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.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Without Actionable Genomic Alterations Previously Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, timely molecular testing is essential to determine the appropriate course of therapy. Initial treatment with platinum chemotherapy and/or an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) is the standard of care for patients without actionable genomic alterations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, no actionable genomic alterations, and with prior ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy in a community oncology setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined electronic health records from adult patients with an initial metastatic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis without actionable genomic alterations from 2017 to 2019. Patients had received a subsequent line of therapy (LOT) [index] after discontinuing platinum-based chemotherapy plus an ICI in the previous one or two LOTs. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were analyzed descriptively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Among the study population (n = 961), the most common index LOT regimens were non-platinum-based chemotherapies (57.3%), platinum-based chemotherapies (12.9%), ICI-based chemotherapies (12.7%), platinum + ICI-based chemotherapies (9.4%), and other (7.7%). The most common post-index LOT regimens were non-platinum based (61.2%), ICI based (15.3%), platinum based (10.7%), platinum + ICI based (3.2%), and other (2.5%). Median time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and overall survival were numerically longest with index LOT ICI-based regimens (6.5, 9.9, and 18.9 months, respectively) and shortest with platinum-based regimens (2.8, 5.3, and 8.0 months, respectively) and non-platinum-based regimens (2.6, 5.0, and 7.8 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations previously treated with platinum + ICIs, non-platinum chemotherapy agents were most commonly prescribed in the index LOT. Clinical outcomes including time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and overall survival were short, highlighting the unmet need for more effective later-line treatments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Randomized phase II trial of Onartuzumab in combination with erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with poor prognosis and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -targeted drugs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether dual inhibition of MET/EGFR results in clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent NSCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive onartuzumab plus erlotinib or placebo plus erlotinib; crossover was allowed at progression. Tumor tissue was required to assess MET status by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive (MET IHC diagnostic positive) populations; additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: There was no improvement in PFS or OS in the ITT population (n = 137; PFS hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; P = .69; OS HR, 0.80; P = .34). MET-positive patients (n = 66) treated with erlotinib plus onartuzumab showed improvement in both PFS (HR, .53; P = .04) and OS (HR, .37; P = .002). Conversely, clinical outcomes were worse in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab plus erlotinib (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.82; P = .05; OS HR, 1.78; P = .16). MET-positive control patients had worse outcomes versus MET-negative control patients (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.71; P = .06; OS HR, 2.61; P = .004). Incidence of peripheral edema was increased in onartuzumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab plus erlotinib was associated with improved PFS and OS in the MET-positive population. These results combined with the worse outcomes observed in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab highlight the importance of diagnostic testing in drug development.