Avelumab Versus Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With High-Expression Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive Metastatic NSCLC: Primary Analysis From the Phase 3 JAVELIN Lung 100 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells). RESULTS: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02576574.

Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Programmed Death-Ligand 1-High Advanced NSCLC: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has exhibited clinical activity in a phase 1 expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This adaptive phase 3 trial (NCT03631706) compared the efficacy and safety of bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC. Primary end points were progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 per independent review committee and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients (N = 304) were randomized one-to-one to receive either bintrafusp alfa or pembrolizumab (n = 152 each). The median follow-up was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.1-16.0 mo) for bintrafusp alfa and 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.1-15.9 mo) for pembrolizumab. Progression-free survival by independent review committee was not significantly different between bintrafusp alfa and pembrolizumab arms (median = 7.0 mo [95% CI: 4.2 mo-not reached (NR)] versus 11.1 mo [95% CI: 8.1 mo-NR]; hazard ratio = 1.232 [95% CI: 0.885-1.714]). The median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% CI: 21.1 mo-NR) for bintrafusp alfa and 22.1 months (95% CI: 20.4 mo-NR) for pembrolizumab (hazard ratio = 1.201 [95% CI: 0.796-1.811]). Treatment-related adverse events were higher with bintrafusp alfa versus pembrolizumab; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42.4% versus 13.2% of patients, respectively. The study was discontinued at an interim analysis as it was unlikely to meet the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with bintrafusp alfa did not exhibit superior efficacy compared with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high, advanced NSCLC.

Quality of life with second or third line nab-paclitaxel-based regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Evaluate quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with second or third line nab-paclitaxel ± durvalumab. Patients & methods: Longitudinal QoL was assessed using Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core. Results: QoL was generally stable through eight treatment cycles (both arms). Clinically meaningful improvement from baseline was noted in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (overall constitutional score and three-item index [nab-paclitaxel + durvalumab]) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core (global health status/QoL and emotional functioning [both arms] and pain [nab-paclitaxel + durvalumab]) analyses. EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels domains were stable/improved or completely resolved at least once in 19-56% and 9-51% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: While QoL trends were promising, additional data are required to support these regimens in this setting.

nab-Paclitaxel Plus Durvalumab in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (ABOUND.2L+).

Background: The standard therapy for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with no actionable gene alterations is a platinum-based chemotherapy doublet and immune checkpoint blocker (ICB), either concurrently or sequentially, followed by docetaxel at the time of tumor progression. However, more effective treatments are needed. We evaluated the nab-paclitaxel and durvalumab combination in patients with previously treated advanced stage NSCLC. Methods: Patients with advanced stage NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based doublet with or without an ICB and no activating EGFR mutations or ALK translocations received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) plus durvalumab 1,125 mg (day 15) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Between February 2016 and December 2016, 79 patients were enrolled. The median age was 63 years. Most patients were males (68.4%), had non-squamous histology (69.6%), and had no prior ICB treatment (88.6%). The median PFS was 4.5 months; median OS was 10.1 months. A post hoc analysis of survival by prior ICB treatment revealed a median PFS and OS of 4.4 and 9.9 months, respectively, in ICB-naive patients and 6.9 months and not estimable, respectively, in patients previously treated with ICB. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were asthenia (46.2%) and diarrhea (34.6%); four treatment-related deaths (5.1%) occurred. Conclusions: The nab-paclitaxel and durvalumab combination is feasible and demonstrated antitumor activity without new safety signals. Additional studies using taxanes and ICB in patients with previously treated NSCLC are warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT02250326). EudraCT number: 2014-001105-41.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1b/2 Study of Rilotumumab or Ganitumab in Combination With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b/2 study we assessed the efficacy/safety of rilotumumab or ganitumab combined with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase 1b study, patients received rilotumumab 15 mg/kg or ganitumab 18 mg/kg with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. In the phase 2 study, patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumab with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. Chemotherapy was administered for ≤ 6 cycles; rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo was then continued as maintenance therapy. The primary end points were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and overall survival (OS; phase 2). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In the phase 1b study (n = 28), 1 patient treated with ganitumab experienced a DLT (Grade 4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia lasting ≥ 7 days). In the phase 2 study, 185 patients were enrolled (placebo, n = 61; rilotumumab, n = 62; ganitumab, n = 62). Median OS was 10.8, 12.2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.25; P = .384), and 10.7 (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.63-1.41; P = .787) months, in placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumumab arms, respectively. Median PFS was 5.4, 5.4 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.54; P = .797), and 5.5 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55; P = .780) months, respectively. Adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in 11 (19%), 10 (16%), and 7 (12%) patients, respectively. Serum biomarker analysis showed improved survival for patients with baseline hepatocyte growth factor levels below the median in the rilotumumab arm. CONCLUSION: Although the combination of rilotumumab or ganitumab with chemotherapy was tolerable, overall outcomes were not improved in patients with ES-SCLC.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.