Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (POSEIDON).

OBJECTIVES: In the phase 3 POSEIDON study, first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1:1:1 to tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy, durvalumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoints) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire version 3 (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13). We analyzed time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization by log-rank test and improvement rates by logistic regression. RESULTS: 972/1013 (96 %) patients randomized completed baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, with scores comparable between treatment arms. Patients receiving tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy had longer median TTD for all PRO items. Hazard ratios for TTD favored tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy for all items except diarrhea; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, constipation, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For durvalumab plus chemotherapy, median TTD was longer versus chemotherapy for all items except nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Hazard ratios favored durvalumab plus chemotherapy for all items except appetite loss; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For both immunotherapy plus chemotherapy arms, improvement rates in all PRO items were numerically higher versus chemotherapy, with odds ratios > 1. CONCLUSIONS: Tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy delayed deterioration in symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with chemotherapy. Together with significant improvements in survival, these results support tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in metastatic NSCLC.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response Analysis for the CTLA-4 Inhibitor Tremelimumab in Metastatic NSCLC Patients in the Phase III POSEIDON Study.

Blockade of CTLA-4 by tremelimumab combined with anti-PD-L1 durvalumab and chemotherapy provided increased antitumor activity and long-term survival benefits in first-line metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the phase III POSEIDON study. We performed population pharmacokinetic modeling for tremelimumab using data from 1,605 patients across 6 studies (including POSEIDON) in multiple tumors (lung cancer, bladder cancer, malignant mesothelioma, and other solid tumors), and identified a 2-compartment model with linear and time-varying clearance for tremelimumab. Cox proportional hazard regression models were applied to 326 patients with mNSCLC from POSEIDON to evaluate the association between exposure metrics and efficacy end points, adjusting for baseline prognostic covariates. Improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the tremelimumab arm (in combination with durvalumab and chemotherapy) was associated with higher tremelimumab exposure (e.g., minimum concentration at 5th dose (Cmin,dose5 ) and area under the curve at 5th dose (AUCdose5 )). However, further case-matching analyses yielded hazard ratios for the comparison of tremelimumab-treated patients in the Cmin,dose5 quartile 1 (Q1) subgroup with matched chemotherapy-treated patients of 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-1.44) for OS and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.72-1.36) for PFS, suggesting that the observed apparent exposure-response relationship might be confounded. No relationship between tremelimumab exposure and safety (grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events [AEs], AEs of special interest, or discontinuation due to AEs) was identified. These results support the consistent benefit observed with tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks for up to 5 doses in combination with durvalumab and chemotherapy in POSEIDON as first-line therapy for mNSCLC.

Perioperative Durvalumab for Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative regimens may combine benefits of both to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC (stage II to IIIB [N2 node stage] according to the eighth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual) to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus durvalumab or placebo administered intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 cycles before surgery, followed by adjuvant durvalumab or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 12 cycles. Randomization was stratified according to disease stage (II or III) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥1% or <1%). Primary end points were event-free survival (defined as the time to the earliest occurrence of progressive disease that precluded surgery or prevented completion of surgery, disease recurrence [assessed in a blinded fashion by independent central review], or death from any cause) and pathological complete response (evaluated centrally). RESULTS: A total of 802 patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients). The duration of event-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo; the stratified hazard ratio for disease progression, recurrence, or death was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.88; P = 0.004) at the first interim analysis. At the 12-month landmark analysis, event-free survival was observed in 73.4% of the patients who received durvalumab (95% CI, 67.9 to 78.1), as compared with 64.5% of the patients who received placebo (95% CI, 58.8 to 69.6). The incidence of pathological complete response was significantly greater with durvalumab than with placebo (17.2% vs. 4.3% at the final analysis; difference, 13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.7 to 17.6; P<0.001 at interim analysis of data from 402 patients). Event-free survival and pathological complete response benefit were observed regardless of stage and PD-L1 expression. Adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 occurred in 42.4% of patients with durvalumab and in 43.2% with placebo. Data from 62 patients with documented EGFR or ALK alterations were excluded from the efficacy analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable NSCLC, perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly greater event-free survival and pathological complete response than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, with a safety profile that was consistent with the individual agents. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AEGEAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03800134.).

Durvalumab in Combination With Olaparib Versus Durvalumab Alone as Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic NSCLC: The Phase 2 ORION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Increased DNA damage triggered through poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition may modify tumor immunogenicity, sensitizing tumors to immunotherapy. ORION (NCT03775486) evaluated the combination of olaparib with durvalumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: ORION is a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, international study. Patients with metastatic NSCLC (without activating EGFR or ALK aberrations) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled to receive initial therapy with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously; every 3 wk) plus platinum-based chemotherapy for four cycles. Patients without disease progression were then randomized (1:1) to maintenance durvalumab (1500 mg; every 4 wk) plus either olaparib (300 mg orally) or placebo (both twice daily); randomization was stratified by objective response during initial therapy and tumor histologic type. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and February 2020, 269 of 401 patients who received initial therapy were randomized. As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up: 9.6 mo), median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval: 5.3-7.9) with durvalumab plus olaparib versus 5.3 months (3.7-5.8) with durvalumab plus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.02, p = 0.074). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of durvalumab and olaparib. Anemia was the most common adverse event (AE) with durvalumab plus olaparib (26.1% versus 8.2% with durvalumab plus placebo). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs (34.3% versus 17.9%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (10.4% versus 4.5%) was numerically higher with durvalumab plus olaparib versus durvalumab plus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with durvalumab in combination with olaparib was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus durvalumab alone, although numerical improvement was observed.

NEPTUNE China cohort: First-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab in Chinese patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 3 NEPTUNE study (NCT02542293) evaluated first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab (DT) versus chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC. Prespecified exploratory analyses were conducted in an extended cohort enrolled in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to DT or standard chemotherapy, stratified by PD-L1 tumor cell (TC) expression (≥25 % vs < 25 %), histology, and smoking history. The primary analysis for this cohort was overall survival (OS) in patients with PD-L1 TC < 1 %. Secondary analyses included OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in the ITT population and PD-L1 subgroups, and safety. No alpha was allocated to these cohort analyses (data cut-off, 21-September-2020). RESULTS: 78 and 82 patients were randomized to DT and chemotherapy, respectively; 26 and 29 had PD-L1 TC < 1 % (median follow-up, 31.2 and 29.7 months [censored patients]). Among patients with PD-L1 TC < 1 %, OS favored DT versus chemotherapy (HR 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.32-1.11), with medians of 15.0 months (95 % CI, 10.5-27.4) and 11.7 months (95 % CI, 8.6-20.5), respectively; 24-month rates were 36.0 % (95 % CI, 18.2-54.2) and 17.9 % (95 % CI, 6.5-33.7). In the ITT population, OS was prolonged with DT versus chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95 % CI, 0.48-1.02); medians were 20.0 and 14.1 months and 24-month rates were 44.2 % and 30.4 %. PFS was similar in the PD-L1 TC < 1 % (HR 1.13; 95 % CI, 0.59-2.14) and ITT (HR 0.95; 95 % CI, 0.66-1.36) populations; 12-month rates were 15.6 % versus 11.3 % and 23.9 % versus 16.6 %. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 31.2 % with DT and 52.6 % with chemotherapy; 3.9 % versus 10.3 % discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: In exploratory analyses, first-line DT showed a trend towards improved OS versus chemotherapy among Chinese patients in the PD-L1 TC < 1 % population and ITT population, with 24-month OS and 12-month PFS rates indicating benefit in survival curve tails. DT was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

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.

NEPTUNE: Phase 3 Study of First-Line Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: NEPTUNE, a phase 3, open-label study, evaluated first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized (1:1) to first-line durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks until progression) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses) or standard chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified by tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression (≥25% versus <25%), tumor histologic type, and smoking history. The amended primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) greater than or equal to 20 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb and safety and tolerability in all treated patients. RESULTS: As of June 24, 2019, 823 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT]); 512 (62%) were bTMB-evaluable, with 129 of 512 (25%) having bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb (durvalumab plus tremelimumab [n = 69]; chemotherapy [n = 60]). Baseline characteristics were balanced in the intention-to-treat. Among patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb, OS improvement with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 0.71 [95% confidence interval: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.081]; median OS, 11.7 versus 9.1 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.15; median PFS, 4.2 versus 5.1 months). In the overall safety population, incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 20.7% (durvalumab plus tremelimumab) and 33.6% (chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: NEPTUNE did not meet its primary end point of improved OS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC and bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb. Despite the amended study design, with a resultant small primary analysis population, therapeutic activity was aligned with expectations based on mechanistic biology and previous studies.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling of tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid tumours and the impact of disease status on time-varying clearance.

AIMS: Tremelimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 human monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G2 κ isotype, has been studied in oncology clinical trials as both monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab and evaluated the impact of patient covariates on pharmacokinetics. METHODS: A pooled-analysis population pharmacokinetics model was built using NONMEM methodology. Pharmacokinetic data from 5 studies spanning different tumour types and therapy regimens were pooled for model development (956 patients). A dataset pooled from 4 additional studies was used for external validation (554 patients). Demographic and relevant clinical covariates were explored during model development. RESULTS: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics, well described by a 2-compartment model, with time-varying clearance (0.276 L/day at baseline) associated primarily with therapy regimen and linked with changes in disease status. As monotherapy and combination therapy, tremelimumab clearance over 1 year increased by ~16% and decreased by ~17%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic behaviour was consistent across patient demographics and cancer subtypes. Patients with higher bodyweight and lower albumin levels at baseline had significantly higher clearance; however, no dosage adjustments are warranted. A flat dose (75 mg) was projected to provide comparable exposure to weight-based dosing (1 mg/kg) in adults. CONCLUSION: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics but consistently opposite trends of time-varying clearance as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. Baseline bodyweight and albumin were significant covariates, but conversion from weight-based dosing at 1 mg/kg to flat dosing at 75 mg had no clinically relevant impact.

Modeling long QT syndrome type 2 on-a-chip via in-depth assessment of isogenic gene-edited 3D cardiac tissues.

Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a cardiovascular disease characterized by QT interval prolongation that can lead to sudden cardiac death. Many mutations with heterogeneous mechanisms have been identified in KCNH2, the gene that encodes for hERG (Kv11.1), which lead to onset of LQTS type 2 (LQTS2). In this work, we developed a LQTS2-diseased tissue-on-a-chip model, using 3D coculture of isogenic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (CMs) and cardiac fibroblasts (CFs) within an organotypic microfluidic chip technology. Primarily, we created a hiPSC line with R531W mutation in KCNH2 using CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technique and characterized the resultant differentiated CMs and CFs. A deficiency in hERG trafficking was identified in KCNH2-edited hiPSC-CMs, revealing a possible mechanism of R531W mutation in LQTS2 pathophysiology. Following creation of a 3D LQTS2 tissue-on-a-chip, the tissues were extensively characterized, through analysis of calcium handling and response to ß-agonist. Furthermore, attempted phenotypic rescue via pharmacological intervention of LQTS2 on a chip was investigated.

Association between immune-mediated adverse events and efficacy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with durvalumab and tremelimumab.

Purpose: Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) may be associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We assessed the relationship between imAE development and efficacy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 [PD-L1]) alone or in combination with tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4). Methods: The analysis used individual patient-level data from 307 and 310 patients in the monotherapy and combination arms of MYSTIC, respectively. We evaluated the association between treatment efficacy and development of imAEs using univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Using machine learning, we built a predictive model utilizing baseline clinical and laboratory features to identify patients at risk of developing imAEs and further evaluated patient survival based on a threshold index extracted from the model. Results: Patients who developed any grade of imAE had improved overall survival versus patients without (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.62). imAE development was associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.44-0.66) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model considering patient demographic features and baseline characteristics. Higher odds of imAE development were observed (odds ratio 3.023; 95% CI: 1.56-5.83) in responders versus non-responders in patients treated with immunotherapy. Based on baseline characteristics, the random forest classification algorithm was used to formulate a predictive model to identify patients at increased risk of developing imAEs during treatment. Conclusion: Post-hoc exploratory analysis found that the efficacy of immunotherapy was improved in patients who developed on-treatment imAEs. This was independent of severity of imAEs or the need for steroid treatment, which is important in allowing patients to remain on treatment and derive optimal clinical benefit. Further research is warranted to establish the correlation between incidence of imAEs and efficacy in this patient population.

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.

Driving and Parkinson's Disease: A Survey of the Patient's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a multi-system disorder that can impact on driving ability. Little is known about how these changes in driving ability affect people with PD, making it difficult for clinicians and carers to offer appropriate support. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient views concerning the effect of PD on their driving ability, the impact of these changes and how they manage them. METHOD: An online survey was created by a team of clinicians, people with PD, their carers, and representatives from Parkinson's UK. People with PD throughout the United Kingdom were invited to participate through Parkinson's UK's website, newsletter and Parkinson's Excellence Network email list. RESULTS: 805 people with PD took part in the survey. We found that the loss of a driving licence had an adverse impact on employment, socialisation, travel costs and spontaneous lifestyle choices. Multiple changes in driving ability related to PD were described, including that impulse control disorders can have an adverse impact on driving. Changes in driving ability caused people to change their driving practices including taking shorter journeys and being less likely to drive at night. Participants advised managing changes in driving ability through planning, vehicle adaptions, maintaining skills and self-assessment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the impact that changes in driving ability can have on the lifestyle of people with PD and reveals the strategies that individuals adopt to manage these changes.

Design and Rationale for a Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Neoadjuvant Durvalumab + Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Durvalumab for the Treatment of Patients With Resectable Stages II and III non-small-cell Lung Cancer: The AEGEAN Trial.

For patients with resectable, early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is the primary treatment; however, 5-year survival rates remain poor. Postoperative adjuvant platinum-doublet chemotherapy is associated with a statistically significant but modest improvement in survival of ∼5% at 5 years and is widely accepted as standard of care in patients with resectable, Stage II-III NSCLC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been associated with similar improvements in overall survival to adjuvant therapy in this setting. Durvalumab, a high-affinity PD-L1 inhibitor, has become the standard of care for patients with unresectable, Stage III NSCLC following chemoradiotherapy based on improved progression-free and overall survival in the phase III PACIFIC trial. AEGEAN is a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international study that will assess pathological and clinical outcomes of durvalumab plus chemotherapy prior to surgery, followed by durvalumab monotherapy after surgery in adults with resectable, Stage II-III NSCLC. Approximately 800 patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive durvalumab or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w) alongside platinum-based chemotherapy (≤4 cycles) prior to surgery, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy q4w, for an additional 12 cycles post surgery, stratified by disease stage (IASLC 8th Edition, Stage II vs. Stage III) and PD-L1 tumor cell expression levels (<1% vs. ≥1%). Primary endpoints include pathological complete response and event-free survival for patients with wild-type EGFR and ALK. Key secondary efficacy endpoints include major pathologic response, disease-free survival and overall survival.

Assessing the Influence of Subsequent Immunotherapy on Overall Survival in Patients with Unresectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer from the PACIFIC Study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, the standard of care for patients with unresectable, Stage III non-small cell lung cancer had been concurrent chemoradiotherapy. However, outcomes had been poor, with approximately 15% to 32% of patients alive at 5 years. In the placebo-controlled Phase III A PACIFIC trial, consolidation treatment with durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival in patients with unresectable, Stage III non-small cell lung cancer, establishing this regimen as a new standard of care in this setting. In the PACIFIC trial, crossover between treatment arms (durvalumab or placebo) was not permitted. However, after discontinuation from study treatment, patients from both arms of PACIFIC could switch to subsequent anticancer therapy, including durvalumab and other immunotherapies, which is known to influence standard intention-to-treat analysis of OS, potentially underestimating the effect of an experimental drug. Moreover, the introduction of immunotherapies has demonstrated marked improvements in the postprogression, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer setting. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of subsequent immunotherapy on OS in the PACIFIC trial. METHODS: Both a Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model (RPSFTM) and modified 2-stage method were used. RPSFTM assumes that a patient's survival time with no immunotherapy (counterfactual survival time) is equal to the observed time influenced by immunotherapy, multiplied by an acceleration factor, plus the time not influenced. The modified 2-stage method estimates the effect of immunotherapy by comparing postsubsequent-treatment-initiation survival times between patients with and without subsequent immunotherapy. In both models, OS was adjusted to reflect a hypothetical scenario in which no patients received subsequent immunotherapy. RPSFTM was also used for scenarios in which subsequent immunotherapy was received by increasing proportions of placebo patients but none of the durvalumab patients. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis (3-year follow-up), durvalumab improved OS versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86). Overall, 10% and 27% of durvalumab and placebo patients, respectively, received subsequent immunotherapy. With subsequent immunotherapy removed from both arms, estimated hazard ratio was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.84) with RPSFTM and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.85) with the modified 2-stage method. With subsequent immunotherapy removed from the durvalumab arm only (RPSFTM), estimated hazard ratio increased as the proportion of placebo patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy increased, up to 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60-0.94) maximum (assuming all placebo patients with subsequent treatment received immunotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent with the intention-to-treat analysis, supporting the conclusion that durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy provides substantial OS benefit in patients with Stage III, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461 (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (PACIFIC).

BACKGROUND: The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that consolidation durvalumab significantly improved PFS and OS (the primary endpoints) vs. placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC whose disease had not progressed after platinum-based, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We report exploratory analyses of outcomes from PACIFIC by age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 (1-42 days post-CRT) to receive 12-months' durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every-2-weeks) or placebo. We analyzed PFS and OS (unstratified Cox-proportional-hazards models), safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs: symptoms, functioning, and global-health-status/quality-of-life) in subgroups defined by a post-hoc 70-year age threshold. Data cut-off for PFS was February 13, 2017 and for OS, safety and PROs was March 22, 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 158 of 713 (22.2%) and 555 of 713 (77.8%) randomized patients were aged ≥70 and <70 years, respectively. Durvalumab improved PFS and OS among patients aged ≥70 (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.95]; OS: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.50-1.22]) and <70 (PFS: HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.42-0.67]; OS: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.87]), although the estimated HR-95% CI for OS crossed one among patients aged ≥70. Durvalumab exhibited a manageable safety profile and did not detrimentally affect PROs vs. placebo, regardless of age; grade 3/4 (41.6% vs. 25.5%) and serious adverse events (42.6% vs. 25.5%) were more common with durvalumab vs. placebo among patients aged ≥70. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was associated with treatment benefit, manageable safety, and no detrimental impact on PROs, irrespective of age, suggesting that elderly patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC benefit from treatment with consolidation durvalumab after CRT. However, small subgroup sizes and imbalances in baseline factors prevent robust conclusions.

Driving in Parkinson's disease: a retrospective study of driving and mobility assessments.

BACKGROUND: To guide decision-making about driving ability, some patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) undergo specialist driving assessment. However, decisions about driving safety in most patients need to be made without this definitive test. There is no consensus on what predicts unsafe driving in PD nor a validated prediction tool to guide clinician decision-making and the need to refer for further assessment. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of patients with PD assessed at a Driving Mobility Centre and investigate factors that predict driving assessment outcome. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with PD assessed between 2012 and 2016. Descriptive analyses and logistic models to determine factors predicting a negative outcome. RESULTS: There were 86 assessments of patients with PD. The mean age was 70 years (±9.2), 86% were male, median disease duration 7 years (interquartile range 5-12.5 years) and 59% were referred by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. In total, 62% had a negative 'not drive' outcome. The Rookwood Driving Battery (RDB), depth of vision deficit, usual driving frequency, age, duration license held and response time were all predictors in univariable analysis. The RDB was the best predictor of assessment failure, conditional on other variables in a backward stepwise model (odds ratio 1.29; 95% confidence interval 1.05, 1.60; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe patients with PD undergoing driving assessments in the UK. In this population, RDB performance was the best predictor of outcome. Future prospective studies are required to better determine predictors of driving ability to guide development of prediction tools for implementation into clinical practice.

The validation of published utility mapping algorithms: an example of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mapping algorithms can be used to generate health state utilities when a preference-based instrument is not included in a clinical study. Our aim was to investigate the external validity of published mapping algorithms in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D instruments and to propose methodology for validating any mapping algorithms. METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review to identify published mappings, then applied these to data from the osimertinib clinical trial programme. Performance of the algorithms was evaluated using the mean absolute error, root mean squared error, and graphical techniques for the observed versus predicted EQ-5D utilities. These statistics were also calculated across the range of utility values (as well as ordinary least squares and quantile regression), to investigate how the mappings fitted across all values, not simply around the mean utility. RESULTS: Three algorithms developed in NSCLC were identified. The algorithm based on response mapping (Young et al., 2015) fitted the validation dataset across the range of observed values with similar fit statistics to the original publication (overall MAE of 0.087 vs 0.134). The two algorithms based on beta-binomial models presented a poor fit to both the mean and distribution of utility values (MAE 0.176, 0.178). CONCLUSIONS: The validation of mapping algorithms is key to demonstrating their generalisability beyond the original dataset, particularly across the range of plausible utility values (not just the mean) - perceived patient similarity being insufficient. The identified algorithm from Young et al. performed well across the range of EORTC scores observed, and thus appears most suitable for use in other studies of NSCLC patients.

Treatment patterns and overall survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma in a real-world, US setting.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with chemotherapy is associated with poor survival; however, as the field of immuno-oncology continues to evolve, new immunotherapies have recently become available. The current study aimed to assess real-world characteristics, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) of patients with mUC treated in the United States (US). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational analysis of patients with mUC from the Flatiron Health longitudinal database from 2011 to 2017. Treatment patterns of patients who started systemic first-line therapy (1 L cohort) or second-line therapy following platinum-based first-line therapy (2 L cohort) were described using medication order and administration data. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess OS from the start of first- and second-line therapy in the 1 L and 2 L cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1811 patients qualified for the 1 L cohort (median age [range], 72 [32-84] years); 476 met the criteria for the 2 L cohort (median age [range], 71 [40-84] years). The most common first- and second-line therapies were carboplatin + gemcitabine (n = 562 [34.6%]) and atezolizumab (n = 90 [13.1%]), respectively, in the 1 L cohort. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.8, 13.4) in the 1 L cohort and 8.3 months (95% CI 7.2, 8.9) in the 2 L cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with clinical trial results, survival was poor in this real-world study in patients with mUC, indicating a continued unmet need. As immunotherapy becomes more commonplace in the treatment of mUC, future studies are needed to understand its real-world impact on survival.