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.

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.

Selumetinib Plus Docetaxel Compared With Docetaxel Alone and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With KRAS-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The SELECT-1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are no specifically approved targeted therapies for the most common genomically defined subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), KRAS-mutant lung cancer. Objective: To compare efficacy of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor selumetinib + docetaxel with docetaxel alone as a second-line therapy for advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational, randomized clinical trial conducted at 202 sites across 25 countries from October 2013 through January 2016. Of 3323 patients with advanced NSCLC and disease progression following first-line anticancer therapy tested for a KRAS mutation, 866 were enrolled and 510 randomized. Primary reason for exclusion was ineligibility. The data cutoff date for analysis was June 7, 2016. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1; 254 to receive selumetinib + docetaxel and 256 to receive placebo + docetaxel. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was investigator assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects on disease-related symptoms, safety, and tolerability. Results: Of 510 randomized patients (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 8.3]; women, 207 [41%]), 505 patients (99%) received treatment and completed the study (251 received selumetinib + docetaxel; 254 received placebo + docetaxel). At the time of data cutoff, 447 patients (88%) had experienced a progression event and 346 deaths (68%) had occurred. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-5.9) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 2.8 months (IQR, 1.4-5.5) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 1.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.12]; P = .44). Median overall survival was 8.7 months (IQR, 3.6-16.8) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 7.9 months (IQR, 3.8-20.1) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 0.9 months; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.30]; P = .64). Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + docetaxel and 13.7% with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 6.4%; odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.00-2.62]; P = .05). Median duration of response was 2.9 months (IQR, 1.7-4.8; 95% CI, 2.7-4.1) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 4.5 months (IQR, 2.3-7.3; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6) with placebo + docetaxel. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent with selumetinib + docetaxel (169 adverse events [67%] for selumetinib + docetaxel vs 115 adverse events [45%] for placebo + docetaxel; difference, 22%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, addition of selumetinib to docetaxel did not improve progression-free survival compared with docetaxel alone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01933932.

Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed/cisplatin with or without axitinib for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).

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.

Afatinib in EGFR TKI-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Interim analysis of a Phase 3b study.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that afatinib is a suitable treatment option for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm +) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, such studies often exclude patients treated in routine clinical practice. We report interim results from a Phase 3b, open-label, multicenter, single-arm, exploratory trial, in which afatinib was investigated in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFRm + tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve NSCLC received afatinib 40 mg orally, once-daily, until disease progression, or voluntary withdrawal. Primary objective was safety. RESULTS: Overall, 479 patients received afatinib: median age 65 years, 8 % of patients had an ECOG performance status ≥ 2, 17 % had brain metastases, and 13 % had tumors containing uncommon mutations only. All but one patient (99.8 %) had an adverse event (AE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs; any/grade ≥ 3) occurred in 97 %/44 % of patients; most common were diarrhea (87 %/16 %) and rash (51 %/11 %). AEs leading to afatinib dose-reduction were reported in 258 patients (54 %), and 37 patients (8 %) discontinued treatment due to a TRAE. Objective response rate was 45.5 %, median duration of response was 14.1 months (95 % CI: 12.2-16.4). Overall median time to symptomatic progression and progression-free survival were 14.9 months (95 % CI: 13.8-17.6) and 13.4 months (95 % CI: 11.8-14.5), respectively, in the overall population and 19.3 months (95 % CI: 15.6-21.8) and 15.9 months (95 % CI: 13.9-19.1) in patients with EGFR exon 19 deletions. CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib administration in routine clinical practice was well tolerated with no new safety signals and demonstrated promising efficacy in patients with EGFRm + NSCLC. TRAEs were generally manageable with tolerability-guided dose reductions. Overall, these data independently support findings from randomized controlled trials of afatinib in EGFRm + NSCLC.

Afatinib in EGFR TKI-Naïve Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Three Phase IIIb Studies.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is approved for first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report findings from a combined analysis of three phase IIIb studies of afatinib in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve patients. METHODS: EGFR-TKI-naïve patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC received afatinib 40 mg/day. Dose reductions were permitted for adverse events (AEs). Efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), and tumor response. Subgroup analyses were performed by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), presence of brain metastasis, age and common/uncommon EGFR mutations (plus other factors). RESULTS: 1108 patients were treated. Median age was 61 years (range, 25-89); 19.2% had baseline brain metastases, 4.4% had ECOG PS ≥2, and 17.9% had tumors harboring uncommon mutations. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 97.2%, most commonly diarrhea and rash. 41.6% had AEs leading to dose reduction. Median PFS was 13.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.0-13.8]; median TTSP was 14.8 months (95% CI: 13.9-16.1). Objective response rate (ORR) was 55.0%. Age, presence of baseline brain metastases, major (G719X, L861Q, S768I) or compound uncommon mutations had little/no effect on PFS, TTSP, or ORR, while outcomes were poorer in patients with ECOG PS 2 or exon 20 insertion/T790M mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib was tolerable with no new safety signals. Afatinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy in a broad patient population, including those with brain metastases or uncommon EGFR mutations.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III study.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab plus etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (primary endpoint) versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) at the interim analysis. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of durvalumab plus EP every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab every 4 weeks until progression, or up to 6 cycles of EP every 3 weeks. PROs, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13), were prespecified secondary endpoints. Changes from baseline to disease progression or 12 months in prespecified key disease-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, appetite loss) were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization was analyzed. RESULTS: In the durvalumab plus EP and EP arms, 261 and 260 patients were PRO-evaluable. Patients in both arms experienced numerically reduced symptom burden over 12 months or until progression for key symptoms. For the improvements from baseline in appetite loss, the between-arm difference was statistically significant, favoring durvalumab plus EP (difference, -4.5; 99% CI: -9.04, -0.04; nominal p = 0.009). Patients experienced longer TTD with durvalumab plus EP versus EP for all symptoms (hazard ratio [95% CI] for key symptoms: cough 0.78 [0.600‒1.026]; dyspnea 0.79 [0.625‒1.006]; chest pain 0.76 [0.575‒0.996]; fatigue 0.82 [0.653‒1.027]; appetite loss 0.70 [0.542‒0.899]), functioning, and global health status/QoL. CONCLUSION: Addition of durvalumab to first-line EP maintained QoL and delayed worsening of patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with EP.