IMscin001 Part 2: a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre study examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of atezolizumab subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and pharmacokinetics comparison with other approved indications.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab intravenous (IV) is approved for the treatment of various solid tumours. To improve treatment convenience and health care efficiencies, a coformulation of atezolizumab and recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 was developed for subcutaneous (SC) use. Part 2 of IMscin001 (NCT03735121) was a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study comparing the drug exposure of atezolizumab SC with atezolizumab IV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to receive atezolizumab SC (1875 mg; n = 247) or IV (1200 mg; n = 124) every 3 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were cycle 1 observed trough serum concentration (Ctrough) and model-predicted area under the curve from days 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 d). The secondary endpoints were steady-state exposure, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Exposure following atezolizumab SC was then compared with historical atezolizumab IV values across approved indications. RESULTS: The study met both of its co-primary endpoints: cycle 1 observed Ctrough {SC: 89 µg/ml [coefficient of variation (CV): 43%] versus IV: 85 µg/ml (CV: 33%); geometric mean ratio (GMR), 1.05 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.24]} and model-predicted AUC0-21 d [SC: 2907 µg d/ml (CV: 32%) versus IV: 3328 µg d/ml (CV: 20%); GMR, 0.87 (90% CI 0.83-0.92)]. Progression-free survival [hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI 0.82-1.41)], objective response rate (SC: 12% versus IV: 10%), and incidence of anti-atezolizumab antibodies (SC: 19.5% versus IV: 13.9%) were similar between arms. No new safety concerns were identified. Ctrough and AUC0-21 d for atezolizumab SC were consistent with the other approved atezolizumab IV indications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IV, atezolizumab SC demonstrated noninferior drug exposure at cycle 1. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between arms and consistent with the known profile for atezolizumab IV. Similar drug exposure and clinical outcomes following SC and IV administration support the use of atezolizumab SC as an alternative to atezolizumab IV.

A phase II randomized trial of cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (COLET): primary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to standard chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is associated with upregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Cobimetinib, an MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) inhibitor, may increase sensitivity to taxanes and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors. COLET is a three-cohort phase II study evaluating first-line cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, in patients with locally advanced or mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were ≥18 years with locally advanced or mTNBC. Following a safety run-in, patients in cohort I were randomized 1:1 to cobimetinib (60 mg, D3-D23 of each 28-day cycle) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, D1, 8, and 15). Additional patients were randomized (1:1) to cohort II or III to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (840 mg, D1 and D15) and either paclitaxel (cohort II) or nab-paclitaxel [cohort III (100 mg/m2, D1, D8, and D15)]. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (cohort I) and confirmed objective response rate (ORR) (cohorts II/III). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: In the expansion stages, median PFS was 5.5 months for cobimetinib/paclitaxel versus 3.8 months for placebo/paclitaxel in cohort I [hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.24; P = 0.25]. In cohort I, ORR was 38.3% (95% CI 24.40-52.20) for cobimetinib/paclitaxel and 20.9% (95% CI 8.77-33.09) for placebo/paclitaxel; ORRs in cohorts II and III were 34.4% (95% CI 18.57-53.19) and 29.0% (95% CI 14.22-48.04), respectively. Diarrhea was the most common grade ≥3 adverse events across all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Cobimetinib added to paclitaxel did not lead to a statistically significant increase in PFS or ORR, although a nonsignificant trend toward a numerical increase was observed. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and a taxane did not appear to increase ORR. This demonstrates the potential activity of a combinatorial MEK inhibitor, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in this difficult-to-treat population.

A multicentre, phase IIa study of zolbetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent or refractory advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or lower oesophagus: the MONO study.

BACKGROUND: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) is physiologically confined to gastric mucosa tight junctions; however, upon malignant transformation, perturbations in cell polarity lead to CLDN18.2 epitopes being exposed on the cancer cell surface. The first-in-class monoclonal antibody, zolbetuximab (formerly known as IMAB362), binds to CLDN18.2 and can induce immune-mediated lysis of CLDN18.2-positive cells. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction (GEJ) or oesophageal adenocarcinomas with moderate-to-strong CLDN18.2 expression in ≥50% of tumour cells received zolbetuximab intravenously every 2 weeks for five planned infusions. At least three patients were enrolled in two sequential cohorts (cohort 1300 mg/m2; cohort 2600 mg/m2); additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion cohort (cohort 3600 mg/m2). The primary end point was the objective response rate [ORR: complete and partial response (PR)]; secondary end points included clinical benefit [ORR+stable disease (SD)], progression-free survival, safety/tolerability, and zolbetuximab pharmacokinetic profile. RESULTS: From September 2010 to September 2012, 54 patients were enrolled (cohort 1, n = 4; cohort 2, n = 6; cohort 3, n = 44). Three patients in cohort 1 and 25 patients in cohorts 2/3 received at least 5 infusions. Antitumour activity data were available for 43 patients, of whom 4 achieved PR (ORR 9%) and 6 (14%) had SD for a clinical benefit rate of 23%. In a subgroup of patients with moderate-to-high CLDN18.2 expression in ≥70% of tumour cells, ORR was 14% (n = 4/29). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81.5% (n = 44/54) patients; nausea (61%), vomiting (50%), and fatigue (22%) were the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Zolbetuximab monotherapy was well tolerated and exhibited antitumour activity in patients with CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinomas, with response rates similar to those reported for single-agent targeted agents in gastric/GEJ cancer trials. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT01197885.

Safety results from a phase III study (TURANDOT trial by CECOG) of first-line bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine or paclitaxel for HER-2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We report safety data from a randomised, phase III study (CECOG/BC.1.3.005) evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast adenocarcinoma were randomised to Arm A: bevacizumab 10 mg/kg days 1 and 15; paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks; or Arm B: bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-14, every 3 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. RESULTS: A post hoc interim safety analysis included 561 patients (Arm A: 284, Arm B: 277). The regimens demonstrated similar frequencies of all-grade and serious adverse events (SAEs), but different safety profiles. Treatment-related events occurred in 85.2% (Arm A) and 78.0% (Arm B) of patients. Fatigue was most common in Arm A (30.6% versus 23.5% Arm B), and hand-foot syndrome (HFS) most common in Arm B (49.5% versus 2.5% Arm A). Diarrhoea (Arm A: 0.4%, Arm B: 1.4%) and pulmonary embolism (Arm A: 0.7%, Arm B: 1.1%) were the most frequently reported SAEs. CONCLUSION: These findings are in-line with safety data for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine, reported in previous phase III trials.