Summary of quality of life in the ASCENT phase 3 clinical trial for people with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: A medicine called sacituzumab govitecan (brand name TRODELVY®) has been proven to be an effective treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC for short). Metastatic breast cancer is cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. In mTNBC, the breast cancer cells do not have 3 common proteins on the cell surface, called receptors. mTNBC is more difficult to treat and more likely to come back than other types of breast cancer. The ASCENT study showed that participants with mTNBC treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer than those treated with standard chemotherapy. Here, we summarize the quality of life of participants with mTNBC in the ASCENT study. We compared quality of life between 236 participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan and 183 participants treated with standard chemotherapy. All participants previously received 2 or more chemotherapies that no longer controlled their cancer. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: This analysis showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had better overall quality of life than participants treated with standard chemotherapy. They also had better "physical functioning", which is the ability to walk and do physical activities. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their overall quality of life for a longer time than those treated with standard chemotherapy. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had less pain and were less tired than those treated with standard chemotherapy. On the other hand, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had worse diarrhea (loose or watery stools) and were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (feel sick or throw up) than participants treated with standard chemotherapy. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer. Participants also had a better overall quality of life, which was maintained (did not get worse) for a longer time. However, they experienced worsening of diarrhea and/or nausea/vomiting.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02574455 (ASCENT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Analysis of patients without and with an initial triple-negative breast cancer diagnosis in the phase 3 randomized ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38 via a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. In the ASCENT study, SG improved survival versus single-agent treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in pre-treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Hormone/HER2 receptor changes are common, particularly at relapse/metastasis. This subanalysis assessed outcomes in patients who did/did not have TNBC at initial diagnosis, before enrollment. METHODS: TNBC diagnosis was only required at study entry. Patients with mTNBC refractory/relapsing after ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in patients without brain metastases. RESULTS: Overall, 70/235 (30%) and 76/233 (33%) patients who received SG and TPC, respectively, did not have TNBC at initial diagnosis. Clinical benefit with SG versus TPC was observed in this subset. Median PFS was 4.6 versus 2.3 months (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.72), median overall survival was 12.4 versus 6.7 months (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.30-0.64), and objective response rate (ORR) was 31% versus 4%; those who also received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors had ORRs of 21% versus 5%. Efficacy and safety for patients with TNBC at initial diagnosis were generally similar to those who did not present with TNBC at initial diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Patients without TNBC at initial diagnosis had improved clinical outcomes and a manageable safety profile with SG, supporting SG as a treatment option for mTNBC regardless of subtype at initial diagnosis. Subtype reassessment in advanced breast cancer allows for optimal treatment. Clinical trial registration number NCT02574455, registered October 12, 2015.

A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First-Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Other Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody with affinity for Trop-2 coupled to SN-38 via hydrolyzable linker. SG is approved for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received two or more prior chemotherapies (at least one in a metastatic setting) and for patients with pretreated hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In these analyses, the pharmacokinetics of SG, free SN-38, and total antibody (tAB) were characterized using data from 529 patients with mTNBC or other solid tumors across two large clinical trials (NCT01631552; ASCENT, NCT02574455). Three population pharmacokinetic models were constructed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling; clinically relevant covariates were evaluated to assess their impact on exposure. Models for SG and tAB were developed independently whereas free SN-38 was sequentially generated via a first-order release process from SG. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetics of the three analytes were each described by a two-compartment model with estimated body weight-based scaling exponents for clearance and volume. Typical parameter estimates for clearance and steady-state volume of distribution were 0.133 L/h and 3.68 L for SG and 0.0164 L/h and 4.26 L for tAB, respectively. Mild-to-moderate renal impairment, mild hepatic impairment, age, sex, baseline albumin level, tumor type, UGT1A1 genotype, or Trop-2 expression did not have a clinically relevant impact on exposure for any of the three analytes. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support the approved SG dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg as intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles and did not identify a need for dose adjustment based on evaluated covariates or disease characteristics.

Subgroup analyses from the phase 3 ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

In this post hoc analysis of the ASCENT study, we compared outcomes with sacituzumab govitecan (SG) vs single-agent chemotherapy in clinically important subgroups of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Patients with mTNBC refractory to/relapsing after ≥2 prior chemotherapies (≥1 in the metastatic setting) were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or treatment of physician's choice (TPC) until unacceptable toxicity/progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 by central review in patients without brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases were allowed if metastases were stable ≥4 weeks. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 19% of patients were age ≥65 years; 12% were Black, and 12% had brain metastases. SG improved PFS and overall survival (OS), respectively, vs TPC in patients age ≥65 years (7.1 vs 2.4 months and 14.7 vs 8.9 months), or of Black race (5.4 vs 2.2 months and 13.8 vs 8.5 months), consistent with outcomes in the ITT population. Patients with brain metastases had numerically higher median PFS with SG vs TPC, but median OS was similar between treatment groups. SG was well tolerated and had a manageable safety profile consistent with the full safety population across all subgroups; neutropenia and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. These findings confirm the meaningful clinical benefit of SG vs standard chemotherapy in patient subgroups with high unmet needs. SG should be considered an effective and safe treatment option for patients with mTNBC eligible for second-line or later therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT02574455.

Final Results From the Randomized Phase III ASCENT Clinical Trial in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Association of Outcomes by Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 and Trophoblast Cell Surface Antigen 2 Expression.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), a first-in-class anti-trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated superior efficacy over single-agent chemotherapy (treatment of physician's choice [TPC]) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the international, multicenter, phase III ASCENT study.Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until unacceptable toxicity/progression. Final efficacy secondary end point analyses and post hoc analyses of outcomes stratified by Trop-2 expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status are reported. Updated safety analyses are provided.In this final analysis, SG (n = 267) improved median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.8 v 1.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.52]) and median overall survival (OS; 11.8 v 6.9 months; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.63]) over TPC (n = 262). SG improved PFS over TPC in each Trop-2 expression quartile (n = 168); a trend was observed for improved OS across quartiles. Overall, SG had a manageable safety profile, with ≤5% of treatment-related discontinuations because of adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. The safety profile was consistent across all subgroups.These data confirm the clinical benefit of SG over chemotherapy, reinforcing SG as an effective treatment option in patients with mTNBC in the second line or later.

Health-related quality of life in the phase III ASCENT trial of sacituzumab govitecan versus standard chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) prolongs progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with refractory/relapsed metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Here, we investigated its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: This analysis was based on the open-label phase III ASCENT trial (NCT02574455). Adults with refractory/relapsed mTNBC who had received ≥2 prior systemic therapies (≥1 in the metastatic setting) were randomised 1:1 to SG or treatment of physician's choice (TPC; capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). HRQoL was assessed on day 1 of each treatment cycle using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Score changes from baseline were analysed using linear mixed-effect models for repeated measures. Stratified Cox regressions evaluated time to first clinically meaningful change of HRQoL. RESULTS: The analysis population comprised 236 patients randomised to SG and 183 to TPC. For global health status (GHS)/QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, and pain, changes from baseline were superior for SG versus TPC. Compared with TPC, SG was inferior regarding changes from baseline for nausea/vomiting and diarrhoea but non-inferior for other QLQ-C30 domains. Median time to first clinically meaningful worsening was longer for SG than for TPC for physical functioning (22.1 versus 12.1 weeks, P < 0.001), role functioning (11.4 versus 7.1 weeks, P < 0.001), fatigue (7.7 versus 6.0 weeks, P < 0.05), and pain (21.6 versus 9.9 weeks, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SG was generally associated with greater improvements and delayed worsening of HRQoL scores compared with TPC. This supports the favourable profile of SG as an mTNBC treatment.

Sacituzumab govitecan as second-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer-phase 3 ASCENT study subanalysis.

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who relapse early after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy have more aggressive disease. In the ASCENT trial, sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38 via a hydrolyzable linker, improved outcomes over single-agent chemotherapy of physician's choice (TPC) in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). Of 468 patients without known baseline brain metastases, 33/235 vs 32/233 patients (both 14%) in the SG vs TPC arms, respectively, received one line of therapy in the metastatic setting and experienced disease recurrence ≤12 months after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. SG prolonged progression-free survival (median 5.7 vs 1.5 months [HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76]) and overall survival (median 10.9 vs 4.9 months [HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91]) vs TPC, with a manageable safety profile in this subgroup consistent with the overall population. In this second-line setting, as with later-line therapy, SG improved survival over conventional chemotherapy for patients with mTNBC.

Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for atezolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 B-F1RST trial.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown promise in predicting benefit from PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors in retrospective studies. Aiming to assess blood TMB (bTMB) prospectively, we conducted B-F1RST ( NCT02848651 ), an open-label, phase 2 trial that evaluated bTMB as a predictive biomarker for first-line atezolizumab monotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic stage IIIB-IVB non-small cell lung cancer (n = 152). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) between high and low bTMB subgroups at the pre-defined bTMB ≥ 16 (14.5 mutations per megabase) cutoff. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS) and duration of response at various bTMB cutoffs, as well as safety. Investigator-assessed PFS in the bTMB ≥ 16 versus bTMB < 16 groups was not statistically significant. However, bTMB ≥ 16 was associated with higher ORR, and ORR improved as bTMB cutoffs increased. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, patients with maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) < 1% had higher ORR than patients with MSAF ≥ 1%. However, further analysis showed that this effect was driven by better baseline prognostics rather than by MSAF itself. At 36.5-month follow-up, an exploratory analysis of OS found that bTMB ≥ 16 was associated with longer OS than bTMB < 16. Further study and assay optimization will be required to develop bTMB as a predictive, standalone biomarker of immunotherapy or for use in conjunction with other biomarkers.

Updated Overall Survival Analysis From IMpower110: Atezolizumab Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Treatment-Naive Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Selected NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: IMpower110 previously revealed significant overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with treatment-naive EGFR- and ALK-negative (wild type [WT]) metastatic NSCLC with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥50% on tumor cells [TCs] or ≥10% on tumor-infiltrating immune cells [ICs], per SP142 immunohistochemistry assay; p = 0.0106). We present primary OS analyses in lower PD-L1 expression groups and an updated, exploratory analysis in the high PD-L1 expression group. METHODS: This open-label, phase 3 trial randomized patients with PD-L1 expression on greater than or equal to 1% of TC or IC to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was OS, hierarchically tested in PD-L1 expression WT subgroups: first the high PD-L1 expression subgroup, then the high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥5% on TC or IC), and then the any PD-L1 expression subgroup (≥1% on TC or IC). RESULTS: The any PD-L1 expression WT population included 554 patients (excluded 18 EGFR- or ALK-positive patients). With 17 months' additional follow-up, OS improvement in the atezolizumab versus chemotherapy arm was not statistically significant in high-or-intermediate PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 328; hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.14, p = 0.3091; median = 19.9 versus 16.1 mo), precluding formal OS testing in any PD-L1 expression WT patients. Exploratory analysis in high PD-L1 expression WT patients (n = 205) revealed maintained OS benefit in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.09; median = 20.2 versus 14.7 mo). Updated safety data continued to favor atezolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical significance for OS was not revealed in the high-or-intermediate expression WT group, and, as a result, OS in the any PD-L1 expression WT group was not formally tested. No new safety signals were found. This updated analysis of IMpower110 supports using atezolizumab in treatment-naive, metastatic WT NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression.

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

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

Updated Overall Survival and PD-L1 Subgroup Analysis of Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide (IMpower133).

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Discovery and Therapeutic Exploitation of Mechanisms of Resistance to MET Inhibitors in Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and most lethal primary malignant brain tumor. The receptor tyrosine kinase MET is frequently upregulated or overactivated in GBM. Although clinically applicable MET inhibitors have been developed, resistance to single modality anti-MET drugs frequently occurs, rendering these agents ineffective. We aimed to determine the mechanisms of MET inhibitor resistance in GBM and use the acquired information to develop novel therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance.Experimental Design: We investigated two clinically applicable MET inhibitors: crizotinib, an ATP-competitive small molecule inhibitor of MET, and onartuzumab, a monovalent monoclonal antibody that binds to the extracellular domain of the MET receptor. We developed new MET inhibitor-resistant cells lines and animal models and used reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA) and functional assays to uncover the compensatory pathways in MET inhibitor-resistant GBM. RESULTS: We identified critical proteins that were altered in MET inhibitor-resistant GBM including mTOR, FGFR1, EGFR, STAT3, and COX-2. Simultaneous inhibition of MET and one of these upregulated proteins led to increased cell death and inhibition of cell proliferation in resistant cells compared with either agent alone. In addition, in vivo treatment of mice bearing MET-resistant orthotopic xenografts with COX-2 or FGFR pharmacological inhibitors in combination with MET inhibitor restored sensitivity to MET inhibition and significantly inhibited tumor growth. CONCLUSIONS: These data uncover the molecular basis of adaptive resistance to MET inhibitors and identify new FDA-approved multidrug therapeutic combinations that can overcome resistance.

Results of the phase I dose-escalating study of motexafin gadolinium with standard radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.

PURPOSE: Motexafin gadolinium (MGd) is a putative radiation enhancer initially evaluated in patients with brain metastases. This Phase I trial studied the safety and tolerability of a 2-6-week course (10-22 doses) of MGd with radiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 33 glioblastoma multiforme patients received one of seven MGd regimens starting at 10 doses of 4 mg/kg/d MGd and escalating to 22 doses of 5.3 mg/kg/d MGd (5 or 10 daily doses then three times per week). The National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program toxicity and stopping rules were applied. RESULTS: The maximal tolerated dose was 5.0 mg/kg/d MGd (5 d/wk for 2 weeks, then three times per week) for 22 doses. The dose-limiting toxicity was reversible transaminase elevation. Adverse reactions included rash/pruritus (45%), chills/fever (30%), and self-limiting vesiculobullous rash of the thumb and fingers (42%). The median survival of 17.6 months prompted a case-matched analysis. In the case-matched analysis, the MGd patients had a median survival of 16.1 months (n = 31) compared with the matched Radiation Therapy Oncology Group database patients with a median survival of 11.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.94). CONCLUSION: The maximal tolerated dose of MGd with radiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme in this study was 5 mg/kg/d for 22 doses (daily for 2 weeks, then three times weekly). The baseline survival calculations suggest progression to Phase II trials is appropriate, with the addition of MGd to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide.

Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung.

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Efficacy and Safety Results From a Phase II, Placebo-Controlled Study of Onartuzumab Plus First-Line Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy for Advanced Squamous Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment options for squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in previously untreated advanced squamous cell NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were randomized to receive onartuzumab plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin/cisplatin (n = 55) or placebo plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin/cisplatin (n = 54). Randomization was stratified by MET diagnostic status: MET immunohistochemistry (IHC)-positive (MET IHC 3+/2+) or MET IHC-negative (MET IHC 1+/0). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat and the MET IHC+ populations. RESULTS: The risk of disease progression or death was similar between the 2 treatment arms in both the intent-to-treat (stratified hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.43) and MET IHC+ populations (unstratified hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.32). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival and the objective response rate. In all safety-evaluable patients, the grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurring at a > 5% greater incidence in the onartuzumab-containing versus the placebo-containing arm were neutropenia (14.8% vs. 5.8%) and pulmonary embolism (5.6% vs. 0%). Eight patients died as a result of adverse events: 1 case each of pneumonitis, pneumonia, cardiac failure, and unexplained death in the onartuzumab arm and 1 case each of hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, hemoptysis, and febrile neutropenia in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: Studies using alternative assays of MET activation might help to clarify the role of onartuzumab. However, with the lack of clinical activity seen in the present study, the development of onartuzumab for squamous cell NSCLC will not be pursued further.

Effect of Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Onartuzumab in HER2-Negative, MET-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The METGastric Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Dysregulation of the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling pathway is associated with poor prognosis in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEC). We report results of METGastric, a phase 3 trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab plus standard first-line chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, MET-positive, advanced GEC. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of onartuzumab to first-line fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) improves efficacy compared with mFOLFOX6 plus placebo in HER2-negative, MET-positive GEC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial conducted from November 2012 to March 2014. Patients were 18 years or older with an adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction with metastatic disease not amenable for curative therapy. Tumor samples were centrally tested for MET expression using Ventana anti-Total c-MET (SP44) rabbit monoclonal antibody, HER2 status, and Lauren histologic subtype. MET-positive tumors were defined as at least 50% of tumor cells showing weak, moderate, and/or strong staining intensity (MET 1+/2+/3+, respectively) by immunohistochemistry. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with HER2-negative, MET-positive GEC were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive mFOLFOX6 with or without onartuzumab (10 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Co-primary end points: overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with MET 2+/3+ GEC. Secondary end points: progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early due to sponsor decision, which was agreed with an independent data monitoring committee. At the data cutoff (April 25, 2014) there were 562 patients in the ITT population (n = 283 placebo plus mFOLFOX6 [median age, 58 y; 65% male]; n = 279 onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 [median age, 60 y; 67% male]); 109 (38.5%) and 105 (37.6%) of the ITT population were MET 2+/3+, respectively. Addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX6 did not significantly improve OS, PFS, or ORR vs placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in the ITT (OS hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.15; P = .24; PFS HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16; P = .43; ORR, 46.1% vs 40.6%) or MET 2+/3+ populations (OS HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.03; P = .06; PFS HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.15; P = .22; ORR, 53.8% vs 44.6%). Safety was as expected for onartuzumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Addition of onartuzumab to first-line mFOLFOX6 did not significantly improve clinical benefits in the ITT or MET 2+/3+ populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01662869.

Efficacy and Safety of Onartuzumab in Combination With First-Line Bevacizumab- or Pemetrexed-Based Chemotherapy Regimens in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Onartuzumab is a monovalent monoclonal antibody that binds with the extracellular domain of the MET receptor. Given the role of MET in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we investigated whether onartuzumab added to first-line chemotherapy efficacy in non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC, stratified by MET diagnostic status, were randomized to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo in combination with either paclitaxel/platinum/bevacizumab (bevacizumab cohort), or in combination with platinum/pemetrexed (pemetrexed cohort) with maintenance bevacizumab or pemetrexed and onartuzumab/placebo as appropriate. Co-primary endpoints of this phase II study were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in MET+ patients (2+/3+), defined by the Ventana immunohistochemistry assay; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Efficacy data were available for 139 and 120 patients in the bevacizumab and pemetrexed cohorts, respectively. No benefit was seen in the PFS endpoint in the intent-to treat population of either cohort, but was numerically worse in the onartuzumab arm of the MET+ subgroup of the bevacizumab cohort. The onartuzumab and placebo arms had similar ORR and OS results in both cohorts. A higher incidence of some adverse events was observed with onartuzumab versus placebo, including peripheral edema (30% vs. 3%, bevacizumab cohort; 48% vs. 14%, pemetrexed cohort) and venous thromboembolic events (bevacizumab cohort only, 15% vs. 6%). CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab does not appear to provide any additional clinical benefit when given in combination with current first-line standard-of-care chemotherapy for non-squamous NSCLC.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase II Study of Onartuzumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Placebo Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: Efficacy, Safety, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor and O6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase Biomarker Analyses.

Purpose Bevacizumab regimens are approved for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma in many countries. Aberrant mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) expression has been reported in glioblastoma and may contribute to bevacizumab resistance. The phase II study GO27819 investigated the monovalent MET inhibitor onartuzumab plus bevacizumab (Ona + Bev) versus placebo plus bevacizumab (Pla + Bev) in recurrent glioblastoma. Methods At first recurrence after chemoradiation, bevacizumab-naïve patients with glioblastoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive Ona (15 mg/kg, once every 3 weeks) + Bev (15 mg/kg, once every 3 weeks) or Pla + Bev until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival by response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria. Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. Exploratory biomarker analyses correlated efficacy with expression levels of MET ligand hepatocyte growth factor, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation, and glioblastoma subtype. Results Among 129 patients enrolled (Ona + Bev, n = 64; Pla + Bev, n = 65), baseline characteristics were balanced. The median progression-free survival was 3.9 months for Ona + Bev versus 2.9 months for Pla + Bev (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.56; P = .7444). The median overall survival was 8.8 months for Ona + Bev and 12.6 months for Pla + Bev (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.37; P = .1389). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 38.5% of patients who received Ona + Bev and 35.9% of patients who received Pla + Bev. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggested that patients with high expression of hepatocyte growth factor or unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase may benefit from Ona + Bev. Conclusion There was no evidence of further clinical benefit with the addition of onartuzumab to bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab plus placebo in unselected patients with recurrent glioblastoma in this phase II study; however, further investigation into biomarker subgroups is warranted.