A phase 1b study of the allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor alofanib in patients with pretreated advanced gastric cancer.

Alofanib is a small-molecule allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor. We report safety and preliminary efficacy from the first-in-human phase 1b study of alofanib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer. The standard dose-escalation design 3+3 aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Alofanib was administered daily intravenously 5 days on, 2 days off. There were five dose levels (50-350 mg/m2). All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. 21 patients were enrolled. Patients were predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (43%), 19% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 2 and more treatment lines). During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and MTD was not defined. 15 (71.4%) patients had at least one adverse event associated with the treatment (TRAE). Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were observed in 6 patients (28.6%). The most common TRAEs included reactions immediately after administration, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia, and headache. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was 3.63 (95% CI 1.58-5.68) and 7.0 (95% CI 3.82-10.18) months, respectively. The 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 57.1% and 33.3%. Disease control rate was 68% with one durable partial response. The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2, 5 days on, 2 days off has been declared as RP2D. Alofanib showed acceptable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071184).

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or platinum-etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum-etoposide consisted of etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum-etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the platinum-etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the platinum-etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59-0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5-14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3-11·2) in the platinum-etoposide group, with 34% (26·9-41·0) versus 25% (18·4-31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum-etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Impact of Brain Metastases on Treatment Patterns and Outcomes With First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage SCLC (CASPIAN): A Brief Report.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases. Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020. Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%). Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

Overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus: a report from the RENSUR3 registry.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data describing outcomes of treatment among metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are limited and heterogeneous. AIM: RENSUR3 registry study assessed real-world data on the use of therapies in mRCC and overall survival (OS) in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. METHODS: Patients were included in the retrospective multicenter registry study. To be eligible, patients were required to have mRCC diagnosed from January 2015 to January 2016. Anonymized data were collected through an online registry. The outcomes of interest were patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and OS. RESULTS: 1094 mRCC patients were identified. Mean age was 62.3 (SD, 11.2) years. Four hundred and forty-four (41%) patients were 65 years and older. Primary tumor has not been removed in 503 (46%) patients. Subtype of RCC based on WHO classification (clear-cell or other) has been reported in 402 (37%) patients. In total, 595 (54.4%) patients received systemic therapy for metastatic disease. 58% of elderly patients (≥65) were not treated compared to 37% of younger patients. Cytokines and targeted therapy were used in 298 (50.1%) and 297 (49.9%) of 595 treated patients, respectively. Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI 10.9-12.9). The 1- and 3-year OS rates were 49.6% and 19.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Half of patients received no systemic therapy or had only cytokines for mRCC in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, which doubtless negatively affected OS in this population. Novel therapies should be considered as life prolonging and a priority.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III study.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab plus etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (primary endpoint) versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) at the interim analysis. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of durvalumab plus EP every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab every 4 weeks until progression, or up to 6 cycles of EP every 3 weeks. PROs, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13), were prespecified secondary endpoints. Changes from baseline to disease progression or 12 months in prespecified key disease-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, appetite loss) were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization was analyzed. RESULTS: In the durvalumab plus EP and EP arms, 261 and 260 patients were PRO-evaluable. Patients in both arms experienced numerically reduced symptom burden over 12 months or until progression for key symptoms. For the improvements from baseline in appetite loss, the between-arm difference was statistically significant, favoring durvalumab plus EP (difference, -4.5; 99% CI: -9.04, -0.04; nominal p = 0.009). Patients experienced longer TTD with durvalumab plus EP versus EP for all symptoms (hazard ratio [95% CI] for key symptoms: cough 0.78 [0.600‒1.026]; dyspnea 0.79 [0.625‒1.006]; chest pain 0.76 [0.575‒0.996]; fatigue 0.82 [0.653‒1.027]; appetite loss 0.70 [0.542‒0.899]), functioning, and global health status/QoL. CONCLUSION: Addition of durvalumab to first-line EP maintained QoL and delayed worsening of patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with EP.

Overall Survival of Patients With ALK-Positive Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Russian Federation: Nationwide Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The overall survival (OS) results in patients with ALK-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have rarely been reported. The aim of this prospective-retrospective cohort study was to obtain real-world data on the use of crizotinib or chemotherapy in patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC in Russia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic NSCLC were screened in 23 cancer centers. To be eligible, patients were required to have confirmation of ALK rearrangement. Patients were treated with crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 96) or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 53). The primary end point was OS. RESULTS: A total of 149 ALK-positive patients were included. Mean age was 53 years in both groups. Patients were predominately women (59%) and never-smokers (74%), and most patients had adenocarcinoma histology (95%). At a median follow-up time of 15 months, 79 of the 149 patients included in the analysis had died. Median OS from the start of treatment was 31 months (95% CI, 28.5 to 33.5 months) in the crizotinib group and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 21.0 months) in the chemotherapy group (P < .001). The objective response rate was 34% in the crizotinib group. Among patients with brain metastasis, one complete response (6%) and five partial responses (31%) were achieved. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in three patients (3%) in the crizotinib group. CONCLUSION: The improved OS observed in crizotinib clinical trials in ALK-positive NSCLC was also observed in the less selective patient populations treated in daily practice in Russia. The use of standard chemotherapy in these patients remains common but seems inappropriate as a result of the effectiveness of newer treatments, such as crizotinib.

Five-year Survival of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Russian Federation: Results From the RENSUR5 Registry.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been rarely reported. The aim of the RENSUR5 registry study was to obtain real-world data on the use of therapy for mRCC and assess the 5-year OS in the Russian population. PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients were retrospectively identified at 11 cancer centers in different regions of Russia (Astrakhan, Barnaul, Ekaterinburg, Kazan, Krasnoyarsk, Obninsk, Omsk, Rostov-on-Don, Samara, St. Petersburg, and Ufa). Patients were included if mRCC had been diagnosed from January 2010 to January 2011. Anonymized data were collected through an online registry covering the demographic data, treatments, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 439 adult mRCC patients were included in the present study for analysis. The mean age at diagnosis of mRCC was 60.9 years (range, 33-90 years; with 9% of patients aged ≥ 75 years). The patients were predominantly men (70.2%) and 67.7% had nephrectomy. Clear cell and non-clear cell tumors were detected in 61.1% and 7.7% of patients, respectively. A total of 271 patients (62%) received systemic therapy. The median duration of therapy was 11 months (95% confidence interval, 9.5-12.5 months). Most treatment was with interferon only (n = 145); 105 patients (23.9%) received targeted therapy, and 69 patients (15.7%) received ≥ 2 treatment lines. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rate was 49.4%, 18.9%, and 8.2%, respectively. The median OS from the start of treatment was 12 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.4 months). CONCLUSION: RENSUR5 is a large real-world database assessing the mRCC treatment patterns and 5-year OS in Russia. According to the first results of the present study, we believe that 5-year OS should improve with novel therapies. The limited administration of targeted therapies was reflected by the results of the 5-year survival rate. The treatment of mRCC has changed in the past years with new treatment options significantly improving OS. The 5-year OS of patients treated with immunotherapy and targeted therapy should be analyzed in the real world.