A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Single-Arm Trials in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Who Received at Least Two Prior Systemic Treatments: Tazemetostat was Associated with a Lower Risk for Safety Outcomes Versus the PI3-Kinase Inhibitors Idelalisib, Duvelisib, Copanlisib, and Umbralisib.

INTRODUCTION: Tazemetostat is an enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor recommended for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) after demonstrating single-agent, antitumor activity in patients with wild-type or mutant EZH2. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors idelalisib, copanlisib, umbralisib and (formerly) duvelisib are indicated for third-line, fourth-line, and later (3L/4L+) treatment of R/R FL. The objective of this analysis was to provide an indirect treatment comparison of tazemetostat with each PI3K inhibitor for 3L/4L+ R/R FL treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials for idelalisib (DELTA), duvelisib (DYNAMO), copanlisib (CHRONOS-1 Part B), and umbralisib (UNITY-NHL) in 3L+ R/R FL. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted by weighting tazemetostat individual patient data with available baseline characteristics from each comparator trial: age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, histology, prior treatment lines, prior stem cell therapy, progression within 24 months, and refractory status to last therapy. Only the tazemetostat trial included patients with grade 3b or transformed FL, or recorded EZH2 mutation status. Primary safety outcomes included risk of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); primary efficacy outcomes included objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Matched patients treated with tazemetostat had lower relative risk (RR) for all grouped safety outcomes, including any grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, compared with idelalisib (RR = 0.45), duvelisib (RR = 0.35), copanlisib (RR = 0.37), and umbralisib (RR = 0.65; all, p < 0.01), any serious TEAE, and any TEAE leading to dose reduction, drug discontinuation, or interruption. The ORR was not significantly different for tazemetostat versus other treatments (idelalisib 43% vs 56%, p = 0.16; duvelisib 48% vs 47%, p = 0.91; copanlisib 49% vs 61%, p = 0.11; and umbralisib 57% vs 47%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: In this statistically adjusted comparison, tazemetostat was associated with lower RR for safety outcomes versus idelalisib, duvelisib, copanlisib, and umbralisib, while achieving similar efficacy outcomes.

Tazemetostat in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma: a propensity score-matched analysis of E7438-G000-101 trial outcomes.

PURPOSE: In the tazemetostat E7438-G000-101 trial of relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL), apparent superior efficacy was suggested for mutant-type (MT) EZH2 versus wild-type (WT) status. However, clinical disparities might have contributed to this conclusion. This study aimed to estimate outcomes after minimizing differences in baseline characteristics. METHODS: Propensity scores for each participant with WT (n = 54) and MT (n = 45) status were generated based on the likelihood of being selected given their baseline characteristics. Participants were matched using a 1:1 nearest-neighbor approach. RESULTS: The propensity-matched sample included 56 participants (28 WT, 28 MT). Objective response rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 35% (22-48) in WT and 69% (55-83) in MT prior to matching and 50% (31-69) in WT and 71% (54-88) in MT after matching. Median progression-free survival values (95% CI) were 11.1 (5.4-16.7) in WT and 13.8 months (11.1-22.1) in MT prior to matching and 14.3 (11.1-∞]) and 14.8 months (10.7-∞]) in WT and MT matched groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that efficacy outcomes for tazemetostat observed in participants with WT EZH2 R/R FL may have been similar to those in participants with MT had the 2 cohorts been more closely matched.

Real-World Dosing Patterns and Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated With a Liposomal Irinotecan Regimen in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) is a topoisomerase inhibitor proven to improve survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). This study describes real-world characteristics of patients treated with nal-IRI for mPC. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older diagnosed with stage IV mPC and treated with nal-IRI were selected retrospectively from a deidentified electronic health record database of more than 2 million US cancer patients. Demographics, clinical and dosing characteristics, and treatment outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Of 257 total patients, 145 (57%) received nal-IRI as first- or second-line therapy. Median nal-IRI treatment duration was 51 days, longer when nal-IRI was used as first/second versus as third-line therapy or later (62 vs 44.5 days). Seventy patients (27.2%) experienced dose modification. Median time to treatment discontinuation was 2.3 versus 1.6 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Median overall survival from nal-IRI initiation was 5.6 versus 4.1 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Prior irinotecan treatment, baseline serum albumin less than 40 g/L, and baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 5 were associated with reduced overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large US study of real-world US mPC patients treated with nal-IRI. These results, comparable to the NAPOLI-1 trial, can help inform future studies and the efficacy of nal-IRI in mPC therapy.

Quality of life in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin.

BACKGROUND: The NAPOLI-1 study (NCT01494506) reported that liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI+5-FU/LV) improved overall survival vs 5-FU/LV with manageable toxicity in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. Yet, clinicians need treatment strategies that also maintain the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Here, we report the HRQOL data. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL core questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, every 6 weeks, and at 30 days after discontinuation of study treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were scored according to EORTC guidelines. nal-IRI+5-FU/LV HRQOL was compared with 5-FU/LV. The PRO population comprised intent-to-treat patients who completed baseline and at least one subsequent assessment on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Data were also analysed for missingness. RESULTS: Of 236 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 128 (54.2%) comprised the PRO population (71 in the nal-IRI+5-FU/LV arm; 57 the in 5-FU/LV arm). Of the remaining 108 patients (45.8%) not included in the PRO population, most progressed rapidly, making participation difficult. Median change from baseline was ≤10 points at weeks 6 and 12 in global health status or functional and symptom scale scores, except for fatigue, which deteriorated by 11.1 points with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV but did not change vs 5-FU/LV. The proportion of patients whose HRQOL improved or deteriorated was not significantly different between the arms. CONCLUSION: In the NAPOLI-1 study, HRQOL was maintained with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with a gemcitabine-based regimen, while survival was significantly extended.

Survival with nal-IRI (liposomal irinotecan) plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin versus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in per-protocol and non-per-protocol populations of NAPOLI-1: Expanded analysis of a global phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 randomised NAPOLI-1 clinical study, a 45% increase in median overall survival (OS) was shown with liposomal irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI+5-FU/LV) versus 5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer progressing after gemcitabine-based therapy. Here, we report data from a pre-specified, expanded analysis of outcomes in the per-protocol (PP) population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PP population comprised patients receiving ≥80% of planned treatment during the first 6 weeks, with no major protocol violations. A post-hoc analysis of the non-PP population was also performed. RESULTS: For PP patients, median OS was 8.9 (95% confidence interval: 6.4-10.5) months with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n = 66) vs 5.1 (4.0-7.2) months with 5-FU/LV (n = 71; unstratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, p = 0.011). For non-PP patients, it was 4.4 (3.3-5.3) months with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n = 51) vs 2.8 (1.7-3.2) months with 5-FU/LV (n = 48; unstratified HR 0.64, p = 0.0648). CONCLUSION: A statistically significant survival advantage was observed with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV vs 5-FU/LV in the PP patient population.

Androgen Receptor Modulation Optimized for Response (ARMOR) Phase I and II Studies: Galeterone for the Treatment of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Galeterone is a selective, multitargeted agent that inhibits CYP17, antagonizes the androgen receptor (AR), and reduces AR expression in prostate cancer cells by causing an increase in AR protein degradation. These open-label phase I and II studies [Androgen Receptor Modulation Optimized for Response-1 (ARMOR1) and ARMOR2 part 1] evaluated the efficacy and safety of galeterone in patients with treatment-naive nonmetastatic or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and established a dose for further study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In ARMOR1, 49 patients received increasing doses (650-2,600 mg) of galeterone in capsule formulation; 28 patients in ARMOR2 part 1 received increasing doses (1,700-3,400 mg) of galeterone in tablet formulation for 12 weeks. Patients were evaluated biweekly for safety and efficacy, and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed. RESULTS: In ARMOR1, across all doses, 49.0% (24/49) achieved a ≥30% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA; PSA30) and 22.4% (11/49) demonstrated a ≥50% PSA decline (PSA50). In ARMOR2 part 1, across all doses, PSA30 was 64.0% (16/25) and PSA50 was 48.0% (12/25). In the 2,550-mg dose cohort, PSA30 was 72.7% (8/11) and PSA50 was 54.5% (6/11). Galeterone was well tolerated; the most common adverse events were fatigue, increased liver enzymes, gastrointestinal events, and pruritus. Most were mild or moderate in severity and required no action and there were no apparent mineralocorticoid excess (AME) events. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety from ARMOR1 and ARMOR2 part 1 and the pharmacokinetic results support the galeterone tablet dose of 2,550 mg/d for further study. Galeterone was well tolerated and demonstrated pharmacodynamic changes consistent with its selective, multifunctional AR signaling inhibition.