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

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

Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR.

Daratumumab, a CD38 human monoclonal antibody, demonstrated significant clinical activity in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in the primary analysis of CASTOR, a phase 3 study in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. A post hoc analysis based on treatment history and longer follow up is presented. After 19.4 (range: 0-27.7) months of median follow up, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival (median: 16.7 versus 7.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.39; P<0.0001) and improved the overall response rate (83.8% versus 63.2%; P<0.0001) compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. The progression-free survival benefit of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was most apparent in patients with 1 prior line of therapy (median: not reached versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% con fidence interval, 0.12-0.29; P<0.0001). Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was also superior to bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in subgroups based on prior treatment exposure (bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide), lenalidomide-refractory status, time since last therapy (≤12, >12, ≤6, or >6 months), or cytogenetic risk. Minimal residual disease-negative rates were >2.5-fold higher with daratumumab across subgroups. The safety profile of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone remained consistent with longer follow up. Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone demonstrated significant clinical activity across clinically relevant subgroups and provided the greatest benefit to patients treated at first relapse. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02136134.

Symptomatic Pneumonitis With Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC.

Introduction: In the placebo-controlled, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.00251) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (PRP) was common in both arms. We report exploratory analyses evaluating the association of symptomatic (grade ≥2) PRP (G2+PRP) with baseline factors and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized (2:1) to 12 months of durvalumab or placebo, 1 to 42 days after cCRT. Associations between baseline factors and on-study G2+PRP in durvalumab-treated patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time-dependent G2+PRP plus covariates for randomization stratification factors without and with additional baseline factors. Results: On-study G2+PRP occurred in 94 of 475 (19.8%) and 33 of 234 patients (14.1%) on durvalumab and placebo, respectively (median follow-up, 25.2 mo); grade greater than or equal to 3 PRP was uncommon (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). Time to onset and resolution of G2+PRP was similar with durvalumab and placebo. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified patients treated in Asia, those with stage IIIA disease, those with performance status of 1, and those who had not received induction chemotherapy as having a higher risk of G2+PRP. PFS and OS benefit favoring durvalumab versus placebo was maintained regardless of time-dependent G2+PRP. Conclusions: Factors associated with higher risk of G2+PRP with durvalumab after cCRT were identified. Clinical benefit was maintained regardless of on-study G2+PRP, suggesting the risk of this event should not deter the use of durvalumab in eligible patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Brief Report: Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis From PACIFIC.

INTRODUCTION: Consolidation durvalumab (the "PACIFIC regimen") is standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC who have not progressed after chemoradiotherapy, on the basis of data from the phase 3 placebo-controlled PACIFIC study (NCT02125461). Nevertheless, the benefit of immunotherapy in patients with stage III EGFR-mutant (EGFRm) NSCLC is not well characterized. Here, we report a post hoc exploratory efficacy and safety analysis from a subgroup of patients with EGFRm NSCLC from the PACIFIC. METHODS: Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC and no progression after more than or equal to two cycles of platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy were randomized (2:1) to receive durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks [wk], for up to 1 y) or placebo; stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Enrollment was not restricted by oncogenic driver gene mutation status or programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Patients with NSCLC with an EGFR mutation, determined by local testing only, were included in this subgroup analysis. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate and safety. Statistical analyses for the subgroup of patients with EGFRm NSCLC were post hoc and considered exploratory. RESULTS: Of 713 patients randomized, 35 had locally confirmed EGFRm NSCLC (durvalumab, n = 24; placebo, n = 11). At data cutoff (January 11, 2021), median duration of follow-up for survival was 42.7 months (range: 3.7-74.3 mo) for all randomized patients in the subgroup. Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-20.7) with durvalumab versus 10.9 months (95% CI: 1.9-not evaluable [NE]) with placebo; hazard ratio = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.39-2.13). Median OS was 46.8 months (95% CI: 29.9-NE) with durvalumab versus 43.0 months (95% CI: 14.9-NE) with placebo; hazard ratio = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.39-2.63). The safety profile of durvalumab was generally consistent with the overall population and known profile for durvalumab. CONCLUSIONS: PFS and OS outcomes with durvalumab were similar to placebo for patients with EGFRm tumors, with wide CIs. These data should be interpreted with caution owing to small patient numbers and lack of a prospective study that evaluates clinical outcomes by tumor biomarker status. Further research to determine the optimal treatment for unresectable stage III EGFRm NSCLC is warranted.

Characterizing immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC: A post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs), including all-cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, were reported in approximately 25% of patients in the placebo-controlled, phase III PACIFIC trial of durvalumab monotherapy (for up to 12 months) in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy; only 3.4% of patients experienced grade 3/4 imAEs. With broad application of the PACIFIC regimen (consolidation durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy), now standard-of-care in this setting, there is a need to better characterize the occurrence of imAEs with this regimen. METHODS: We performed descriptive, post-hoc, exploratory analyses to characterize the occurrence of imAEs (pneumonitis and non-pneumonitis) in PACIFIC in terms of: incidence, severity, and timing; clinical management and outcomes; and associations between the occurrence of imAEs and (1) all-cause AEs and (2) baseline patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Any-grade immune-mediated pneumonitis (9.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (10.7%) occurred infrequently and were more common with durvalumab versus placebo. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated pneumonitis (1.9%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (1.7%) were uncommon with durvalumab, as were fatal imAEs (0.8%; all pneumonitis). The most common non-pneumonitis imAEs with durvalumab were thyroid disorders, dermatitis/rash, and diarrhea/colitis. Dermatitis/rash had the shortest time to onset (from durvalumab initiation), followed by pneumonitis; dermatitis/rash had the longest time to resolution, followed by thyroid disorders. Most patients with immune-mediated pneumonitis (78.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (56.3%) had these events occur ≤ 3 months after initiating durvalumab. ImAEs were well managed with administration of systemic corticosteroids, administration of endocrine replacement therapy, and interruption/discontinuation of durvalumab. Time elapsed from completion of prior radiotherapy to trial randomization (<14 vs. ≥ 14 days) did not impact either incidence or severity of imAEs. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile broadly irrespective of whether patients experienced imAEs. CONCLUSION: The risk of imAEs should not deter use of the PACIFIC regimen in eligible patients, as these events are generally well managed through appropriate clinical intervention.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes From the PACIFIC Trial: Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned. METHODS: Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS. CONCLUSION: These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.

Four-Year Survival With Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC-an Update From the PACIFIC Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the Phase 3, placebo-controlled PACIFIC trial of patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC without disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, consolidative durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.87; p = 0.00251; data cutoff, March 22, 2018) and progression-free survival (PFS) (blinded independent central review; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) (HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.42-65; p < 0.0001; February 13, 2017) with manageable safety. Here, we report updated analyses of OS and PFS, approximately 4 years after the last patient was randomized. METHODS: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 (and any tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status) were randomized (2:1) to intravenous durvalumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo, administered every 2 weeks (≤12 months), stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. OS and PFS were analyzed using a stratified log-rank test in the intent-to-treat population. Medians and 4-year OS and PFS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall, 709 of 713 randomized patients received durvalumab (n/N=473/476) or placebo (n/N=236/237). As of March 20, 2020 (median follow-up = 34.2 months; range: 0.2-64.9), updated OS (HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.57-0.88) and PFS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44-0.67) remained consistent with the primary analyses. The median OS for durvalumab was reached (47.5 mo; placebo, 29.1 months). Estimated 4-year OS rates were 49.6% versus 36.3% for durvalumab versus placebo, and 4-year PFS rates were 35.3% versus 19.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: These updated exploratory analyses demonstrate durable PFS and sustained OS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 49.6% of patients randomized to durvalumab remain alive at 4 years (placebo, 36.3%), and 35.3% remain alive and progression-free (placebo, 19.5%).