Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Symptomatic Pneumonitis With Durvalumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC.

Introduction: In the placebo-controlled, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.00251) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and no progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (PRP) was common in both arms. We report exploratory analyses evaluating the association of symptomatic (grade ≥2) PRP (G2+PRP) with baseline factors and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized (2:1) to 12 months of durvalumab or placebo, 1 to 42 days after cCRT. Associations between baseline factors and on-study G2+PRP in durvalumab-treated patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for time-dependent G2+PRP plus covariates for randomization stratification factors without and with additional baseline factors. Results: On-study G2+PRP occurred in 94 of 475 (19.8%) and 33 of 234 patients (14.1%) on durvalumab and placebo, respectively (median follow-up, 25.2 mo); grade greater than or equal to 3 PRP was uncommon (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). Time to onset and resolution of G2+PRP was similar with durvalumab and placebo. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified patients treated in Asia, those with stage IIIA disease, those with performance status of 1, and those who had not received induction chemotherapy as having a higher risk of G2+PRP. PFS and OS benefit favoring durvalumab versus placebo was maintained regardless of time-dependent G2+PRP. Conclusions: Factors associated with higher risk of G2+PRP with durvalumab after cCRT were identified. Clinical benefit was maintained regardless of on-study G2+PRP, suggesting the risk of this event should not deter the use of durvalumab in eligible patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

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.

Targeted treatment for unresectable EGFR mutation-positive stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Emerging evidence and future perspectives.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are detected in up to one third of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current standard of care for unresectable stage III NSCLC is consolidation durvalumab for patients who have not progressed following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (the 'PACIFIC regimen'). However, the benefit of immunotherapy, specifically in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) tumors, is not well characterized, and this treatment approach is not recommended in these patients, based on a recent ESMO consensus statement. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) have demonstrated significant improvements in patient outcomes in EGFRm metastatic NSCLC. The benefits of these agents have also translated to patients with EGFRm early-stage resectable disease as adjuvant therapy. The role of EGFR-TKIs has yet to be prospectively characterized in the unresectable setting. Preliminary efficacy signals for EGFR-TKIs in unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC have been reported from a limited number of subgroup and retrospective studies. Several clinical trials are ongoing assessing the safety and efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in this patient population. Here, we review the current management of unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC. We outline the rationale for investigating EGFR-TKI strategies in this setting and discuss ongoing studies. Finally, we discuss the evidence gaps and future challenges for treating patients with unresectable EGFRm stage III NSCLC.

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial.

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline with apalutamide therapy is associated with longer survival and improved outcomes in individuals with metastatic prostate cancer: a plain language summary of the TITAN study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from an additional (or post hoc) analysis of the TITAN study. The TITAN study looked at whether the prostate cancer treatment apalutamide could be used to treat individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (or mCSPC). A total of 1052 participants with mCSPC were included in the TITAN study. Treatment with apalutamide was compared with treatment with placebo. All participants received androgen deprivation therapy (or ADT), which is a type of hormone therapy that has been part of the main treatment for mCSPC for many years. The results showed that apalutamide plus ADT increased the length of time that participants remained alive compared with placebo plus ADT. Apalutamide plus ADT also controlled the growth of the cancer for a longer length of time compared with placebo plus ADT. Additionally, participants who received apalutamide plus ADT experienced a greater reduction in the blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (or PSA), called a deep PSA decline, compared with those who received placebo plus ADT. An additional (or post hoc) analysis was carried out to understand whether a decrease in blood PSA levels, in response to treatment, was associated with improved outcomes, including longer survival time. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS?: In participants who received apalutamide plus ADT, a deep PSA decline in response to treatment was associated with longer survival time and improved outcomes. WHAT DO THESE RESULTS MEAN FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MCSPC?: These results demonstrate that individuals with mCSPC can benefit from treatment with apalutamide plus ADT. The association seen between deep PSA decline and the longer survival time and improved outcomes highlights how PSA measurements can be used to help monitor cancer disease evolution in response to treatment. Monitoring PSA levels will assist doctors and other healthcare professionals to understand how effectively a treatment is working for a patient and to tailor their treatment approach to improve PSA decline.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Effect of antibiotic treatment on immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gut microbiotaplays a crucial role in immune response. Recent data have shown that antibiotic (ATB) usage influences efficacy of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) via altering microbiota of the gut. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICIs as monotherapy or combination with chemotherapy (ChT) at the one academic center. Those receiving ATB for the first 12 weeks of the initiation of ICIs were compared with those who did not. The primary objective of this study was to assess the impact of ATB use on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) during ICIs therapy. RESULTS: 90 patients were included in our analysis. Of these 90 patients, 27 (30%) received ATB in the first 12 weeks of the treatment. In patients who received ATB in the first 12 weeks of ICIs administration, PFS was significantly shorter (4.9 vs. 24.8 months, HR 2.52, 95% CI (1.52-4.18), p < 0.001). OS was also significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 37.8 months, HR 2.55, 95% CI (1.48-4.40), p = 0.001). We also examined the impact of ATB on ORR. Exposure to ATB for the first weeks consistently worsened the response rate; the ORR was 25.9% in the ATB group and 55.6% in the no ATB group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that the use of antibiotics around ICIs initiation was associated with decreased OS, PFS, and ORR in patients with NSCLC. This suggests that microbiota diversity may be one of the factors predicting the efficacy of ICIs.

Association between gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer: exploratory analysis from the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial, second-line pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1) advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer but did elicit a longer duration of response and offered a favorable safety profile. This prespecified exploratory analysis was conducted to evaluate associations between tumor gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes in the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial. METHODS: Using RNA sequencing data obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded baseline tumor tissue samples, we evaluated the 18-gene T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (angiogenesis, glycolysis, granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (gMDSC), hypoxia, monocytic MDSC (mMDSC), MYC, proliferation, RAS, stroma/epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition/transforming growth factor-ß, WNT). The association between each signature on a continuous scale and outcomes was analyzed using logistic (objective response rate (ORR)) and Cox proportional hazards regression (progression-free survival (PFS) and OS). One-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided (paclitaxel) p values were calculated for TcellinfGEP (prespecified α=0.05) and the 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (multiplicity-adjusted; prespecified α=0.10). RESULTS: RNA sequencing data were available for 137 patients in each treatment group. TcellinfGEP was positively associated with ORR (p=0.041) and PFS (p=0.026) for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel (p>0.05). The TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR (p=0.077), PFS (p=0.057), and OS (p=0.033) for pembrolizumab, while the TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (p=0.018), MYC (p=0.057), and proliferation (p=0.002) signatures were negatively associated with OS for paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis of tumor TcellinfGEP showed associations with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab but not for paclitaxel. TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel. These data suggest myeloid-driven suppression may play a role in resistance to PD-1 inhibition in G/GEJ cancer and support a strategy of considering immunotherapy combinations which target this myeloid axis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02370498.

Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors of Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate clinical features, prognostic factors, and treatment preferences in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). METHODS: Patients with metastatic nccRCC were selected from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) database. Clinical features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients diagnosed with nccRCC were included in this study. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (interquartile range: 56-69). Papillary (57.6%) and chromophobe tumors (12.7%) are common histologic subtypes. Sarcomatoid differentiation was present in 19.5% of all patients. When the patients were categorized according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk scores, 66.9% of the patients were found to be in the intermediate or poor risk group. Approximately half of the patients (55.9%) received interferon in the first line. At the median follow-up of 53.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.7-71.8), the median OS was 19.3 months (95% CI: 14.1-24.5). In multivariate analysis, lung metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]:2.22, 95% CI: 1.23-3.99) and IMDC risk score (HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.01-5.44 for intermediate risk; HR: 8.86, 95% CI: 3.47-22.61 for poor risk) were found to be independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In this study, survival outcomes are consistent with previous studies. The IMDC risk score and lung metastasis are the independent prognostic factors for OS. This is an area that needs research to better treat this group of patients and create new treatment options.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

External Validation of a Novel Risk Model in Patients With Favorable Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Defined by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC): Results From the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) Database.

BACKGROUND: A novel prognostic model was recommended for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). In this study, we aimed to externally validate a novel risk model for the IMDC-favorable risk group in patients with mRCC. METHODS: The Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) is a multicenter registry that includes 13 cancer centers in Turkey. As described by Schmidt et al., 3 parameters (ie, time from diagnosis to systemic therapy <3 vs. ≥3 years, Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] 80 vs. >80, and the presence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) were used to divide the IMDC favorable risk group into 2 new categories: very favorable and favorable risk groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) in the very favorable and favorable risk groups were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients with mRCC from all IMDC risk groups and 112 patients from the favorable risk group were included in this study. According to the novel classification model, 44 (39.3%) and 68 (60.7%) patients with former favorable risk were categorized into very favorable and favorable risk groups, respectively. The median OS (55.8 months vs. 34.2 months, P = .025) and TTF (25.5 months vs. 15.5 months, P = .010) were longer in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group. The concordance index of the new IMDC model in all patients was 0.65 for OS. Despite the higher ORR in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (52.4% vs. 44.7, P = .573). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to externally validate the novel IMDC risk model presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2021.

Impact of Brain Metastases on Treatment Patterns and Outcomes With First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage SCLC (CASPIAN): A Brief Report.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases. Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020. Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%). Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

Olaparib tolerability and common adverse-event management in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Further analyses from the PROfound study.

BACKGROUND: Based on PROfound, olaparib is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following disease progression on at least enzalutamide or abiraterone and who carry relevant alterations in DNA repair genes. To facilitate continued olaparib treatment as long as the patient derives benefit, we describe further safety assessments from PROfound focusing on the four most common adverse events (AEs) and events of special interest. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or control (enzalutamide or abiraterone) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was assessed through AE reporting and laboratory assessments. Safety data were also collected from all patients in the control group who experienced radiographic disease progression and subsequently crossed over to olaparib treatment. RESULTS: 256 patients received olaparib and 130 control. Incidence rates for the four most commonly occurring AEs in the olaparib group (all-causality) were anaemia 50%, nausea 43%, fatigue/asthenia 42% and decreased appetite 31%. All were mostly Grade 1 and 2 and all peaked within the first 2 months of treatment as the events were managed where appropriate, primarily with dose interruptions or dose reductions. The extent of bone metastases at baseline or prior taxane use was not associated with the rate of anaemia. Pneumonitis was reported in 2% and 1.5% of patients in the olaparib and control groups, respectively, and one patient (0.4%) in the olaparib group experienced an event of MDS/AML after a 30-day follow-up period. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8% of olaparib and 3% of control patients. CONCLUSIONS: The four most common AEs observed in PROfound were generally manageable without the need for treatment discontinuation, allowing patients to remain on treatment for as long as they were deriving clinical benefit. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration number: NCT02987543.

Evaluating Alternative Ramucirumab Doses as a Single Agent or with Paclitaxel in Second-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Results from Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Studies.

Studies JVDB and JVCZ examined alternative ramucirumab dosing regimens as monotherapy or combined with paclitaxel, respectively, in patients with advanced/metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. For JVDB, randomized patients (N = 164) received ramucirumab monotherapy at four doses: 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (registered dose), 12 mg/kg Q2W, 6 mg/kg weekly (QW), or 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 (D1D8) every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were the safety and pharmacokinetics of ramucirumab monotherapy. For JVCZ, randomized patients (N = 245) received paclitaxel (80 mg/m2-D1D8D15) plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg- or 12 mg/kg-Q2W). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) of 12 mg/kg-Q2W arm versus placebo from RAINBOW using meta-analysis. Relative to the registered dose, exploratory dosing regimens (EDRs) led to higher ramucirumab serum concentrations in both studies. EDR safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. In JVDB, serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the 8 mg/kg-D1D8-Q3W arm versus the registered dose; 6 mg/kg-QW EDR had a higher incidence of bleeding/hemorrhage. In JVCZ, PFS was improved with the 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel combination versus placebo in RAINBOW; however, no significant PFS improvement was observed between the 12 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg arms. The lack of a dose/exposure-response relationship in these studies supports the standard dose of ramucirumab 8 mg/kg-Q2W as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Phase II study of afatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung following progression during or after first-line chemotherapy (LUX-Lung-IO).

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib and pembrolizumab have separately shown survival benefit in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) of the lung, and there is biological rationale for concurrent inhibition of the programmed death ligand-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways in this patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy and comprised two parts: a safety run-in to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks); and the main part assessing efficacy and safety of the RP2D. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included the RP2D, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were treated in the safety run-in (afatinib 40 mg/30 mg cohorts: n = 12/12). Median age was 63.5 years; 79.2% of patients were male. All patients discontinued afatinib and pembrolizumab, most commonly due to disease progression (58.3% and 75.0%, respectively) or adverse events (AEs; 37.5% and 25.0%, respectively). The study was discontinued early after completion of the safety run-in, and no patients entered the main part. ORR was 12.5%; median PFS and OS were 13.1 and 29.3 weeks, respectively. All patients had ≥ 1 drug-related AE (grade ≥ 3: 45.8%). CONCLUSION: While there were no new or unexpected safety findings, exploratory analysis of antitumor activity indicated limited efficacy with afatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03157089.

Characterizing immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC: A post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs), including all-cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, were reported in approximately 25% of patients in the placebo-controlled, phase III PACIFIC trial of durvalumab monotherapy (for up to 12 months) in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy; only 3.4% of patients experienced grade 3/4 imAEs. With broad application of the PACIFIC regimen (consolidation durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy), now standard-of-care in this setting, there is a need to better characterize the occurrence of imAEs with this regimen. METHODS: We performed descriptive, post-hoc, exploratory analyses to characterize the occurrence of imAEs (pneumonitis and non-pneumonitis) in PACIFIC in terms of: incidence, severity, and timing; clinical management and outcomes; and associations between the occurrence of imAEs and (1) all-cause AEs and (2) baseline patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Any-grade immune-mediated pneumonitis (9.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (10.7%) occurred infrequently and were more common with durvalumab versus placebo. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated pneumonitis (1.9%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (1.7%) were uncommon with durvalumab, as were fatal imAEs (0.8%; all pneumonitis). The most common non-pneumonitis imAEs with durvalumab were thyroid disorders, dermatitis/rash, and diarrhea/colitis. Dermatitis/rash had the shortest time to onset (from durvalumab initiation), followed by pneumonitis; dermatitis/rash had the longest time to resolution, followed by thyroid disorders. Most patients with immune-mediated pneumonitis (78.4%) and non-pneumonitis imAEs (56.3%) had these events occur ≤ 3 months after initiating durvalumab. ImAEs were well managed with administration of systemic corticosteroids, administration of endocrine replacement therapy, and interruption/discontinuation of durvalumab. Time elapsed from completion of prior radiotherapy to trial randomization (<14 vs. ≥ 14 days) did not impact either incidence or severity of imAEs. Durvalumab had a manageable safety profile broadly irrespective of whether patients experienced imAEs. CONCLUSION: The risk of imAEs should not deter use of the PACIFIC regimen in eligible patients, as these events are generally well managed through appropriate clinical intervention.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes From the PACIFIC Trial: Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned. METHODS: Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS. CONCLUSION: These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.