Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %: A subgroup analysis from the EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, assessed cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression levels. We report results from subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1 %. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive cemiplimab 350 mg or placebo with chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORRs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 327 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 % (466 in the overall study), 217 received cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 110 received chemotherapy alone. After median follow-up of 28.0 months, median OS for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 23.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 20.9-27.2) vs. 12.1 months (95 % CI: 10.1-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001); median PFS was 8.3 months (95 % CI: 6.7-10.8) versus 5.5 months (95 % CI: 4.3-6.2; HR = 0.48; 95 % CI: 0.37-0.62, P < 0.0001), and ORR was 47.9 % versus 22.7 %, respectively. PRO results favored cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. Improved efficacy over chemotherapy alone was observed in both squamous and non-squamous histology. Safety was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis from EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement.

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Quality of life with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Patient-reported outcomes from phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3.

BACKGROUND: EMPOWER-Lung 3, a randomized 2:1 phase 3 trial, showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant overall survival improvement with cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks) for the first six doses, and then at start of every three cycles, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Prespecified analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis performed for global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and all scales from the questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients were assigned to receive cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and 154 to receive placebo plus chemotherapy; 391 (83.9%) were male and the median age was 63.0 years (range, 25-84). For pain symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30), a statistically significant overall improvement from baseline (-4.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.36 to -1.60, p = .004) and a statistically significant delay in TTD (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60, p < .0001) favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy were observed. Statistically significant delays in TTD, all favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, were also observed in functioning and symptom scales. A significant overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with nonsignificant overall change from baseline for placebo plus chemotherapy (1.69, 95% CI, 0.20-3.19 vs. 1.08, 95% CI, -1.34 to 3.51; between arms, p = .673). No analyses yielded statistically significant PRO results favoring placebo plus chemotherapy for any QLQ-C30 or QLQ-LC13 scale. CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant overall improvement in pain symptoms and delayed TTD in cancer-related and lung cancer-specific symptoms and functions.

Regulatory and HTA Considerations for Development of Real-World Data Derived External Controls.

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD-derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit-for-purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD-derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias.

Effectively Leveraging RWD for External Controls: A Systematic Literature Review of Regulatory and HTA Decisions.

Real-world data (RWD)-derived external controls can be used to contextualize efficacy findings for investigational therapies evaluated in uncontrolled trials. As the number of submissions to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies using external controls rises, and in light of recent regulatory and HTA guidance on the appropriate use of RWD, there is a need to address the operational and methodological challenges impeding the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation and the consistency in evaluation of RWE across agencies. This systematic review summarizes publicly available information on the use of external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials for all indications from January 1, 2015, through August 20, 2021, that were submitted to the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and/or select major HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)). By systematically reviewing submissions to regulatory and HTA bodies in the context of recent guidance, this study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into how external control design and analytic choices may be viewed by different agencies in practice. The primary operational and methodological aspects identified for discussion include, but are not limited to, engagement of regulators and HTA bodies, approaches to handling missing data (a component of data quality), and selection of real-world endpoints. Continued collaboration and guidance to address these and other aspects will inform and assist stakeholders attempting to generate evidence using external controls.

Cemiplimab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 Part 2 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, investigated cemiplimab (antiprogrammed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, with either squamous or nonsquamous histology, irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 levels. At primary analysis, after 16.4 months of follow-up, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy improved median overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone (21.9 versus 13.0 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014). Here, we report protocol-specified final OS and 2-year follow-up results. METHODS: Patients (N = 466) were randomized 2:1 to receive histology-specific platinum-doublet chemotherapy, with 350 mg cemiplimab (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival and objective response rates. RESULTS: After 28.4 months of median follow-up, median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI: 15.9-23.5) for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.6-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p = 0.0003); median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.4-9.0) versus 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.2) (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.68, p < 0.0001), and objective response rates were 43.6% versus 22.1%, respectively. Safety was generally consistent with previously reported data. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 48.7% with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 32.7% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: At protocol-specified final OS analysis with 28.4 months of follow-up, the EMPOWER-Lung 3 study continued to reveal benefit of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC, across programmed death-ligand 1 levels.

Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High PD-L1 Expression Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Therapy.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health aNSCLC database (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021) among patients with PD-L1 ≥50% initiating first-line ICIs with or without chemotherapy. A clinical trial-like sub-cohort was also identified with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no brain metastases or other primary cancers. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) by ICI regimen (ICI+chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy) and PD-L1 expression (50-69%, 70-89%, 90-100%). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between ICI regimen, PD-L1 level, and OS, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 2631 patients with aNSCLC initiating ICI+chemotherapy (n = 992) or ICI monotherapy (n = 1639) were included; median (Q1, Q3) age was 71 (63-78) years and 51.6% were male. The trial-like sub-cohort (n = 1029) generally had better outcomes vs. the overall cohort. Patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy generally had longer median OS vs. ICI monotherapy. Multivariable analyses showed no association between ICI regimen and OS among patients with PD-L1 70-89% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.09) or 90-100% (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08), but patients with PD-L1 50-69% receiving ICI+chemotherapy had longer OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99). Conclusion: Outcomes in real-world clinical trial-like patients with aNSCLC approached those reported in pivotal ICI trials in high PD-L1 expressers. ICI monotherapy offers a potential alternative in patients with PD-L1 ≥70% while avoiding potential chemotherapy toxicity exposure; the benefits are less clear in patients with PD-L1 50-69%. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

Machine learning models for identifying predictors of clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without actionable oncogenic driver mutations. While clinical trials demonstrated benefits of ICIs over chemotherapy, variation in outcomes across patients has been observed and trial populations may not be representative of clinical practice. Predictive models can help understand heterogeneity of treatment effects, identify predictors of meaningful clinical outcomes, and may inform treatment decisions. We applied machine learning (ML)-based survival models to a real-world cohort of patients with aNSCLC who received 1L ICI therapy extracted from a US-based electronic health record database. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including concordance index (c-index), and we used explainability techniques to identify significant predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ML model achieved c-indices of 0.672 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences between low- and high-risk groups for OS and PFS (both log-rank test p < 0.0001). Identified predictors were mostly consistent with the published literature and/or clinical expectations and largely overlapped for OS and PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression levels, and serum albumin were among the top 5 predictors for both outcomes. Prospective and independent data set evaluation is required to confirm these results.

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial.

First-line cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)) monotherapy has previously shown significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. EMPOWER-Lung 3 ( NCT03409614 ), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, examined cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for aNSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression or histology. In this study, 466 patients with stage III/IV aNSCLC without EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genomic tumor aberrations were randomized (2:1) to receive cemiplimab 350 mg (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks in combination with four cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (followed by pemetrexed maintenance as indicated). In total, 57.1% (266/466 patients) had non-squamous NSCLC, and 85.2% (397/466 patients) had stage IV disease. The primary endpoint was OS. The trial was stopped early per recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee, based on meeting preset OS efficacy criteria: median OS was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 15.5-not evaluable) with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 13.0 months (95% CI, 11.9-16.1) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93; P = 0.014). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (43.6%, 136/312 patients) and placebo plus chemotherapy (31.4%, 48/153 patients). Cemiplimab is only the second anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent to show efficacy in aNSCLC as both monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for both squamous and non-squamous histologies.

Characterizing the Shifting Real-World Treatment Landscape by PD-L1 Testing Status and Expression Level in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary real-world data on advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment patterns across programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels and testing status are limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was selected of adults newly diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2021, who initiated first-line treatments, which were described by PD-L1 status and expression levels (≥ 50%, 1-49%, < 1%). Treatment received before and after PD-L1 test results were described for patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results. For patients who initiated chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after PD-L1 results was estimated by PD-L1 level and associated factors were explored. RESULTS: Among 12,202 patients with aNSCLC initiating first-line treatment [54.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 69.2 (9.4) years], the most common therapies were ICI-based regimens across PD-L1 levels, and chemotherapy alone among PD-L1-untested patients. Use of chemotherapy alone decreased between 2018 and 2019 and stabilized thereafter, accounting for 21-29% of first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Of 1468 patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results, treatments remained unchanged in most patients after PD-L1 results. Among patients initiating chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving ICIs within 45 days after test results was 40.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.6-48.3%], 28.6% (95% CI 20.3-36.0%), and 22.9% (95% CI 16.9-28.4%) at PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and < 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While ICI-based regimens accounted for most first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels, chemotherapy alone was initiated in > 20% of patients tested for PD-L1 and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Patients who initiated chemotherapy alone had a low probability of receiving ICIs after PD-L1 test results. These results highlight the need for understanding the role and timing of PD-L1 test results for informing treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC.

Awareness and Availability of Routine Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer in Germany.

Introduction: Diagnostic testing of germline mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes 1 or 2 (gBRCA1/2) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC; locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer) is necessary to assess eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). We investigated awareness, clinical practice, and the availability of gBRCA1/2 mutation testing in the German outpatient oncology setting. Methods: Office-based oncologists completed a 23-item online survey. Responses were evaluated collectively and by center type. Results: Of 50 oncologists, 33 and 17 were medical and gynecological oncologists, respectively. Oncologists treated a median of 65 (range 14-350) patients with ABC per year. The strongest decision factors to initiate gBRCA1/2 mutation testing were: patient's known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s), guideline recommendations, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In routine practice, 86% of oncologists tested for gBRCA1/2 mutations. Most oncologists (76-98%) reported testing patients with a known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s) irrespective of receptor status. For unknown family history, 92% of oncologists reported testing patients with advanced TNBC versus 30% for HR+/HER2- ABC. Oncologists (66%) rated the awareness of therapeutic relevance of gBRCA1/2 mutation testing for targeted treatment selection as good to satisfactory; 22% rated awareness as poor to in-sufficient. Conclusion: Diagnostic gBRCA1/2 mutation testing in patients with HER2- ABC is available and routinely performed in Germany's outpatient oncology setting. However, specific patient subgroups were not routinely tested despite therapeutic indications. Given PARPi availability, opportunities exist to improve testing rates especially for patients with HR+/HER2- ABC without a known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s).

Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring). Results: In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.

Epidemiology of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) in the United States and Western Europe: population-level projections for 2020-2025.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) treatments have been rapidly evolving for patients treated in later lines of therapy (LoT). Country-specific cancer registry data for the US and Western Europe (WE) were combined with physician survey results to project the incidence, prevalence, and number of DLBCL and FL patients eligible for and treated by LoT between 2020 and 2025. The total number of incidents and prevalent cases of DLBCL and FL is expected to increase between 2020 and 2025 in the US and WE. 56% and 53% of the third line plus (3L+) eligible DLBCL patients and 60% and 55% of eligible FL patients initiated treatment in the US and WE, respectively. Further research is warranted to understand the reasons behind the high proportion of treatment eligible patients who do not initiate treatment, and potential differences between countries, especially in the 3L + settings.

The value of new drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved a number of new cancer drugs. The clinical trials that serve as the basis for new cancer drug approvals may not reflect how the drugs will perform in routine practice and do not measure the impact of the drugs on spending. The authors sought to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and value of drugs recently approved for advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, the authors identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who began treatment with a drug approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in 2007-2009, when only 1 drug was approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and in 2014-2016, when 5 additional drugs were approved. They calculated life expectancy and lifetime medical costs (ie, Medicare reimbursements) for each group. RESULTS: Between 2007-2009 and 2014-2016, life expectancy increased by 12.6 months. Lifetime medical costs increased by $87,000. The incremental cost per life-year gained was $83,000. CONCLUSION: The release of 5 new drugs coincided with increases in survival rates and spending. This study's estimates indicate that the new drugs collectively were cost-effective.

Outcomes in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups From the EMBRACA Study: Talazoparib vs Physician's Choice Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that causes death in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. METHODS: EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was a randomized phase III study comparing efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of talazoparib (1 mg) with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT: capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutation. Prespecified patient subgroups were analyzed for progression-free survival, objective response, clinical benefit, duration of response, and safety. PROs were evaluated in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups. RESULTS: Of 431 patients, 287 were randomly assigned to talazoparib and 144 to PCT. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed prolonged progression-free survival with talazoparib (HR+/HER2-: hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.71; TNBC: hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 0.87) and greater objective response rate (odds ratio = 1.97 to 11.89), clinical benefit rate (odds ratio = 2.05 to 7.77), and duration of response with talazoparib in all subgroups. PROs in HR+/HER2- and TNBC subgroups showed consistent overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration with talazoparib vs PCT. Across subgroups, common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea with talazoparib and neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea with PCT. Seven patients (2.4%) receiving talazoparib had grade II alopecia and 22.7% had grade I alopecia. CONCLUSIONS: Across all patient subgroups with gBRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib demonstrated clinically significant superiority in outcomes compared with PCT.

Talazoparib in Patients with a Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer: Detailed Safety Analyses from the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS: The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer.

Several ongoing international prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials are exploring therapies that target the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence of DDR mutation carriers in the unselected (general) PC and familial PC populations. A total of 11 electronic databases, 10 conference proceedings, and grey literature sources were searched from their inception to December 2017. Studies reporting the prevalence of somatic and/or germline DDR mutations were summarized. Metastatic PC (mPC), castration­resistant PC (CRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) subgroups were included. A total of 11,648 records were retrieved, and 80 studies (103 records) across all PC populations were included; 59 records were of unselected PC and 13 records of familial PC. Most data were available for DDR panels (n=12 studies), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM; n=13), breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)1 (n=14) and BRCA2 (n=20). ATM, BRCA2 and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) had the highest mutation rates (≥4%). Median prevalence rates for DDR germline mutations were 18.6% in PC (range, 17.2­19%; three studies, n=1,712), 11.6% in mPC (range, 11.4­11.8%; two studies, n=1,261) and 8.3% in mCRPC (range, 7.5­9.1%; two studies, n=738). Median prevalence rates for DDR somatic mutations were 10.7% in PC (range, 4.9­22%; three studies, n=680), 13.2% in mPC (range, 10­16.4%; two studies, n=105) and not reported (NR) in mCRPC. The prevalence of DDR germline and/or somatic mutations was 27% in PC (one study, n=221), 22.67% in mCRPC (one study, n=150) and NR in mPC. In familial PC, median mutation prevalence was 12.1% (range, 7.3­16.9%) for germline DDR (two studies, n=315) and 3.7% (range, 1.3­7.9%) for BRCA2 (six studies, n=945). In total, 88% of studies were at a high risk of bias. The prevalence of DDR gene mutations in PC varied widely within somatic subgroups depending on study size, genetic screening techniques, DDR mutation definition and PC diagnosis; somatic and/or germline DDR mutation prevalence was in the range of 23­27% in PC. These findings support DDR mutation testing for all patients with PC (including those with mCRPC). With the advent of the latest clinical practice PC guidelines highlighting the importance of DDR mutation screening, and ongoing mCRPC clinical trials evaluating DDR mutation­targeted drugs, future larger epidemiological studies are warranted to further quantify the international burden of DDR mutations in PC.

Clinical Outcomes, Treatment Patterns, and Health Resource Utilization Among Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients with Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation: A Real-World Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: With evolving treatment guidelines for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm) in breast cancer, we present the latest gBRCA testing rates among metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Among these patients with gBRCAm, we analyzed clinical outcomes, treatment patterns, and health resource utilization (HRU). METHODS: The Flatiron Health electronic health record database was used to assess gBRCA testing rates in a real-world retrospective analysis of US patients at least 18 years old with HR+/HER2- or TNBC, and with mBC diagnosed from January 2011 to February 2018. Outcomes were compared between gBRCAm patients with HR+/HER2- vs TNBC, adjusting for imbalances utilizing inverse probability treatment weighting; effects of HR+/HER2- vs TNBC on overall survival (OS) were assessed, antineoplastic treatments summarized, and HRU analyzed using t tests. RESULTS: The study included 12,021 mBC patients (HR+/HER2-, 10,291; TNBC, 1730). Results for gBRCA testing were available for 2005 (16.7%) patients (HR+/HER2-, 1587; TNBC, 418). A total of 229 (1.9%) patients (HR+/HER2-, 165; TNBC, 64) had gBRCAm. Significantly worse OS in gBRCAm mBC was observed in TNBC vs HR+/HER2- [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.45 (0.27-0.74); p = 0.002]. Estimated median and 4-year OS rates for gBRCAm mBC patients with either HR+/HER2- or TNBC were 38.0 months, 23.4 months and 35.6%, 21.2% respectively. The most common first-line treatment post diagnosis for gBRCAm HR+/HER2- was letrozole (8%) vs capecitabine (14%) for gBRCAm TNBC. The number of HRU treatment visits per patient per year was significantly (p < 0.05) higher among gBRCAm mBC patients with TNBC vs HR+/HER2-. CONCLUSION: Among HER2- mBC patients, gBRCA testing rates are low. Among gBRCAm HER2- mBC patients, the poor OS and HRU burden observed, especially in patients with TNBC, demonstrate an unmet need for more efficacious, targeted, and less HRU-intensive treatment options. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Correction to: Patterns of Bicalutamide Use in Prostate Cancer Treatment: A U.S. Real-World Analysis Using the SEER-Medicare Database.

The original article can be found online.