comorbidities and frailty. This noncomparative phase 2 study enrolled patients aged ≥60 years with cHL unfit for conventional chemotherapy to receive frontline brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.8 mg/kg) with dacarbazine (DTIC; 375 mg/m2) (part B) or nivolumab (part D; 3 mg/kg). In parts B and D, 50% and 38% of patients, respectively, had ≥3 general comorbidities or ≥1 significant comorbidity. Of the 22 patients treated with BV-DTIC, 95% achieved objective response, and 64% achieved complete response (CR). With a median follow-up of 63.6 months, median duration of response (mDOR) was 46.0 months. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 47.2 months; median overall survival (mOS) was not reached. Of 21 patients treated with BV-nivolumab, 86% achieved objective response, and 67% achieved CR. With 51.6 months of median follow-up, mDOR, mPFS, and mOS were not reached. Ten patients (45%) with BV-DTIC and 16 patients (76%) with BV-nivolumab experienced grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events; sensory peripheral neuropathy (PN; 27%) and neutropenia (9%) were most common with BV-DTIC, and increased lipase (24%), motor PN (19%), and sensory PN (19%) were most common with BV-nivolumab. Despite high median age, inclusion of patients aged ≤88 years, and frailty, these results demonstrate safety and promising durable efficacy of BV-DTIC and BV-nivolumab combinations as frontline treatment, suggesting potential alternatives for older patients with cHL unfit for initial conventional chemotherapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01716806.

Real-world outcomes of 18,186 metastatic solid tumor outpatients: Baseline blood cell counts correlate with survival after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient survival in advanced/metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Biomarkers' role in prognosis and treatment has been limited by conflicting trial results. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study analyzed baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data versus outcomes of The US Oncology Network adult outpatients. Patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC treated between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2020 were given ICI monotherapy or combination therapy with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab. Treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS], time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment) were followed longitudinally until May 31, 2021, last patient record, or date of death. Baseline blood cell counts, including absolute monocyte count (AMC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), and eosinophil count, were subdivided into quintiles for univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Data from 18,186 patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma (n = 3314), NSCLC (n = 12,416), and RCC (n = 2456) were analyzed. Better OS correlated with increased baseline serum albumin concentration, increased eosinophil and lymphocyte counts, and Western United States physician practice location. Decreased OS correlated with increased AMC, MLR, ANC, age, and worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to associate baseline survival indicators and outcomes in outpatients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC and receiving ICIs. Results may inform disease-specific prognostic models and help providers identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI therapy.

Real-World Outcomes of Trilaciclib Among Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Trilaciclib was recently approved in the USA for reducing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) among adults with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) when administered prior to chemotherapy. There is limited understanding of real-world outcomes of trilaciclib. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using a keyword search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and conference abstracts. Additional studies were identified through communications with the authors of relevant studies. Published and unpublished real-world studies of trilaciclib- and comparable non-trilaciclib-treated patients with ES-SCLC were included. Evidence on myelosuppressive hematologic adverse events (HAEs), cytopenia-related healthcare utilization, and other reported outcomes (e.g., hospitalizations, dose reduction, and treatment delay) were synthesized. If feasible, outcomes were compared qualitatively between the trilaciclib and historical reference groups, and between first-line trilaciclib initiators and the overall trilaciclib population. Weighted averages were estimated for selected outcomes using sample size as the weight. RESULTS: The literature search identified five unique studies based on eight records-two included trilaciclib only, two non-trilaciclib only, and one both. In trilaciclib cohorts, the weighted average prevalence of grade ≥ 3 myelosuppressive HAEs in ≥ 1 lineage, ≥ 2 lineages, and all three lineages was 40.5%, 14.5%, and 7.5%, respectively. All rates were numerically lower compared to the historical non-trilaciclib cohorts (58.8%, 28.0%, 13.0% respectively). Cytopenia-related healthcare utilization was also lower in the trilaciclib cohorts. In general, first-line trilaciclib initiators had numerically lower myelosuppressive HAEs and cytopenia-related healthcare utilization than the overall trilaciclib patients. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence suggests that trilaciclib may reduce single and multilineage grade ≥ 3 myelosuppressive HAEs and cytopenia-related healthcare utilization among patients with ES-SCLC in the real world. It is a promising new treatment for CIM prevention in ES-SCLC and may bring greater benefits to first-line trilaciclib initiators. Future studies are recommended to further evaluate the real-world effectiveness of trilaciclib.

Real-world outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated first line with a bevacizumab biosimilar (bevacizumab-awwb).

Background: Bevacizumab-awwb (MVASI®) was the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to Avastin® (reference product [RP]) for the treatment of several different types of cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), an indication approved based on extrapolation. Objectives: Evaluate treatment outcomes in mCRC patients who received first-line (1L) bevacizumab-awwb at treatment initiation or as continuing bevacizumab therapy (switched from RP). Design: A retrospective chart review study. Methods: Adult patients who had a confirmed diagnosis of mCRC (initial presentation of CRC on or after 01 January 2018) and initiated 1L bevacizumab-awwb between 19 July 2019 and 30 April 2020 were identified from the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset. A chart review was conducted to evaluate patient baseline clinical characteristics and effectiveness and tolerability outcomes during the follow-up. Study measures were reported stratified by prior use of RP: (1) naïve patients and (2) switchers (patients who switched to bevacizumab-awwb from RP without advancing the line of therapy). Results: At the end of study period, naïve patients (n = 129) had a median 1L progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6-9.9] and a 12-month overall survival (OS) probability of 71.4% (95% CI, 61.0-79.5%). Switchers (n = 105) had a median 1L PFS of 14.1 months (95% CI, 12.1-15.8) and a 12-month OS probability of 87.6% (95% CI, 79.1-92.8%). During treatment with bevacizumab-awwb, 20 events of interest (EOIs) were reported in 18 naïve patients (14.0%) and 4 EOIs reported in 4 switchers (3.8%), of which the most commonly reported events were thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. Most EOIs resulted in emergency department visit and/or treatment hold/discontinuation/switch. None of the EOIs resulted in death. Conclusion: In this real-world cohort of mCRC patients who were treated 1L with a bevacizumab biosimilar (bevacizumab-awwb), the clinical effectiveness and tolerability data were as expected and consistent with previously published findings from real-world studies of bevacizumab RP in mCRC patients.

Burden of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among patients with ES-SCLC in US community oncology settings.

Aim: To describe the burden of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among chemotherapy-treated patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Materials & methods: Occurrence of grade ≥3 myelosuppressive hematological adverse events (HAEs), treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) after chemotherapy initiation were evaluated using data from The US Oncology Network and Non-network clinics (1/1/2015-12/31/2020). Results: Among patients with laboratory values (Network: N = 1,374/1,574; Non-network: N = 661/959), over half-experienced grade ≥3 HAEs after chemotherapy initiation (Network = 56.6%; Non-network = 64.1%), and approximately one-third had grade ≥3 HAEs in at least two lineages (Network = 33.0%; Non-network = 31.3%). Patients with grade ≥3 HAEs had greater dose reductions, treatment delays and HCRU than those without. Conclusion: Myelosuppression is a burden to patients with ES-SCLC treated with chemotherapy and the healthcare system.

Our objective was to describe the burden of myelosuppression, a side effect of chemotherapy that results from damage to blood-forming cells in the bone marrow, among patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We evaluated the prevalence of myelosuppression, chemotherapy treatment patterns and outpatient healthcare use and costs after chemotherapy initiation using data from The US Oncology Network and Non-network clinics between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020. Among patients with laboratory values, which were required to identify myelosuppression events, over half of patients experienced severe myelosuppression-related adverse events in one or more lineages after chemotherapy initiation, and approximately one-third experienced severe myelosuppression-related adverse events in at least two blood cell lineages. Patients with severe myelosuppression-related adverse events had greater dose reductions, treatment delays, and healthcare use and costs than those without. Myelosuppression is a burden to patients with ES-SCLC treated with chemotherapy and the healthcare system. Reduction of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression has the potential to reduce burden on patients and healthcare organizations.

Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Acalabrutinib in Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Phase 2 Proof-of-Concept Study.

PURPOSE: Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitors have shown efficacy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), but treatment failure or secondary resistance occurs in most patients. In preclinical murine carcinoma models, inhibition of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) induces myeloid cell reprogramming that subsequently bolsters CD8+ T cell responses, resulting in enhanced antitumor activity. This phase 2, multicenter, open-label, randomized study evaluated pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) plus acalabrutinib (BTK inhibitor) in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, alone or in combination with acalabrutinib 100 mg orally twice daily. Safety and overall response rate (ORR) were co-primary objectives. The secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were evaluated (pembrolizumab, n = 39; pembrolizumab + acalabrutinib, n = 37). Higher frequencies of grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AE; 65% vs. 39%) and serious AEs (68% vs. 31%) were observed with combination therapy versus monotherapy. ORR was 18% with monotherapy versus 14% with combination therapy. Median PFS was 2.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-6.8] months in the combination arm and 1.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.0) months in the monotherapy arm. The study was terminated due to lack of clinical benefit with combination treatment. To assess how tumor immune contexture was affected by therapy in patients with pre- and post-treatment biopsies, spatial proteomic analyses were conducted that revealed a trend toward increased CD45+ leukocyte infiltration of tumors from baseline at day 43 with pembrolizumab (monotherapy, n = 5; combination, n = 2), which appeared to be higher in combination-treated patients; however, definitive conclusions could not be drawn due to limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lack of clinical efficacy, immune subset analyses suggest that there are additive effects of this combination; however, the associated toxicity limits the feasibility of combination treatment with pembrolizumab and acalabrutinib in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.

Effects of Trilaciclib on Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Pooled Results from Three Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) and its sequalae cause significant side effects and harm to quality of life. Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor that is administered prior to chemotherapy to protect hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from chemotherapy-induced damage (myeloprotection). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (NCT02499770, NCT03041311, and NCT02514447) were pooled to evaluate the effects of trilaciclib administered prior to standard-of-care chemotherapy (first-line etoposide plus carboplatin [E/P], first-line E/P plus atezolizumab, and second-/third-line topotecan) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 0.5 × 109 cells/L) in cycle 1 and occurrence of severe neutropenia. Additional prespecified endpoints further assessed the effect of trilaciclib on myeloprotection, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), antitumor efficacy, and safety. RESULTS: Of 242 randomized patients, 123 received trilaciclib and 119 received placebo. Compared with placebo, administration of trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy resulted in significant decreases in most measures of multilineage CIM. The reduction in hematologic toxicity translated into the reduced need for supportive care interventions and hospitalizations due to CIM or sepsis and improvements in HRQoL domains related to the protected cell lineages, including fatigue, physical wellbeing, and functional wellbeing. Antitumor efficacy was similar for patients receiving trilaciclib or placebo. CONCLUSION: Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in CIM and its consequences and improved patient HRQoL, with no impact on the antitumor efficacy of three individual chemotherapy regimens used in the first- or second-/third-line treatment of ES-SCLC.

The Totality of Evidence and Use of ABP 215, a Biosimilar to Bevacizumab.

ABP 215 (MVASI™, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA; MVASI™, Amgen Europe B.V., Netherlands) is a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin®, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). Here we provide a brief overview of the totality of evidence that supported the approval of ABP 215, along with practical considerations to ensure safe and effective administration.ABP 215 has been shown to be highly similar to the RP, with similar mechanism of action, analytical (structural and functional) characteristics, binding, and potency. The similarity of PK parameters of ABP 215 and bevacizumab RP has been confirmed in healthy volunteers.In a comparative clinical trial, patients with stage IV or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel were randomized to ABP 215 or bevacizumab RP. No clinically meaningful differences were found between ABP 215 and RP. The objective response rate (ORR) was 39% for ABP 215 and 41.7% for bevacizumab RP. The risk ratio for the ORR was 0.93 [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-1.09], which fell within the prespecified margin for equivalence of 0.67-1.5, indicating similar clinical efficacy.Similar to bevacizumab RP, ABP 215 is supplied as a clear to slightly opalescent, colorless to pale yellow, sterile solution in a glass vial. It should be diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride in polyvinylchloride or polyolefin bags before administering as an intravenous infusion. The ABP 215 solution should be stored at 2-8 °C (36-46°F) prior to use. Physicochemical stability studies showed that there were no meaningful changes in purity or potency and no loss of protein after storage at 2-8 °C for 35 days followed by storage at 30 °C for 48 h.

Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Nonsquamous NSCLC: Results From the Randomized Phase 3 IMpower132 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report the final results of the phase 3 IMpower132 study evaluating atezolizumab plus carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (APP) in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to receive four or six cycles of carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (PP) or APP every 3 weeks, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab plus pemetrexed or pemetrexed alone. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 578 patients (APP, n = 292; PP, n = 286). At the primary PFS analysis (May 22, 2018; median follow-up, 14.8 mo), APP exhibited significant PFS improvement versus PP (median = 7.6 versus 5.2 mo, stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.72, p < 0.0001). OS for the APP group was numerically better but not statistically significant at the interim (May 22, 2018; median = 18.1 versus 13.6 mo, stratified HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.03, p = 0.0797) and final analyses (July 18, 2019; median = 17.5 versus 13.6 mo; stratified HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.71-1.06, p = 0.1546). The OS and PFS results favored APP versus PP across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54.6% (APP) and 40.1% (PP) of patients; grade 5 treatment-related events occurred in 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IMpower132 met its co-primary PFS end point but not its co-primary OS end point, with numerical improvement for OS in the APP arm. APP had a manageable safety profile, with no new or unexpected safety signals identified.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial.

Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy-induced damage (myelopreservation). The effects of administering trilaciclib prior to carboplatin, etoposide and atezolizumab (E/P/A) were evaluated in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) (NCT03041311). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (SN; defined as absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 109 cells per L) in Cycle 1 and occurrence of SN during the treatment period. Other endpoints were prespecified to assess the effects of trilaciclib on additional measures of myelopreservation, patient-reported outcomes, antitumour efficacy and safety. Fifty-two patients received trilaciclib prior to E/P/A and 53 patients received placebo. Compared to placebo, administration of trilaciclib resulted in statistically significant decreases in the mean duration of SN in Cycle 1 (0 vs 4 days; P < .0001) and occurrence of SN (1.9% vs 49.1%; P < .0001), with additional improvements in red blood cell and platelet measures and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Trilaciclib was well tolerated, with fewer grade ≥3 adverse events compared with placebo, primarily due to less high-grade haematological toxicity. Antitumour efficacy outcomes were comparable. Administration of trilaciclib vs placebo generated more newly expanded peripheral T-cell clones (P = .019), with significantly greater expansion among patients with an antitumour response to E/P/A (P = .002). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib administered prior to E/P/A improved patients' experience of receiving treatment for ES-SCLC, as shown by reduced myelosuppression, and improved HRQoL and safety profiles.

Randomized Phase 2 Studies of Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Pegilodecakin in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2).

INTRODUCTION: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. METHODS: CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. RESULTS: Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

Randomized phase-II evaluation of letrozole plus dasatinib in hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer patients.

The non-receptor tyrosine kinase Src activation plays a role in the malignant progression of breast cancer, including development of endocrine therapy resistance and survival of bone metastases. This study investigated whether adding Src kinase inhibitor dasatinib to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy improved outcomes in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Postmenopausal patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC (0-1 prior chemotherapies and no prior AI for MBC) were eligible for this non-comparative, parallel group, phase-II study. Patients were randomized to letrozole (2.5 mg/day PO) alone or with dasatinib (100 mg/day PO). Patients with disease progression on letrozole alone could crossover to dasatinib plus continued letrozole. The primary endpoint was clinical-benefit-rate (CBR; complete response + partial response + stable disease ≥6 months). A total of 120 patients were randomized. The CBR of 71% (95% CI 58-83%) was observed with letrozole + dasatinib versus the projected CBR of the combination of 56%. The CBR of 66% (95% CI 52-77%) with letrozole alone also exceeded the projected CBR of 39% with letrozole alone. The CBR was 23% in the crossover arm of letrozole plus dasatinib in patients progressing on letrozole alone. Median progression-free survival with the combination was 20.1 months and 9.9 months with letrozole alone. Letrozole plus dasatinib was well tolerated, although 26% of patients required dasatinib dose reductions. In this non-comparative phase-II trial, the CBR of 71% and the median PFS of 20.1 months with letrozole + dasatinib are encouraging and suggest that dasatinib may inhibit the emergence of acquired resistance to AI therapy.

Totality of evidence in the development of ABP 215, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar.

ABP 215 (MVASI™) is the first approved biosimilar to Avastin® (bevacizumab). It is approved in the USA and the European Union (EU) for all bevacizumab indications in these jurisdictions except for ovarian cancer in the USA due to orphan drug exclusivity. ABP 215 was shown to be structurally, functionally and clinically (pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety) similar to the bevacizumab reference product; the pharmacokinetic study was conducted in healthy adult men (n = 202); safety and efficacy were evaluated in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 642). Together, these results comprise the totality of evidence that provides scientific justification for extrapolation to all approved indications of the reference product and supports the clinical value of ABP 215 as an additional treatment option.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar ABP 215 Compared with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MAPLE): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared clinical efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab reference product (RP) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ABP 215 or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every three weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks for ≥4 and ≤6 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67 to 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 (n = 328) and bevacizumab (n = 314). Overall, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups, respectively, had objective responses [ORR risk ratio: 0.93 (90% CI, 0.80-1.09)]. In the ABP 215 and bevacizumab group, 308 (95.1%) and 289 (93.5%) patients, respectively, had at least 1 AE; 13 (4.0%) and 11 (3.6%) experienced a fatal AE. Anti-VEGF toxicity was low and comparable between treatment groups. At week 19, median trough serum drug concentration was 132 µg/mL (ABP 215 group) and 129 µg/mL (bevacizumab group). No patient tested positive for neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 215 is similar to bevacizumab RP with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and bevacizumab.

Atezolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases: Exploratory analyses of the phase III OAK study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab and docetaxel in patients with and without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases in the phase III OAK trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel every 3 weeks until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical atezolizumab benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, treated supratentorial metastases were eligible. Patients had brain scans before enrollment; follow-up brain scans and treatment were required when clinically indicated. RESULTS: Approximately 14% of patients in each arm had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (61/425 in the atezolizumab arm and 62/425 in the docetaxel arm). Fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and treatment-related neurologic AEs were reported with atezolizumab than with docetaxel, regardless of history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. In patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases, median overall survival (OS) was longer with atezolizumab than with docetaxel (16.0 vs 11.9 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13). Median OS was also longer with atezolizumab in patients without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (13.2 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88). Landmark analyses showed that patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases had a lower probability of developing new symptomatic brain lesions with atezolizumab vs docetaxel at 6-24 months. Patients without a history had a lower probability with atezolizumab at 18-24+ months. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab had an acceptable neurologic safety profile, showed a trend toward an OS benefit, and led to a prolonged time to radiographic identification of new symptomatic brain lesions compared with docetaxel in patients who had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02008227.

Atezolizumab Treatment Beyond Progression in Advanced NSCLC: Results From the Randomized, Phase III OAK Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer immunotherapy may alter tumor biology such that treatment effects can extend beyond radiographic progression. In the randomized, phase III OAK study of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) versus docetaxel in advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab was observed in the overall patient population, without improvement in objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). We examine the benefit-risk of atezolizumab treatment beyond progression (TBP). METHODS: Eight hundred fifty patients included in the OAK primary efficacy analysis were evaluated. Atezolizumab was continued until loss of clinical benefit. Docetaxel was administered until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity; no crossover to atezolizumab was allowed. ORR, PFS, post-PD OS, target lesion change, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: In atezolizumab-arm patients, ORR was 16% versus 14% and median PFS was 4.2 versus 2.8 months per immune-modified RECIST versus RECIST v1.1. The median post-PD OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3-14.9) in 168 atezolizumab-arm patients continuing TBP, 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.1) in 94 patients switching to nonprotocol therapy, and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.4) in 70 patients receiving no further therapy. Of the atezolizumab TBP patients, 7% achieved a post-progression response in target lesions and 49% had stable target lesions. Atezolizumab TBP was not associated with increased safety risks. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the post-PD efficacy and safety data from OAK are consistent with a positive benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab TBP in patients performing well clinically at the time of PD.

PD-L1 Expression by Two Complementary Diagnostic Assays and mRNA In Situ Hybridization in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic antibodies to immune checkpoints show promising results. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), an immune checkpoint ligand, blocks the cancer immunity cycle by binding the PD-L1 receptor (programmed death 1). We investigated PD-L1 protein expression and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in SCLC. METHODS: PD-L1 protein expression and mRNA levels were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with SP142 and Dako 28-8 PD-L1 antibodies and in situ hybridization in primary tumor tissue microarrays in both tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) obtained from a limited-disease SCLC cohort of 98 patients. An additional cohort of 96 tumor specimens from patients with extensive-disease SCLC was assessed for PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody only. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells was 16.5%. In the limited-disease cohort, the prevalences of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with SP142 and Dako 28-8 were 14.7% and 19.4% (tumor proportion score cutoff ≥1%) and PD-L1 mRNA ISH expression was positive in 15.5% of tumor samples. Increased PD-L1 protein/mRNA expression was associated with the presence of more TIICs (p < 0.05). The extensive-disease cohort demonstrated a 14.9% positivity of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of SCLCs is characterized by positive PD-L1 and/or mRNA expression in tumor cells. Higher PD-L1 and mRNA expression correlate with more infiltration of TIICs. The prevalence of PD-L1 in SCLC is lower than that published for NSCLC. The predictive role of PD-L1 expression in SCLC treatment remains to be established.