CREST: phase III study of sasanlimab and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-naïve high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the standard of care for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). BCG in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors may yield greater anti-tumor activity compared with either agent alone. CREST is a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG for patients with BCG-naive high-risk NMIBC. Eligible participants are randomized to receive sasanlimab plus BCG (induction ± maintenance) or BCG alone for up to 25 cycles within 12 weeks of TURBT. The primary outcome is event-free survival. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy end points and safety. The target sample size is around 1000 participants.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common type of bladder cancer. Most people have surgery to remove the cancer cells while leaving the rest of the bladder intact. This is called transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT). For people with high-risk NMIBC, a medicine called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is placed directly inside the bladder after TURBT. A 'high risk' classification means that the cancer is more likely to spread or come back after treatment. Some people's cancer does not respond to BCG or returns after BCG treatment. Researchers are currently looking at whether BCG combined with other immunotherapies may prevent cancer growth more than BCG on its own. Immunotherapy helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. Sasanlimab is an immunotherapy medicine that is not yet approved to treat people with NMIBC. It is given as an injection under the skin. In this CREST study, researchers are looking at how safe and effective sasanlimab plus BCG is for people with high-risk NMIBC. Around 1000 people are taking part in CREST. They must have had TURBT 12 weeks or less before joining the study. Researchers want to know how long people live without certain events occurring, such as bladder cancer cells returning. A plain language summary of this article can be found as Supplementary Material. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04165317; 2019-003375-19 (EudraCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naive Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC in Relation to EML4::ALK Variant Type and ALK With or Without TP53 Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved outcomes compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here, we investigated response correlates using plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue profiling. METHODS: ALK fusions and ALK with or without TP53 mutations were assessed by next-generation sequencing. End points included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review on the basis of EML4::ALK variants and ALK with or without TP53 or other mutation status. RESULTS: ALK fusions were detected in the ctDNA of 62 patients in the lorlatinib arm and 64 patients in the crizotinib arm. ORRs were numerically higher with lorlatinib versus crizotinib for EML4::ALK variant 1 (v1; 80.0% versus 50.0%) and variant 2 (v2; 85.7% versus 50.0%) but were similar between the arms for variant 3 (v3; 72.2% versus 73.9%). Median PFS in the lorlatinib arm was not reached for EML4::ALK v1 and v2 and was 33.3 months for v3; in the crizotinib arm, median PFS was 7.4 months, not reached, and 5.5 months, respectively. ORRs and PFS were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib regardless of TP53 mutation status and in patients harboring preexisting bypass pathway resistance alterations. In the lorlatinib arm, PFS was lower in patients who had a co-occurring TP53 mutation. Results from ctDNA analysis were similar to those observed with tumor tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC derived greater clinical benefits, with higher ORRs and potentially longer PFS, when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib, independent of EML4::ALK variant or ALK mutations, TP53 mutations, or bypass resistance alterations.

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.

Post Hoc Analysis of Lorlatinib Intracranial Efficacy and Safety in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Phase III CROWN Study.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted. RESULTS: PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% v 22% and 78% v 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% v 72%) and without (1% v 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS. CONCLUSION: First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.

Veliparib in Combination with Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of oral PARP inhibitor veliparib, plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with treatment-naïve, extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to veliparib [240 mg twice daily (BID) for 14 days] plus chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance (400 mg BID; veliparib throughout), veliparib plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (veliparib combination only), or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (control). Patients received 4-6 cycles of combination therapy, then maintenance until unacceptable toxicity/progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with veliparib throughout versus control. RESULTS: Overall (N = 181), PFS was improved with veliparib throughout versus control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 80% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.88; P = 0.059]; median PFS was 5.8 and 5.6 months, respectively. There was a trend toward improved PFS with veliparib throughout versus control in SLFN11-positive patients (HR, 0.6; 80% CI, 0.36-0.97). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.1 versus 12.4 months in the veliparib throughout and control arms, respectively (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.09-1.88). Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced by 82%, 88%, and 68% of patients in the veliparib throughout, veliparib combination-only and control arms, most commonly hematologic. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib plus platinum chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance demonstrated improved PFS as first-line treatment for ED-SCLC with an acceptable safety profile, but there was no corresponding benefit in OS. Further investigation is warranted to define the role of biomarkers in this setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Rovalpituzumab Tesirine Compared With Topotecan as Second-Line Therapy in DLL3-High SCLC: Results From the Phase 3 TAHOE Study.

INTRODUCTION: DLL3, an atypical Notch ligand, is expressed in SCLC tumors but is not detectable in normal adult tissues. Rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T) is an antibody-drug conjugate containing a DLL3-targeting antibody tethered to a cytotoxic agent pyrrolobenzodiazepine by means of a protease-cleavable linker. The efficacy and safety of Rova-T compared with topotecan as second-line therapy in patients with SCLC expressing high levels of DLL3 (DLL3-high) was evaluated. METHODS: The TAHOE study was an open-label, two-to-one randomized, phase 3 study comparing Rova-T with topotecan as second-line therapy in DLL3-high advanced or metastatic SCLC. Rova-T (0.3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on day 1 of a 42-day cycle for two cycles, with two additional cycles available to patients who met protocol-defined criteria for continued dosing. Topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) was administered intravenously on days 1 to 5 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients randomized to Rova-T (n = 296) and topotecan (n = 148) were included in the efficacy analyses. The median age was 64 years, and 77% had the extensive disease at initial diagnosis. The median OS (95% confidence interval) was 6.3 months (5.6-7.3) in the Rova-T arm and 8.6 months (7.7-10.1) in the topotecan arm (hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.17-1.82]). An independent data monitoring committee recommended that enrollment be discontinued because of the shorter OS observed with Rova-T compared with topotecan. Safety profiles for both drugs were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with topotecan, which is the current standard second-line chemotherapy, Rova-T exhibited an inferior OS and higher rates of serosal effusions, photosensitivity reaction, and peripheral edema in patients with SCLC. A considerable unmet therapeutic need remains in this population.

Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).