Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first line treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: RATIONALE-305 randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab added to chemotherapy as first line (primary) treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma compared with placebo plus chemotherapy. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase 3 study. SETTING: 146 medical centres across Asia, Europe, and North America, between 13 December 2018 and 28 February 2023. PARTICIPANTS: 1657 patients aged ≥18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status, who had not received systemic anticancer therapy for advanced disease. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to receive either tislelizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every three weeks in combination with chemotherapy (investigator's choice of oxaliplatin and capecitabine, or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) and stratified by region, PD-L1 expression, presence or absence of peritoneal metastases, and investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was overall survival, both in patients with a PD-L1 tumour area positivity (TAP) score of ≥5% and in all randomised patients. Safety was assessed in all those who received at least one dose of study treatment. RESULTS: Of 1657 patients screened between 13 December 2018 and 9 February 2021, 660 were ineligible due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, withdrawal of consent, adverse events, or other reasons. Overall, 997 were randomly assigned to receive tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (n=501) or placebo plus chemotherapy (n=496). Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TAP score of ≥5% (median 17.2 months v 12.6 months; hazard ratio 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.94); P=0.006 (interim analysis)) and in all randomised patients (median 15.0 months v 12.9 months; hazard ratio 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92); P=0.001 (final analysis)). Grade 3 or worse treatment related adverse events were observed in 54% (268/498) of patients in the tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm versus 50% (246/494) in the placebo plus chemotherapy arm. CONCLUSIONS: Tislelizumab added to chemotherapy as primary treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma provided superior overall survival with a manageable safety profile versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TAP score of ≥5%, and in all randomised patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777657.

Central Nervous System Outcomes of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: A LASER301 Subset Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib, a third-generation mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival compared with gefitinib in the phase 3 LASER301 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248829). Here, we report the efficacy of lazertinib and gefitinib in patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response. RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.

Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From LASER301.

PURPOSE: Lazertinib is a potent, CNS-penetrant, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This global, phase III study (LASER301) compared lazertinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion [ex19del]/L858R) locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles. CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.