Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).

Trifluridine-Tipiracil and Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Preliminary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and 7.5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.).

Plain language summary of SUNLIGHT: trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary describing the results from a phase 3 clinical trial called SUNLIGHT. The study looked at treatment with orally administered trifluridine/tipiracil plus intravenously administered bevacizumab in people with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that is refractory to treatment.This study included people whose cancer had grown or spread beyond its original location after no more than two previous treatments. People in the study received either the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab or they received trifluridine/tipiracil alone. The aims of the study were to see how long people lived after treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab compared with trifluridine/tipiracil alone and to find out how well the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab worked at slowing down the spread of the cancer. Researchers also looked at side effects from taking the medicines and at how treatment affected people's physical functioning. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: People in the combination group lived longer (a median of 10.8 months) than people who received trifluridine/tipiracil alone (7.5 months). In addition, the time it took for the cancer to worsen was longer for those who received the combination treatment (a median of 5.6 months) compared with those who received trifluridine/tipiracil alone (2.4 months). People's physical functioning took longer to worsen with combination therapy (a median of 9.3 months) than it did with trifluridine/tipiracil alone (6.3 months), as measured by the impact of treatment on people's ability to carry out daily living activities. The most common side effects in both treatment groups were low levels of white blood cells, known as neutrophils (neutropenia), nausea, and low levels of healthy red blood cells (anemia). WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The results from the study suggest that treatment with oral trifluridine/tipiracil plus intravenous (IV) bevacizumab could help people with refractory mCRC live longer and maintain good physical functioning, and it could slow the worsening of their cancer.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04737187 (SUNLIGHT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efbemalenograstim alfa not inferior to pegfilgrastim in providing neutrophil support in women with breast cancer undergoing myelotoxic chemotherapy: results of a phase 2 randomized, multicenter, open-label trial.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy in a phase 2, dose-finding, open-label study (NCT01648322, ClinicalTrials.gov, 2012-07-19). METHODS: 232 patients received up to 4 cycles of chemotherapy, 141 patients with docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC) and 91 patients with docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (TAC). Patients were randomized to efbemalenograstim alfa (80, 240, or 320 µg/kg [TC]; 240 or 320 µg/kg [TAC]) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg) on Day 2 of each cycle. RESULTS: Efbemalenograstim alfa was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim in duration of moderate and severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 1.0 × 109/L) in TAC Cycle 1 (mean [SD] of 2.1 [1.58] and 2.1 [1.46] days for 240 µg/kg and 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa, respectively, and 1.8 [1.28] days for pegfilgrastim), with a difference (95% CI) of 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1) days. ANC nadir occurred between Days 7-8 of TAC Cycle 1, with mean [SD] of 0.68 [1.064], 0.86 [1.407] and 0.78[1.283] × 109/L for 240 µg/kg, 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. Time to ANC recovery post nadir (defined as an ANC > 2.0 × 109/L after the expected ANC nadir) was 2.0-2.4 and 1.9 days for TAC patients treated with efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. No significant difference was found between any dose of efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim in TAC Cycle 1 for incidence of moderate to severe neutropenia (76%-77% of patients) or incidence of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L; 63%-72%). Efbemalenograstim alfa exhibited similar safety profile to pegfilgrastim. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (1.8%) patients, 2 patients each for 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, with no event considered related to study drug. CONCLUSION: Efbemalenograstim alfa was comparable to pegfilgrastim in efficacy and safety. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01648322.

First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

Efbemalenograstim alfa, an Fc fusion protein, long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia following chemotherapy: results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. A total of 122 subjects received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin). Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously inject a single 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1, and all subjects received efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, the mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.3 days and 3.9 days for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo respectively (95% CI, 2.3, 3.4). As the lower bound of the 95% CI was > 0, superiority of efbemalenograstim alfa over placebo can be declared. In addition, the incidence of FN in Cycle 1 was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0016). Patients in the efbemalenograstim alfa group required less intravenous antibiotics (3.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.0119). Most adverse events were consistent with those expected for breast cancer patient receiving TA chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Efbemalenograstim alfa is effective and safe for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who are receiving TA chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02872103, August 19, 2016.

Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52-64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8-32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3-9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52-0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). INTERPRETATION: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: primary results from cohort B of the IPATunity130 randomized phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: PI3K/AKT pathway alterations are frequent in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancers. IPATunity130 Cohort B investigated ipatasertib-paclitaxel in PI3K pathway-mutant HR+ unresectable locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC). METHODS: Cohort B of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IPATunity130 trial enrolled patients with HR+ HER2-negative PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered measurable aBC who were considered inappropriate for endocrine-based therapy (demonstrated insensitivity to endocrine therapy or visceral crisis) and were candidates for taxane monotherapy. Patients with prior chemotherapy for aBC or relapse < 1 year since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were ineligible. Patients were randomized 2:1 to ipatasertib (400 mg, days 1-21) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 146 patients were randomized to ipatasertib-paclitaxel and 76 to placebo-paclitaxel. In both arms, median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.3 months (hazard ratio, 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.40) and the objective response rate was 47%. Median paclitaxel duration was 6.9 versus 8.8 months in the ipatasertib-paclitaxel versus placebo-paclitaxel arms, respectively; median ipatasertib/placebo duration was 8.0 versus 9.1 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were diarrhea (12% with ipatasertib-paclitaxel vs 1% with placebo-paclitaxel), neutrophil count decreased (9% vs 7%), neutropenia (8% vs 9%), peripheral neuropathy (7% vs 3%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (3% vs 5%) and hypertension (1% vs 5%). CONCLUSION: Adding ipatasertib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered HR+ HER2-negative aBC. The ipatasertib-paclitaxel safety profile was consistent with each agent's known adverse effects. Trial registration NCT03337724.

Copanlisib plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (CHRONOS-3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, showed efficacy and safety as monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had received at least two therapies. The CHRONOS-3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of copanlisib plus rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: CHRONOS-3 was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 186 academic medical centres across Asia, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, North America, Russia, South Africa, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of no more than 2 and histologically confirmed CD20-positive indolent B-cell lymphoma relapsed after the last anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody-containing therapy and progression-free and treatment-free for at least 12 months, or at least 6 months for patients unwilling or unfit to receive chemotherapy, were randomly assigned (2:1) with an interactive voice-web response system via block randomisation (block size of six) to copanlisib (60 mg given as a 1-h intravenous infusion on an intermittent schedule on days 1, 8, and 15 [28-day cycle]) plus rituximab (375 mg/m2 given intravenously weekly on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9) or placebo plus rituximab, stratified on the basis of histology, progression-free and treatment-free interval, presence of bulky disease, and previous treatment with PI3K inhibitors. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the full analysis set (all randomised patients) by masked central review. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02367040 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 3, 2015, and Dec 17, 2019, 652 patients were screened for eligibility. 307 of 458 patients were randomly assigned to copanlisib plus rituximab and 151 patients were randomly assigned to placebo plus rituximab. With a median follow-up of 19·2 months (IQR 7·4-28·8) and 205 total events, copanlisib plus rituximab showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo plus rituximab; median progression-free survival 21·5 months (95% CI 17·8-33·0) versus 13·8 months (10·2-17·5; hazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·39-0·69]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (173 [56%] of 307 patients in the copanlisib plus rituximab group vs 12 [8%] of 146 in the placebo plus rituximab group) and hypertension (122 [40%] vs 13 [9%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 145 (47%) of 307 patients receiving copanlisib plus rituximab and 27 (18%) of 146 patients receiving placebo plus rituximab. One (<1%) drug-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the copanlisib plus rituximab group and none occurred in the placebo plus rituximab group. INTERPRETATION: Copanlisib plus rituximab improved progression-free survival in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma compared with placebo plus rituximab. To our knowledge, copanlisib is the first PI3K inhibitor to be safely combined with rituximab and the first to show broad and superior efficacy in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. FUNDING: Bayer.

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.

Trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trial.

Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy-induced damage (myelopreservation). The effects of administering trilaciclib prior to carboplatin, etoposide and atezolizumab (E/P/A) were evaluated in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) (NCT03041311). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (SN; defined as absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 109 cells per L) in Cycle 1 and occurrence of SN during the treatment period. Other endpoints were prespecified to assess the effects of trilaciclib on additional measures of myelopreservation, patient-reported outcomes, antitumour efficacy and safety. Fifty-two patients received trilaciclib prior to E/P/A and 53 patients received placebo. Compared to placebo, administration of trilaciclib resulted in statistically significant decreases in the mean duration of SN in Cycle 1 (0 vs 4 days; P < .0001) and occurrence of SN (1.9% vs 49.1%; P < .0001), with additional improvements in red blood cell and platelet measures and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Trilaciclib was well tolerated, with fewer grade ≥3 adverse events compared with placebo, primarily due to less high-grade haematological toxicity. Antitumour efficacy outcomes were comparable. Administration of trilaciclib vs placebo generated more newly expanded peripheral T-cell clones (P = .019), with significantly greater expansion among patients with an antitumour response to E/P/A (P = .002). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib administered prior to E/P/A improved patients' experience of receiving treatment for ES-SCLC, as shown by reduced myelosuppression, and improved HRQoL and safety profiles.

Overall Survival with Palbociclib and Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib, in combination with fulvestrant therapy, prolongs progression-free survival among patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. We report the results of a prespecified analysis of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. We analyzed overall survival; the effect of palbociclib according to the prespecified stratification factors of presence or absence of sensitivity to endocrine therapy, presence or absence of visceral metastatic disease, and menopausal status; the efficacy of subsequent therapies after disease progression; and safety. RESULTS: Among 521 patients who underwent randomization, the median overall survival was 34.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 40.0) in the palbociclib-fulvestrant group and 28.0 months (95% CI, 23.6 to 34.6) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for death, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; P=0.09; absolute difference, 6.9 months). CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the completion of the trial regimen occurred in 16% of the patients in the placebo-fulvestrant group. Among 410 patients with sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy, the median overall survival was 39.7 months (95% CI, 34.8 to 45.7) in the palbociclib-fulvestrant group and 29.7 months (95% CI, 23.8 to 37.9) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; absolute difference, 10.0 months). The median duration of subsequent therapy was similar in the two groups, and the median time to the receipt of chemotherapy was 17.6 months in the palbociclib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 8.8 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.73; P<0.001). No new safety signals were observed with 44.8 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had sensitivity to previous endocrine therapy, treatment with palbociclib-fulvestrant resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with placebo-fulvestrant. The differences in overall survival in the entire trial group were not significant. (Funded by Pfizer; PALOMA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942135 .).

Final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 HERITAGE study demonstrates equivalence of trastuzumab-dkst to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated that the biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst is well tolerated with similar efficacy (measured by overall response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) compared with originator trastuzumab combined with taxane followed by monotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Herein, we present final overall survival (OS) from HERITAGE. METHODS: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive trastuzumab-dkst or trastuzumab plus taxane followed by continued monotherapy until disease progression. Overall survival was to be assessed at 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurred first, as observed from time of randomization of last patient. RESULTS: At the final analysis (36 months), 242 patients in the intention-to-treat population had died during the study: 116 and 124 in the trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab groups, respectively, and 1 untreated patient from each treatment group. Median OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 35.0 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 30.2 months with trastuzumab. Evaluation of PFS showed a median of 11.1 months in both treatment groups. No new safety concerns were reported from week 48 until the end of the survival follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the first phase 3 trial of a trastuzumab biosimilar to report long-term survival data similar to originator trastuzumab in patients with MBC. The comparable long-term OS between the trastuzumab-dkst and originator trastuzumab groups further supports the similarity of trastuzumab-dkst with originator trastuzumab and establishes trastuzumab-dkst as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02472964; 6/16/2015.

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival in patients with untreated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. We investigated overall survival after treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 213 medical centres in 32 countries. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without a sensitising EGFR mutation or ALK translocation and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0 or 1, life expectancy 3 months or longer, and a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. Randomisation was computer generated, accessed via an interactive voice-response and integrated web-response system, and stratified by region of enrolment (east Asia vs rest of world), ECOG performance status score (0 vs 1), histology (squamous vs non-squamous), and PD-L1 TPS (≥50% vs 1-49%). Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in blocks of four per stratum to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy for four to six cycles. Primary endpoints were overall survival in patients with a TPS of 50% or greater, 20% or greater, and 1% or greater (one-sided significance thresholds, p=0·0122, p=0·0120, and p=0·0124, respectively) in the intention-to-treat population, assessed sequentially if the previous findings were significant. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02220894. FINDINGS: From Dec 19, 2014, to March 6, 2017, 1274 patients (902 men, 372 women, median age 63 years [IQR 57-69]) with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater were allocated to pembrolizumab (n=637) or chemotherapy (n=637) and included in the intention-to-treat population. 599 (47%) had a TPS of 50% or greater and 818 patients (64%) had a TPS of 20% or greater. As of Feb 26, 2018, median follow-up was 12·8 months. Overall survival was significantly longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group in all three TPS populations (≥50% hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·56-0·85, p=0·0003; ≥20% 0·77, 0·64-0·92, p=0·0020, and ≥1% 0·81, 0·71-0·93, p=0·0018). The median surival values by TPS population were 20·0 months (95% CI 15·4-24·9) for pembrolizumab versus 12·2 months (10·4-14·2) for chemotherapy, 17·7 months (15·3-22·1) versus 13·0 months (11·6-15·3), and 16·7 months (13·9-19·7) versus 12·1 months (11·3-13·3), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 113 (18%) of 636 treated patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 252 (41%) of 615 in the chemotherapy group and led to death in 13 (2%) and 14 (2%) patients, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The benefit-to-risk profile suggests that pembrolizumab monotherapy can be extended as first-line therapy to patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without sensitising EGFR or ALK alterations and with low PD-L1 TPS. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or platinum-etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum-etoposide consisted of 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 per min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to 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 in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum-etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the platinum-etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the platinum-etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59-0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5-14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3-11·2) in the platinum-etoposide group, with 34% (26·9-41·0) versus 25% (18·4-31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum-etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.