Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated DLBCL: an Asia subpopulation analysis from the phase 3 POLARIX trial.

In the phase 3 POLARIX study in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, polatuzumab vedotin combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) with similar safety. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 6 cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP plus 2 cycles of rituximab alone. For registration of POLARIX in China, consistency of PFS in an Asia subpopulation (defined as ≥50% of the risk reduction in PFS expected in the global population) was evaluated. Overall, 281 patients were analyzed: 160 patients from Asia in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of the global study and 121 from an ITT China extension cohort. Of these, 141 were randomized to Pola-R-CHP and 140 to R-CHOP. At data cutoff (28 June 2021; median follow-up 24.2 months), PFS met the consistency definition with the global population, and was superior with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-1.03). Two-year PFS was 74.2% (95% CI, 65.7-82.7) and 66.5% (95% CI, 57.3-75.6) with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, respectively. Safety was comparable between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, including rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs; 72.9% vs 66.2%, respectively), serious AEs (32.9% vs 32.4%), grade 5 AEs (1.4% vs 0.7%), AEs leading to study treatment discontinuation (5.0% vs 7.2%), and any-grade peripheral neuropathy (44.3% vs 50.4%). These findings demonstrate consistent efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in the Asia and global populations in POLARIX. This trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home as # NCT03274492.

IMpower210: A phase III study of second-line atezolizumab vs. docetaxel in East Asian patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Objective: IMpower210 (NCT02813785) explored the efficacy and safety of single-agent atezolizumab vs. docetaxel as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in East Asian patients. Methods: Key eligibility criteria for this phase III, open-label, randomized study included age ≥18 years; histologically documented advanced NSCLC per the Union for International Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2). The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with wild-type epidermal growth factor receptor expression (ITT EGFR-WT) and in the overall ITT population. Results: Median OS in the ITT EGFR-WT population (n=467) was 12.3 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 10.3-13.8] months in the atezolizumab arm (n=312) and 9.9 (95% CI, 7.8-13.9) months in the docetaxel arm [n=155; stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.03]. Median OS in the overall ITT population was 12.5 (95% CI, 10.8-13.8) months with atezolizumab treatment and 11.1 (95% CI, 8.4-14.2) months (n=377) with docetaxel treatment (n=188; stratified HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 18.4% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 50.0% of patients in the docetaxel arm. Conclusions: IMpower210 did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of OS in the ITT EGFR-WT or overall ITT populations. Atezolizumab was comparatively more tolerable than docetaxel, with a lower incidence of grade 3/4 TRAEs.

Vemurafenib in Chinese patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicenter phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is a rare, deadly disease without effective treatment options in China. Vemurafenib is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic BRAFV600 kinase approved in more than 90 countries, based on results obtained primarily in Caucasian patients. Limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in Asian patients. METHODS: This phase I study investigated the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) in Chinese patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The study included two cohorts: a pharmacokinetic cohort (n = 20) and an expansion cohort (n = 26). RESULTS: After 21 days of dosing, vemurafenib demonstrated marked accumulation and relatively constant steady-state exposure over the dosing period. Confirmed best overall response rate was 52.2% (95% CI 37.0-67.1%). Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI 5.7-10.9%); median overall survival was 13.5 months (95% CI 12.2%-not estimable). The most common adverse events were dermatitis acneiform, arthralgia, diarrhea, blood cholesterol level increase, blood bilirubin level increase, melanocytic nevus, and alopecia. A total of nine grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in seven patients (15.2%). CONCLUSION: Overall, vemurafenib showed a favorable benefit-risk profile among Chinese patients. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy were generally consistent with those reported in Caucasian patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT01910181 . Registered 29 July 2013, prospectively registered.

A Randomized Phase II Study of FOLFOX With or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach and Gastroesophageal Junction.

BACKGROUND: The phase II YO28252 study (NCT01590719) examined first-line onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. MET immunohistochemistry expression as a biomarker of onartuzumab activity was also examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive standard mFOLFOX6 plus onartuzumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo in 2-week cycles for 12 cycles, followed by onartuzumab or placebo until disease progression. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive populations. The target hazard ratio (HR) was 0.70 for patients in the ITT group and 0.60 in the MET-positive population. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 123 patients were enrolled (n = 62 onartuzumab, n = 61 placebo). Median PFS was 6.77 versus 6.97 months for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.63; p = .71). In the MET-positive population, median PFS was 5.95 versus 6.80 months, onartuzumab versus placebo (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.60-3.20; p = .45). Median OS was 10.61 months for onartuzumab versus 11.27 months for placebo) (HR, 1.06, 0.64-1.75; p = .83). In the MET-positive population, median OS was 8.51 versus 8.48 months for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively (HR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.45-2.78; p = .80). ORR was 60.5% for the onartuzumab group and 57.1% for placebo. Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were seen in 88.3% of patients receiving onartuzumab and in 78.3% of patients receiving placebo, with serious AEs in 55% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX6 in gastric cancer did not improve efficacy in an unselected population or in a MET immunohistochemistry-positive population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The YO28252 study demonstrated that the addition of the anti-MET agent onartuzumab to mFOLFOX6 for treatment of gastric cancer did not improve efficacy in an overall study population or those selected for positive MET status by immunohistochemistry. This highlights the importance of correctly selecting biomarkers for targeted therapies. A multivariate analysis suggested that MET positivity may still be prognostic for worse median overall survival in gastric cancer; therefore, it is important to continue investigation into the optimal approach to inhibit MET signaling in gastric cancer.

Bevacizumab plus capecitabine and cisplatin in Chinese patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: randomized, double-blind, phase III study (AVATAR study).

BACKGROUND: In the AVAGAST study, fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin plus bevacizumab did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) versus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin plus placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Geographic differences in efficacy were observed in AVAGAST, but the study only included 12 Chinese patients. AVATAR, a study similar in design to AVAGAST, was a randomized, double-blind, phase III study conducted in Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients more than 18 years of age with gastric adenocarcinoma were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine-cisplatin plus either bevacizumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 202 patients were included (placebo n = 102; bevacizumab n = 100). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The primary analysis result did not show a difference in OS for the bevacizumab arm compared to the placebo arm [hazard ratio, 1.11 (95% CI, 0.79-1.56); P = 0.5567]. Median PFS was also similar in both arms. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated. Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60% of bevacizumab-treated and 68% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. Grade 3-5 AEs of special interest with bevacizumab occurred in 8% of bevacizumab-treated patients and 15% of placebo-treated patients, mainly grade 3-5 hemorrhage (bevacizumab 4%, placebo 12%). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine-cisplatin in Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer did not improve outcomes in AVATAR. There was no difference in OS between the two arms and PFS was similar in both arms. Safety findings were as previously experienced with bevacizumab, including AVAGAST; no new safety signals were reported.

Treatment strategy, overall survival and associated risk factors among patients with unresectable stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer in China (2015-2017): A multicentre prospective study.

Background: There are limited studies on treatment and survival analysis among patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in routine practice in China. To address this gap, we conducted a prospective observational study in a cohort of patients treated at 11 hospitals in China. Methods: This was a multicentre, prospective cohort study including patients with newly diagnosed unresectable Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC from June 26th, 2015 to April 28th, 2017. Patient baseline characteristics, disease characteristics, and anti-cancer treatments were obtained by medical chart review. The overall survival (OS) from the initiation of first-line treatment was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with survival were analysed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Findings: Among 1324 patients enrolled with median follow-up duration of 15·0 (range: 0·0-42·1) months, 83·5% (1105/1324) of them received first-line chemotherapy of which platinum-based compounds were the dominated agents. Overall, 30·9% (409/1324) of patients received targeted therapy as 1st-line treatment including 65·0% (266/409) EGFR-TKIs and 5·1% (21/409) ALK-TKIs. Of all eligible patients, gene testing rates were 44·0% (583/1324) for EGFR mutations, 17·0% (225/1324) for EML4-ALK gene fusions, and 8·3% (110/1324) for ROS1 gene fusions. The EGFR-TKIs were administered to 63·9% (179/280) of EGFR mutated patients as first-line treatment. The overall median OS was 23·2 (95%CI 19·5-25·5) months, and patients treated at tier 1 cities had better OS than that of tier 2 cities. Also, the OS in patients with EGFR mutation was longer than those with EGFR wild type. Multivariate Cox regression models suggested that male, education below high school, tier 2 cities, smoking history, and multiple metastases were associated with poor survival. Interpretation: The gene test coverage was relatively low among the studied population, and over half of EGFR mutated patients received EGFR-TKIs, suggesting that the result of genetic tests in real-world settings may not always indicate the selection of treatment. The OS benefit observed from patients treated in tier 1 cities and those with EGFR mutation may indicate a need for broader gene test coverage, providing NSCLC patients with personalized treatment according to the results of genetic tests. Funding: Roche Holding AG.TRANSLATED ABSTRACT: This translation in Chinese was submitted by the authors and we reproduce it as supplied. It has not been peer reviewed. Our editorial processes have only been applied to the original abstract in English, which should serve as reference for this manuscript.:IIIBIV(NSCLC)., ,, 11.:,, 20156262017428IIIBIVNSCLC.,.Kaplan-Meier(OS), Cox.:1324, 15.0(:0.0-42.1), 83.5%(1105/1324), ., 30.9%(409/1324), 65.0%(266/409)EGFR-TKI5.1%(21/409)ALK-TKI., EGFR,EML4-ALKROS144.0%(583/1324),17.0%(225/1324)8.3%(110/1324).63.9%(179/280)EGFREGFR-TKI.23.2 (95% 19·5-25·5) , ., EGFREGFR.Cox, ,,,.:, EGFREGFR-TKI, , .EGFR, , NSCLC.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) disease occurs in approximately 5% of all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, with a similar incidence reported in Asian patients. This study is the first phase 3 randomised trial recruiting only Asian patients to compare alectinib with crizotinib as a first-line treatment for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with 600 mg of alectinib twice per day. This study assessed consistency of the progression-free survival benefit with the global phase 3 ALEX study. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 21 investigational sites in China, South Korea, and Thailand, Asian patients, aged 18 years or older, with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (2:1) to twice-daily oral alectinib (600 mg) or crizotinib (250 mg). Patients were randomly assigned via a block-stratified (block size three) randomisation procedure, done centrally via an interactive voice or web response system, with stratification by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and baseline CNS metastases. Clinical staff and the funder's drug safety and medical monitoring staff had access to treatment assignments. The independent review committee was masked to treatment assignment, and funder personnel did not have access to efficacy and safety summaries by treatment group, before the formal reporting of study results. Patients with asymptomatic CNS metastases were permitted. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The primary analysis population for efficacy was the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients. The primary analysis population for safety was defined as all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02838420. FINDINGS: Between Aug 3, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 187 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 125 to alectinib and 62 to crizotinib. Median follow-up was 16·2 months (IQR 13·7-17·6) in the alectinib group, and 15·0 months (12·5-17·3) in the crizotinib group. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with alectinib versus crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·22, 95% CI 0·13-0·38; p<0·0001; median progression-free survival not estimable vs 11·1 months). Independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival was also significantly longer in the alectinib group compared with the crizotinib group (HR 0·37, 0·22-0·61; p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 114 (91%) of 125 with alectinib, and 48 (77%) of 62 with crizotinib, with a longer duration of response for alectinib than crizotinib (HR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12-0·40; p<0·0001). Time to CNS progression (cause-specific HR 0·14) and the percentage of patients who achieved a CNS objective response with measurable or non-measurable baseline CNS lesions were improved (32 [73%] of 44 patients treated with alectinib vs five [22%] of 23 patients treated with crizotinib). Despite longer treatment duration with alectinib than crizotinib (14·7 months vs 12·6 months, respectively), fewer patients had grade 3-5 adverse events (36 [29%] of 125 vs 30 [48%] of 62, respectively) or serious adverse events (19 [15%] of 125 vs 16 [26%] of 62, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Our results align with ALEX, confirming the clinical benefit of 600 mg of alectinib twice per day as a first-line treatment for ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.