Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilar FKB238 Versus Originator Bevacizumab: Results from AVANA, a Phase III Trial in Patients with Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (non-sq-NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is an antiangiogenic recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor growth. FKB238, a bevacizumab biosimilar, has analytical pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to those of bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: This phase III trial (NCT02810457) compared the efficacy and safety of FKB238 with that of bevacizumab in patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (non-sq-NSCLC). METHODS: This global, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, comparative clinical trial enrolled and randomized patients with advanced/recurrent non-sq-NSCLC to receive intravenous infusions of either FKB238 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. All patients received intravenous infusions of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0) immediately prior to investigational products for 4-6 cycles. FKB238 and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until objective progressive disease by RECIST version 1.1 or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), including complete and partial response and based on blinded independent central review assessment. Other efficacy determinations included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Adverse events and severity were reported. RESULTS: The ORR for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 731) was 51.6% in the FKB238 arm (N = 364) and 53.7% in the bevacizumab arm (N = 367). The FKB238:bevacizumab ORR ratio (ITT population) was 0.96 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.08), and the difference in ORR (per-protocol set) between FKB238 and bevacizumab was - 0.02 (95% CI - 0.09 to 0.06). Both CIs fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. Estimated median PFS was 7.72 and 7.62 months in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.82-1.16). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 94.2% and 95.1% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported for 53.6% and 55.5% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Serious TEAEs were reported for 25.1% and 26.0% of patients treated with FKB238 and bevacizumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy equivalence was demonstrated between the two drugs, and safety profiles were similar. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy and safety between FKB238 or bevacizumab in patients with non-sq-NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02810457.

Copanlisib plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (CHRONOS-3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Copanlisib, an intravenous pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, showed efficacy and safety as monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had received at least two therapies. The CHRONOS-3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of copanlisib plus rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: CHRONOS-3 was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 186 academic medical centres across Asia, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, North America, Russia, South Africa, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of no more than 2 and histologically confirmed CD20-positive indolent B-cell lymphoma relapsed after the last anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody-containing therapy and progression-free and treatment-free for at least 12 months, or at least 6 months for patients unwilling or unfit to receive chemotherapy, were randomly assigned (2:1) with an interactive voice-web response system via block randomisation (block size of six) to copanlisib (60 mg given as a 1-h intravenous infusion on an intermittent schedule on days 1, 8, and 15 [28-day cycle]) plus rituximab (375 mg/m2 given intravenously weekly on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, and 9) or placebo plus rituximab, stratified on the basis of histology, progression-free and treatment-free interval, presence of bulky disease, and previous treatment with PI3K inhibitors. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the full analysis set (all randomised patients) by masked central review. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02367040 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 3, 2015, and Dec 17, 2019, 652 patients were screened for eligibility. 307 of 458 patients were randomly assigned to copanlisib plus rituximab and 151 patients were randomly assigned to placebo plus rituximab. With a median follow-up of 19·2 months (IQR 7·4-28·8) and 205 total events, copanlisib plus rituximab showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo plus rituximab; median progression-free survival 21·5 months (95% CI 17·8-33·0) versus 13·8 months (10·2-17·5; hazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·39-0·69]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (173 [56%] of 307 patients in the copanlisib plus rituximab group vs 12 [8%] of 146 in the placebo plus rituximab group) and hypertension (122 [40%] vs 13 [9%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 145 (47%) of 307 patients receiving copanlisib plus rituximab and 27 (18%) of 146 patients receiving placebo plus rituximab. One (<1%) drug-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the copanlisib plus rituximab group and none occurred in the placebo plus rituximab group. INTERPRETATION: Copanlisib plus rituximab improved progression-free survival in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma compared with placebo plus rituximab. To our knowledge, copanlisib is the first PI3K inhibitor to be safely combined with rituximab and the first to show broad and superior efficacy in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. FUNDING: Bayer.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

International, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: MONET1.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor; and Kit) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and in the subset of patients with adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC (no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease) were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin (area under the curve, 6 mg/ml · min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) intravenously for up to six 3-week cycles plus either motesanib 125 mg (arm A) or placebo (arm B) once daily orally. OS was the primary end point. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. RESULTS: A total of 1,090 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (arms A/B, n = 541 of 549); of those, 890 had adenocarcinoma (n = 448 of 442). Median OS in arms A and B was 13.0 and 11.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.04; P = .14); median OS for the adenocarcinoma subset was 13.5 and 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P = .11). In descriptive analyses (arms A v B), median PFS was 5.6 months versus 5.4 months (P = < .001); ORR was 40% versus 26% (P < .001). There was no association between PLGF change and OS in arm A. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs (arms A and B, 73% and 59%, respectively) and grade 5 AEs (14% and 9%, respectively) was higher with motesanib treatment. CONCLUSION: Motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel did not significantly improve OS over carboplatin/paclitaxel alone in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC or in the adenocarcinoma subset.