First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

Quality of life with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Patient-reported outcomes from phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3.

BACKGROUND: EMPOWER-Lung 3, a randomized 2:1 phase 3 trial, showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant overall survival improvement with cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks) for the first six doses, and then at start of every three cycles, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Prespecified analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis performed for global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and all scales from the questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients were assigned to receive cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and 154 to receive placebo plus chemotherapy; 391 (83.9%) were male and the median age was 63.0 years (range, 25-84). For pain symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30), a statistically significant overall improvement from baseline (-4.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.36 to -1.60, p = .004) and a statistically significant delay in TTD (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60, p < .0001) favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy were observed. Statistically significant delays in TTD, all favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, were also observed in functioning and symptom scales. A significant overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with nonsignificant overall change from baseline for placebo plus chemotherapy (1.69, 95% CI, 0.20-3.19 vs. 1.08, 95% CI, -1.34 to 3.51; between arms, p = .673). No analyses yielded statistically significant PRO results favoring placebo plus chemotherapy for any QLQ-C30 or QLQ-LC13 scale. CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant overall improvement in pain symptoms and delayed TTD in cancer-related and lung cancer-specific symptoms and functions.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Cixutumumab and temsirolimus for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown synergistic antitumour activity by inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and mTOR. The expression of IGF-1R seems to be crucial for this effect. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of the IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with chemotherapy-refractory bone and soft-tissue sarcomas according to IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study in 19 cancer centres in the USA. Patients aged at least 16 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma were allocated on the basis of IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry to one of three treatment groups: IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma (group A), IGF-1R-positive bone sarcomas (group B), or IGF-1R-negative bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (group C). Patients received weekly treatment with cixutumumab (6 mg/kg, intravenous) and temsirolimus (25 mg, intravenous flat dose) in 6-week cycles. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used for every arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm. Although patients still remain on treatment, this trial has completed enrolment and this represents the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016015. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2009, and April 11, 2012, 388 patients were screened for IGF-1R expression and 54 were assigned to each arm. 17 of 54 patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43), 19 of 54 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51) were progression free at 12 weeks. On April 6, 2011, the protocol was amended to include three additional patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (total of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients). There were 2546 adverse events reported during the study, 214 (8%) of which were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities in the 174 treated patients were anaemia in 16 (9%) patients, hyperglycaemia in 18 (10%), hypophosphataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%). INTERPRETATION: The combination of cixutumumab and temsirolimus shows clinical activity in patients with sarcoma and forms a basis for future trials. However, IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry is not predictive of clinical outcome after treatment with this combination. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and CycleforSurvival Fund, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %: A subgroup analysis from the EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, assessed cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression levels. We report results from subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1 %. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive cemiplimab 350 mg or placebo with chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORRs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 327 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 % (466 in the overall study), 217 received cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 110 received chemotherapy alone. After median follow-up of 28.0 months, median OS for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 23.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 20.9-27.2) vs. 12.1 months (95 % CI: 10.1-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001); median PFS was 8.3 months (95 % CI: 6.7-10.8) versus 5.5 months (95 % CI: 4.3-6.2; HR = 0.48; 95 % CI: 0.37-0.62, P < 0.0001), and ORR was 47.9 % versus 22.7 %, respectively. PRO results favored cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. Improved efficacy over chemotherapy alone was observed in both squamous and non-squamous histology. Safety was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis from EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %.

Cemiplimab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 Part 2 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, investigated cemiplimab (antiprogrammed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, with either squamous or nonsquamous histology, irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 levels. At primary analysis, after 16.4 months of follow-up, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy improved median overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone (21.9 versus 13.0 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014). Here, we report protocol-specified final OS and 2-year follow-up results. METHODS: Patients (N = 466) were randomized 2:1 to receive histology-specific platinum-doublet chemotherapy, with 350 mg cemiplimab (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival and objective response rates. RESULTS: After 28.4 months of median follow-up, median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI: 15.9-23.5) for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.6-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p = 0.0003); median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.4-9.0) versus 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.2) (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.68, p < 0.0001), and objective response rates were 43.6% versus 22.1%, respectively. Safety was generally consistent with previously reported data. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 48.7% with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 32.7% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: At protocol-specified final OS analysis with 28.4 months of follow-up, the EMPOWER-Lung 3 study continued to reveal benefit of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC, across programmed death-ligand 1 levels.

Machine learning models for identifying predictors of clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without actionable oncogenic driver mutations. While clinical trials demonstrated benefits of ICIs over chemotherapy, variation in outcomes across patients has been observed and trial populations may not be representative of clinical practice. Predictive models can help understand heterogeneity of treatment effects, identify predictors of meaningful clinical outcomes, and may inform treatment decisions. We applied machine learning (ML)-based survival models to a real-world cohort of patients with aNSCLC who received 1L ICI therapy extracted from a US-based electronic health record database. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including concordance index (c-index), and we used explainability techniques to identify significant predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ML model achieved c-indices of 0.672 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences between low- and high-risk groups for OS and PFS (both log-rank test p < 0.0001). Identified predictors were mostly consistent with the published literature and/or clinical expectations and largely overlapped for OS and PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression levels, and serum albumin were among the top 5 predictors for both outcomes. Prospective and independent data set evaluation is required to confirm these results.

Network meta-analysis of immune-oncology monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with PD-L1 expression ⩾50.

Background: For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published in November 2010-2020. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50-0.86), 1-12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04-2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54-1.10), 1-12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83-2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33-7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58-2.61)]. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.

Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High PD-L1 Expression Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Therapy.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health aNSCLC database (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021) among patients with PD-L1 ≥50% initiating first-line ICIs with or without chemotherapy. A clinical trial-like sub-cohort was also identified with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no brain metastases or other primary cancers. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) by ICI regimen (ICI+chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy) and PD-L1 expression (50-69%, 70-89%, 90-100%). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between ICI regimen, PD-L1 level, and OS, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 2631 patients with aNSCLC initiating ICI+chemotherapy (n = 992) or ICI monotherapy (n = 1639) were included; median (Q1, Q3) age was 71 (63-78) years and 51.6% were male. The trial-like sub-cohort (n = 1029) generally had better outcomes vs. the overall cohort. Patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy generally had longer median OS vs. ICI monotherapy. Multivariable analyses showed no association between ICI regimen and OS among patients with PD-L1 70-89% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.09) or 90-100% (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08), but patients with PD-L1 50-69% receiving ICI+chemotherapy had longer OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99). Conclusion: Outcomes in real-world clinical trial-like patients with aNSCLC approached those reported in pivotal ICI trials in high PD-L1 expressers. ICI monotherapy offers a potential alternative in patients with PD-L1 ≥70% while avoiding potential chemotherapy toxicity exposure; the benefits are less clear in patients with PD-L1 50-69%. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring). Results: In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial.

First-line cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)) monotherapy has previously shown significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. EMPOWER-Lung 3 ( NCT03409614 ), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, examined cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for aNSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression or histology. In this study, 466 patients with stage III/IV aNSCLC without EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genomic tumor aberrations were randomized (2:1) to receive cemiplimab 350 mg (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks in combination with four cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (followed by pemetrexed maintenance as indicated). In total, 57.1% (266/466 patients) had non-squamous NSCLC, and 85.2% (397/466 patients) had stage IV disease. The primary endpoint was OS. The trial was stopped early per recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee, based on meeting preset OS efficacy criteria: median OS was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 15.5-not evaluable) with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 13.0 months (95% CI, 11.9-16.1) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93; P = 0.014). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (43.6%, 136/312 patients) and placebo plus chemotherapy (31.4%, 48/153 patients). Cemiplimab is only the second anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent to show efficacy in aNSCLC as both monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for both squamous and non-squamous histologies.

Dose exploration results from Phase 1 study of cemiplimab, a human monoclonal programmed death (PD)-1 antibody, in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Part 1 of this two-part, open-label, Phase 1 study (NCT03233139) assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and clinical activity of cemiplimab in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies. METHODS: Patients received cemiplimab 250 mg (n = 6) or 350 mg (n = 7) every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 108 weeks in Part 1. Tumor responses were assessed by investigators every 9 weeks using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Of 13 patients enrolled, median age was 62 years (range 33-75) and eight patients were female. Median duration of cemiplimab exposure was 13.1 weeks (range 3.0‒113.6). At the time of data cut-off, 11 patients (84.6%) had discontinued treatment (majority due to disease progression: n = 8, 61.5%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were contact dermatitis, rash, and viral upper respiratory tract infection (each n = 3, 23.1%). Five grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in four patients: autoimmune colitis, dehydration, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, and muscular weakness. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported and no TEAEs led to death. Cemiplimab concentrations in serum were consistent with previously reported pharmacokinetic characteristics of cemiplimab. No anti-drug antibodies were detected in serum. Objective response rate [ORR; complete response + partial response (PR)] was 30.8% (four PR) and disease control rate [ORR + stable disease (SD)] was 46.2% (6/13; two SD). CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab exhibited antitumor activity in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies. The safety profile was comparable to those previously reported for cemiplimab and other PD-1 inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03233139 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Tolerability and antitumor activity of cemiplimab, a human monoclonal anti-PD-1, as monotherapy in patients with pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Data from the Phase 1 NSCLC expansion cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Blockade of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) has transformed the treatment of NSCLC. In a first-in-human, Phase 1, dose escalation and cohort expansion study, cemiplimab, a monoclonal antibody directed against PD-1, was evaluated for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT02383212). Here, we report results in patients with advanced NSCLC from the dose expansion cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immune-checkpoint inhibitor naive patients with advanced NSCLC (stage III/IV), irrespective of PD-L1 status, who had progressed after, or were refractory to first- or later-line therapy were enrolled and received cemiplimab 200 mg every 2 weeks intravenously for up to 48 weeks. Primary study objectives were to assess safety and tolerability, and to evaluate clinical activity of cemiplimab. RESULTS: Twenty patients with NSCLC were enrolled. Median age was 64.0 years (range: 50-82); 65.0 % were male; 80.0 % had an ECOG performance status of 1; 60.0 % had a histology of adenocarcinoma. Median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 2 (range: 1-4). Median duration of follow-up was 7.0 months (range: 1.0-18.2). All patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of any grade. Most common TEAEs were arthralgia, asthenia, cough, and dyspnea (each 4/20; 20.0 %). Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 60.0 % (12/20) of patients. Of patients with measurable disease per independent central review (ICR), five had partial response (PR), four had stable disease (SD) and 10 had progressive disease. Objective response rate (ORR; complete response + PR) was 25.0 % (95 % CI: 8.7-49.1 %). Duration of response exceeded 8 months in four of the five responding patients at the time of data cut-off (April 30, 2019). The disease control rate per ICR (ORR + SD) was 50.0 % (95 % CI: 27.2-72.8 %). CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab showed an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated antitumor activity in pretreated patients with NSCLC.

Variates of survival in metastatic uveal melanoma.

PURPOSE: The course and outcome of metastatic uveal melanoma are not well described. We evaluated the survival of our patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, described factors that correlated with survival, and evaluated the influence of screening tests on time of detection and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with metastatic uveal melanoma seen at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between 1994 and 2004 were identified from our database. We recorded date of initial diagnosis, date of metastatic disease, date of last follow-up, site of the first metastasis, how the first metastasis was discovered, treatment, and outcome of therapy. RESULTS: The estimated median survival of the 119 patients analyzed was 12.5 months; 22% of patients were alive at 4 years. Five variates correlated independently with prolonged survival: Lung/soft tissue as only site of first metastasis, treatment with surgery or intrahepatic therapy, female sex, age younger than 60, and a longer interval from initial diagnosis to metastatic disease. Discovering metastatic disease in asymptomatic patients did not correlate with overall survival; 89% of patients had a single organ as the site of first metastasis. Although liver was the most common site, 39.5% of patients had nonliver sites, most commonly lung, as the first site of metastasis. CONCLUSION: A substantial subset of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma survive more than 4 years with metastatic disease. Data on variates of survival and site of first metastasis may guide strategies for screening patients, although our data failed to show a survival advantage in discovering asymptomatic metastatic disease.

Immunotherapy of melanoma.

Melanoma has been widely studied as a target for immunotherapy because it has been considered more susceptible to immune attack than other tumors and because of the relative ease with which melanoma cells can be adapted to in vitro culture. The availability of hundreds of melanoma cell lines for study has led to the identification of tumor antigens and the development of monoclonal antibodies and T cells against these antigens, revolutionizing the understanding of how the immune system sees and reacts to cancer. This article reviews the recent clinical results of trials exploring different immunotherapy strategies against melanoma.

Body-composition measurements as predictors of glucose and insulin abnormalities in HIV-positive men.

BACKGROUND: Fat redistribution and metabolic abnormalities are seen increasingly in HIV-positive patients. However, the degree to which abnormalities in fat distribution predict glucose and insulin concentrations in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We determined how well measurements of fat distribution derived from anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and computed tomography predicted hyperinsulinemia in HIV-positive men. DESIGN: Body-composition data were analyzed in 41 HIV-positive men (21 with fat redistribution and 20 without) and 20 HIV-negative control subjects matched for age and body mass index (BMI). Multivariate modeling was performed to determine the effects of body composition on fasting insulin and insulin area under the curve (AUC) during standard glucose tolerance testing. RESULTS: WHR was superior to other body-composition measures in predicting fasting hyperinsulinemia and was a strong predictor of insulin AUC in HIV-positive men. Fasting insulin increased by 77.4 pmol/L for each 0.1-unit change in WHR (95% CI: 18.6, 136.1; P = 0.011), overall r(2) = 0.415 in a model also including age, BMI, and protease inhibitor use. Measures of intraabdominal and subcutaneous fat did not predict fasting hyperinsulinemia but were independent predictors of insulin AUC in multivariate modeling. The ratio of visceral to subcutaneous abdominal fat predicted the largest degree of variance in insulin AUC. CONCLUSIONS: Fat redistribution contributes to hyperinsulinemia in HIV-positive men, independent of BMI and protease inhibitor use. WHR is an integrated index of body-composition changes and strongly predicts both fasting hyperinsulinemia and insulin AUC in HIV-positive men.

Phase II study of extended-dose temozolomide in patients with melanoma.

PURPOSE: We conducted a phase II trial of extended-dose temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with melanoma to test the hypothesis that the approximately 30% response rate observed in patients treated with extended-dose TMZ with antiangiogenic agents was caused by TMZ alone. We hypothesized that expression of methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) in the tumor would correlate with drug resistance to TMZ. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma were treated with TMZ 75 mg/m(2)/d for 6 weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. Cycles were repeated until progression. Patients were stratified by M1c disease or not. The primary end point was objective response proportion. MGMT expression was assessed by methylation-specific pyrosequencing of the promoter and by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (25 with M1c disease) were assessable. Three patients (12.5%) in each cohort experienced partial responses; there were no complete responses. Ten patients (21%) had stable disease lasting more than 24 weeks. Median time to progression was 3.3 months. Median survival was 10.1 months; survival was similar in the two cohorts. The estimated 18-month survival was 27%. There was no correlation between response and either immunohistochemistry staining for MGMT or for MGMT promoter methylation. Seventy-five percent of patients developed CD4(+) lymphopenia after three cycles. CONCLUSION: Extended-dose TMZ therapy did not result in a 30% responses rate, which has been observed using extended-dose TMZ with antiangiogenic agents. Response did not correlate with MGMT expression or promoter methylation as a continuous variable, suggesting that other resistance mechanisms are important.