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.

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.

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.

Final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 HERITAGE study demonstrates equivalence of trastuzumab-dkst to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated that the biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst is well tolerated with similar efficacy (measured by overall response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) compared with originator trastuzumab combined with taxane followed by monotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Herein, we present final overall survival (OS) from HERITAGE. METHODS: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive trastuzumab-dkst or trastuzumab plus taxane followed by continued monotherapy until disease progression. Overall survival was to be assessed at 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurred first, as observed from time of randomization of last patient. RESULTS: At the final analysis (36 months), 242 patients in the intention-to-treat population had died during the study: 116 and 124 in the trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab groups, respectively, and 1 untreated patient from each treatment group. Median OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 35.0 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 30.2 months with trastuzumab. Evaluation of PFS showed a median of 11.1 months in both treatment groups. No new safety concerns were reported from week 48 until the end of the survival follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the first phase 3 trial of a trastuzumab biosimilar to report long-term survival data similar to originator trastuzumab in patients with MBC. The comparable long-term OS between the trastuzumab-dkst and originator trastuzumab groups further supports the similarity of trastuzumab-dkst with originator trastuzumab and establishes trastuzumab-dkst as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02472964; 6/16/2015.

Capivasertib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Paclitaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The PAKT Trial.

PURPOSE: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT signaling pathway is frequently activated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The AKT inhibitor capivasertib has shown preclinical activity in TNBC models, and drug sensitivity has been associated with activation of PI3K or AKT and/or deletions of PTEN. The PAKT trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding capivasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II trial recruited women with untreated metastatic TNBC. A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either capivasertib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo (days 2-5, 9-12, 16-19) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), PFS and OS in the subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, tumor response, and safety. RESULTS: Median PFS was 5.9 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 4.2 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08; 1-sided P = .06 [predefined significance level, 1-sided P = .10]). Median OS was 19.1 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 12.6 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; 2-sided P = .04). In patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (n = 28), median PFS was 9.3 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 3.7 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.79; 2-sided P = .01). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those treated with capivasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, were diarrhea (13% v 1%), infection (4% v 1%), neutropenia (3% v 3%), rash (4% v 0%), and fatigue (4% v 0%). CONCLUSION: Addition of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy for TNBC resulted in significantly longer PFS and OS. Benefits were more pronounced in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors. Capivasertib warrants further investigation for treatment of TNBC.

Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs Fulvestrant Alone for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: The MANTA Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Fulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.

Effect of a Proposed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Compared With Trastuzumab on Overall Response Rate in Patients With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Treatment with the anti-ERBB2 humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and chemotherapy significantly improves outcome in patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer; a clinically effective biosimilar may help increase access to this therapy. Objective: To compare the overall response rate and assess the safety of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar plus a taxane or trastuzumab plus a taxane in patients without prior treatment for ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase 3 equivalence study in patients with metastatic breast cancer. From December 2012 to August 2015, 500 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a proposed biosimilar or trastuzumab plus a taxane. Chemotherapy was administered for at least 24 weeks followed by antibody alone until unacceptable toxic effects or disease progression occurred. Interventions: Proposed biosimilar (n = 230) or trastuzumab (n = 228) with a taxane. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was week 24 overall response rate (ORR) defined as complete or partial response. Equivalence boundaries were 0.81 to 1.24 with a 90% CI for ORR ratio (proposed biosimilar/trastuzumab) and -15% to 15% with a 95% CI for ORR difference. Secondary outcome measures included time to tumor progression, progression-free and overall survival at week 48, and adverse events. Results: Among 500 women randomized, the intention-to-treat population included 458 women (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [11.11] years) and the safety population included 493 women. The ORR was 69.6% (95% CI, 63.62%-75.51%) for the proposed biosimilar vs 64.0% (95% CI, 57.81%-70.26%) for trastuzumab. The ORR ratio (1.09; 90% CI, 0.974-1.211) and ORR difference (5.53; 95% CI, -3.08 to 14.04) were within the equivalence boundaries. At week 48, there was no statistically significant difference with the proposed biosimilar vs trastuzumab for time to tumor progression (41.3% vs 43.0%; -1.7%; 95% CI, -11.1% to 6.9%), progression-free survival (44.3% vs 44.7%; -0.4%; 95% CI, -9.4% to 8.7%), or overall survival (89.1% vs 85.1%; 4.0%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%). In the proposed biosimilar and trastuzumab groups, 239 (98.6%) and 233 (94.7%) had at least 1 adverse event, the most common including neutropenia (57.5% vs 53.3%), peripheral neuropathy (23.1% vs 24.8%), and diarrhea (20.6% vs 20.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving taxanes, the use of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar compared with trastuzumab resulted in an equivalent overall response rate at 24 weeks. Further study is needed to assess safety and long-term clinical outcome. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02472964; EudraCT Identifier: 2011-001965-42.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Study of Epoetin Alfa Versus Best Standard of Care in Anemic Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An open-label, noninferiority study to evaluate the impact of epoetin alfa (EPO) on tumor outcomes when used to treat anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Women with hemoglobin ≤ 11.0 g/dL, receiving first- or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, were randomly assigned to EPO 40,000 IU subcutaneously once a week or best standard of care. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, time to tumor progression, overall response rate, RBC transfusions, and thrombotic vascular events. RESULTS: In 2,098 patients randomly assigned, median PFS (based on investigator-determined disease progression [PD]) was 7.4 months in both groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.089; 95% CI, 0.988 to 1.200); upper bound exceeded prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.15. Median PFS per independent review committee-determined PD was 7.6 months in both groups (HR, 1.028; 95% CI, 0.922 to 1.146); upper bound did not exceed prespecified noninferiority margin. Median overall survival at clinical cutoff (1,337 deaths) was 17.2 months in the EPO and 17.4 months in the best standard of care group (HR, 1.057; 95% CI, 0.949 to 1.177), median time to tumor progression was 7.5 months in both groups (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.991 to 1.209), and overall response rate was 50% versus 51% (odds ratio, 0.950; 95% CI, 0.799 to 1.130). RBC transfusions were 5.8% versus 11.4% (P < .001), and thrombotic vascular events were 2.8% versus 1.4% (P = .038), respectively. CONCLUSION: The primary end point, PFS based on investigator-determined PD, did not meet noninferiority criteria. As a consistency assessment with the primary finding, PFS based on independent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criteria. Overall, this study did not achieve noninferiority objective in ruling out a 15% increased risk in PD/death. RBC transfusion should be the preferred approach for the management of anemia in this population.