Phase II study investigating the efficacy and safety of glesatinib (MGCD265) in patients with advanced NSCLC containing MET activating alterations.

OBJECTIVES: Dysregulated signaling by mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) and heightened AXL activation are implicated in the pathogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Glesatinib (MGCD265) is an investigational, oral inhibitor of MET and AXL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, Phase II study investigated glesatinib (free-base suspension [FBS] capsule 1050 mg BID or spray-dried dispersion [SDD] tablet 750 mg BID) in patients with advanced, previously treated NSCLC across four cohorts grouped according to presence of MET activating mutations or amplification in tumor or ctDNA. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled: n = 28 and n = 8 with MET exon 14 skipping mutations in tumor tissue and ctDNA, respectively, and n = 20 and n = 12 with MET gene amplification in tumor tissue and ctDNA, respectively. Overall, ORR was 11.8 %, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months, and median overall survival was 7.0 months. Among patients with MET activating mutations, ORR was 10.7 % with tumor testing and 25.0 % with ctDNA testing. For MET amplification, responses were observed only in patients enrolled by tumor testing (ORR 15.0 %). Diarrhea (82.4 %), nausea (50.0 %), increased alanine aminotransferase (41.2 %), fatigue (38.2 %), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (36.8 %) were the most frequent adverse events assessed as related to study medication. Glesatinib exposure was similar with the SDD tablet and FBS capsule formulations. The study was terminated early by the sponsor due to modest clinical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Glesatinib had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced, pre-treated NSCLC with MET activating alterations. Modest clinical activity was observed, which likely reflects suboptimal drug bioavailability suggested by previously reported Phase I data, and pharmacodynamic findings of lower than anticipated increases in circulating soluble shed MET ectodomain (s-MET).

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

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

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

Neoadjuvant Durvalumab Alone or Combined with Novel Immuno-Oncology Agents in Resectable Lung Cancer: The Phase II NeoCOAST Platform Trial.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. NeoCOAST was the first randomized, multidrug platform trial to examine novel neoadjuvant immuno-oncology combinations for patients with resectable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) rate as the primary endpoint. Eighty-three patients received a single cycle of treatment: 26 received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy, 21 received durvalumab plus oleclumab (anti-CD73), 20 received durvalumab plus monalizumab (anti-NKG2A), and 16 received durvalumab plus danvatirsen (anti-STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide). MPR rates were higher for patients in the combination arms versus durvalumab alone. Safety profiles for the combinations were similar to those of durvalumab alone. Multiplatform immune profiling suggested that improved MPR rates in the durvalumab plus oleclumab and durvalumab plus monalizumab arms were associated with enhanced effector immune infiltration of tumors, interferon responses and markers of tertiary lymphoid structure formation, and systemic functional immune cell activation. SIGNIFICANCE: A neoadjuvant platform trial can rapidly generate clinical and translational data using candidate surrogate endpoints like MPR. In NeoCOAST, patients with resectable NSCLC had improved MPR rates after durvalumab plus oleclumab or monalizumab versus durvalumab alone and tumoral transcriptomic signatures indicative of augmented immune cell activation and function. See related commentary by Cooper and Yu, p. 2306. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293.

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

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

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Combination With Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III POSEIDON Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS: PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Myeloprotective Effects of Trilaciclib Among Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer at Increased Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression: Pooled Results from Three Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

PURPOSE: Trilaciclib is an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) by protecting hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy-induced damage (myeloprotection). Here, we investigated the myeloprotective effects of trilaciclib among patients at increased risk of CIM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 clinical studies of trilaciclib administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Myeloprotective outcomes were evaluated in patient subgroups based on age (<65 or ≥65 years), risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), and risk of anemia or red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. For the FN and anemia analyses, risk factors were identified from published literature and used to classify patients into FN and anemia risk categories. Subgroup analysis based on age was also performed on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures. RESULTS: In total, 123 patients received trilaciclib and 119 patients received placebo. Myeloprotective benefits of trilaciclib were observed regardless of age, with greater effects observed among patients aged ≥65 years. Across FN risk factors and categories, trilaciclib had beneficial effects on neutrophil-related endpoints vs placebo, with greater effects observed in patients at higher risk of FN. Effects on RBC-related endpoints favored trilaciclib vs placebo, regardless of anemia risk factors and categories. Improvements in PROs with trilaciclib were observed irrespective of age group, but with greater improvements and less deterioration from baseline observed in older patients. CONCLUSION: By both decreasing the incidence of CIM and improving quality of life, trilaciclib has the potential to allow patients receiving chemotherapy for ES-SCLC, including patients who are older or more vulnerable to CIM, to receive chemotherapy on schedule and at standard-of-care doses, and to improve the experience for patients receiving chemotherapy to treat ES-SCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447.

Myelopreservation with Trilaciclib in Patients Receiving Topotecan for Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study.

INTRODUCTION: Multilineage myelosuppression is an acute toxicity of cytotoxic chemotherapy, resulting in serious complications and dose modifications. Current therapies are lineage specific and administered after chemotherapy damage has occurred. Trilaciclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor that is administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function during chemotherapy (myelopreservation). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with previously treated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) were randomized to receive intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m2 or placebo before topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1 and occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN). Additional endpoints were prespecified to further assess the effect of trilaciclib on myelopreservation, safety, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and antitumor efficacy. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients received trilaciclib, and 29 patients received placebo. Compared with placebo, administration of trilaciclib prior to topotecan resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases in DSN in cycle 1 (mean [standard deviation] 2 [3.9] versus 7 [6.2] days; adjusted one-sided P < 0.0001) and occurrence of SN (40.6% versus 75.9%; adjusted one-sided P = 0.016), with numerical improvements in additional neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet measures. Patients receiving trilaciclib had fewer grade ≥ 3 hematologic adverse events than patients receiving placebo, particularly neutropenia (75.0% versus 85.7%) and anemia (28.1% versus 60.7%). Myelopreservation benefits extended to improvements in PROs, specifically in those related to fatigue. Antitumor efficacy was comparable between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, the addition of trilaciclib prior to topotecan for the treatment of patients with previously treated ES-SCLC improves the patient experience of receiving chemotherapy, as demonstrated by a reduction in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, improved safety profile, improved quality of life and no detrimental effects on antitumor efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02514447.

Continuous Versus 1-Year Fixed-Duration Nivolumab in Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CheckMate 153.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist on the optimal duration of immunotherapy, including for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present an exploratory analysis of CheckMate 153, a largely community-based phase IIIb/IV study, to evaluate the impact of 1-year fixed-duration versus continuous therapy on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab. METHODS: Patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Those still receiving treatment at 1 year, including patients perceived to be deriving benefit despite radiographic progression, were randomly assigned to continue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the option of on-study retreatment after disease progression (1-year fixed duration). RESULTS: Of 1,428 patients treated, 252 were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 127) or 1-year fixed-duration (n = 125) treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). Of these, 89 and 85 patients in the continuous and 1-year fixed-duration arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival [PFS] population). With minimum post-random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population: 24.7 months v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84]). Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment in the PFS (not reached v 32.5 months; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99]) and ITT (not reached v 28.8 months; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92]) populations. Few new-onset treatment-related adverse events occurred. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, these findings from an exploratory analysis represent the first randomized data on continuous versus fixed-duration immunotherapy in previously treated advanced NSCLC and suggest that continuing nivolumab beyond 1 year improves outcomes.

Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): Results From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cytotoxic agents have immunomodulatory effects, providing a rationale for combining atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [anti-PD-L1]) with chemotherapy. The randomized phase III IMpower131 study (NCT02367794) evaluated atezolizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy in stage IV squamous NSCLC. METHODS: A total of 1021 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive atezolizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel (A+CP) (n = 338), atezolizumab+carboplatin+nab-paclitaxel (A+CnP) (n = 343), or carboplatin+nab-paclitaxel (CnP) (n = 340) for four or six 21-day cycles; patients randomized to the A+CP or A+CnP arms received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until progressive disease or loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The secondary end points included PFS and OS in PD-L1 subgroups and safety. The primary PFS (January 22, 2018) and final OS (October 3, 2018) for A+CnP versus CnP are reported. RESULTS: PFS improvement with A+CnP versus CnP was seen in the ITT population (median, 6.3 versus 5.6 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.85; p = 0.0001). Median OS in the ITT population was 14.2 and 13.5 months in the A+CnP and CnP arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73-1.05; p = 0.16), not reaching statistical significance. OS improvement with A+CnP versus CnP was observed in the PD-L1-high subgroup (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29-0.81), despite not being formally tested. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in 68.0% and 47.9% (A+CnP) and 57.5% and 28.7% (CnP) of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in patients with first-line squamous NSCLC; OS was similar between the arms.

The McCAVE Trial: Vanucizumab plus mFOLFOX-6 Versus Bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX-6 in Patients with Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma (mCRC).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a VEGF-A inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy, has proven to increase progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in multiple lines of therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The angiogenic factor angiopoetin-2 (Ang-2) is associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including mCRC. Preclinical models demonstrate improved activity when inhibiting both VEGF-A and Ang-2, suggesting that the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 blocker vanucizumab (RO5520985 or RG-7221) may improve clinical outcomes. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vanucizumab plus modified (m)FOLFOX-6 (folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin) versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6 for first-line mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients received mFOLFOX-6 and were randomized 1:1 to also receive vanucizumab 2,000 mg or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every other week. Oxaliplatin was given for eight cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized (vanucizumab, n = 94; bevacizumab, n = 95). The number of PFS events was comparable (vanucizumab, n = 39; bevacizumab, n = 43). The hazard ratio was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.58; p = .98) in a stratified analysis based on number of metastatic sites and region. Objective response rate was 52.1% and 57.9% in the vanucizumab and bevacizumab arm, respectively. Baseline plasma Ang-2 levels were prognostic in both arms but not predictive for treatment effects on PFS of vanucizumab. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥3 was similar between treatment arms (83.9% vs. 82.1%); gastrointestinal perforations (10.8% vs. 8.4%) exceeded previously reported rates in this setting. Hypertension and peripheral edema were more frequent in the vanucizumab arm. CONCLUSION: Vanucizumab/mFOLFOX-6 did not improve PFS and was associated with increased rates of antiangiogenic toxicity compared with bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6. Our results suggest that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in first-line mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized phase II study demonstrates that additional angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) inhibition does not result in superior benefit over anti-VEGF-A blockade alone when each added to standard chemotherapy. Moreover, the performed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis revealed that vanucizumab was bioavailable and affected its intended target, thereby strongly suggesting that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in the clinical setting of treatment-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer. As a result, the further clinical development of the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 inhibitor vanucizumab was discontinued.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptom Burden with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Including Patients Aged 70 Years or Older or with Poor Performance Status (CheckMate 153).

INTRODUCTION: CheckMate 153 (NCT02066636) is a phase 3B/4 study assessing nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. Eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with poor prognostic features of advanced age or diminished Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), which are typically underrepresented in or excluded from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an ECOG PS of 0 to 2 with disease progression after at least one systemic therapy received nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 to 5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). RESULTS: Among 1426 treated patients, 556 (39%) were aged 70 years or older and 128 (9%) had an ECOG PS of 2. The median treatment duration was 3.2 months. Across subgroups and the overall population, the incidences of select grade 3 to 5 TRAEs (6%-9%) and grade 3 or 4 TRAEs (12%-14%) were similar. One grade 5 TRAE was documented. The median overall survival time was comparable in the overall population (9.1 months) and patients aged 70 years or older (10.3 months) but shorter in patients with an ECOG PS of 2 (4.0 months). Patient-reported outcomes generally improved. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large predominantly community-based study, which included patients aged 70 years or older and with an ECOG PS of 2, are consistent with registrational studies. As expected, the median overall survival for patients with an ECOG PS of 2 was lower than for the overall population but comparable with historical data.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

PD-L1 Expression by Two Complementary Diagnostic Assays and mRNA In Situ Hybridization in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic antibodies to immune checkpoints show promising results. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), an immune checkpoint ligand, blocks the cancer immunity cycle by binding the PD-L1 receptor (programmed death 1). We investigated PD-L1 protein expression and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in SCLC. METHODS: PD-L1 protein expression and mRNA levels were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with SP142 and Dako 28-8 PD-L1 antibodies and in situ hybridization in primary tumor tissue microarrays in both tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) obtained from a limited-disease SCLC cohort of 98 patients. An additional cohort of 96 tumor specimens from patients with extensive-disease SCLC was assessed for PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody only. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells was 16.5%. In the limited-disease cohort, the prevalences of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with SP142 and Dako 28-8 were 14.7% and 19.4% (tumor proportion score cutoff ≥1%) and PD-L1 mRNA ISH expression was positive in 15.5% of tumor samples. Increased PD-L1 protein/mRNA expression was associated with the presence of more TIICs (p < 0.05). The extensive-disease cohort demonstrated a 14.9% positivity of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells with Dako 28-8 antibody. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of SCLCs is characterized by positive PD-L1 and/or mRNA expression in tumor cells. Higher PD-L1 and mRNA expression correlate with more infiltration of TIICs. The prevalence of PD-L1 in SCLC is lower than that published for NSCLC. The predictive role of PD-L1 expression in SCLC treatment remains to be established.