Considerations for master protocols using external controls.

There has been an increasing use of master protocols in oncology clinical trials because of its efficiency to accelerate cancer drug development and flexibility to accommodate multiple substudies. Depending on the study objective and design, a master protocol trial can be a basket trial, an umbrella trial, a platform trial, or any other form of trials in which multiple investigational products and/or subpopulations are studied under a single protocol. Master protocols can use external data and evidence (e.g. external controls) for treatment effect estimation, which can further improve efficiency of master protocol trials. This paper provides an overview of different types of external controls and their unique features when used in master protocols. Some key considerations in master protocols with external controls are discussed including construction of estimands, assessment of fit-for-use real-world data, and considerations for different types of master protocols. Similarities and differences between regular randomized controlled trials and master protocols when using external controls are discussed. A targeted learning-based causal roadmap is presented which constitutes three key steps: (1) define a target statistical estimand that aligns with the causal estimand for the study objective, (2) use an efficient estimator to estimate the target statistical estimand and its uncertainty, and (3) evaluate the impact of causal assumptions on the study conclusion by performing sensitivity analyses. Two illustrative examples for master protocols using external controls are discussed for their merits and possible improvement in causal effect estimation.

A win ratio-based framework to combine multiple clinical endpoints in exploratory basket trials.

In contemporary exploratory phase of oncology drug development, there has been an increasing interest in evaluating investigational drug or drug combination in multiple tumor indications in a single basket trial to expedite drug development. There has been extensive research on more efficiently borrowing information across tumor indications in early phase drug development including Bayesian hierarchical modeling and the pruning-and-pooling methods. Despite the fact that the Go/No-Go decision for subsequent Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial initiation is almost always a multi-facet consideration, the statistical literature of basket trial design and analysis has largely been limited to a single binary endpoint. In this paper we explore the application of considering clinical priorities of multiple endpoints based on matched win ratio to the basket trial design and analysis. The control arm data will be simulated for each tumor indication based on the corresponding null assumptions that could be heterogeneous across tumor indications. The matched win ratio matching on the tumor indication can be performed for individual tumor indication, pooled data, or the pooled data after pruning depending on whether an individual evaluation or a simple pooling or a pruning-and-pooling method is used. We conduct the simulation studies to evaluate the performance of proposed win ratio-based framework and the results suggest the proposed framework could provide desirable operating characteristics.

Tumor-Agnostic Approvals: Insights and Practical Considerations.

Since the first approval of a tumor-agnostic indication in 2017, a total of seven tumor-agnostic indications involving six drugs have received approval from the FDA. In this paper, the master protocol subteam of the Statistical Methods in Oncology Scientific Working Group, Biopharmaceutical Session, American Statistical Association, provides a comprehensive summary of these seven tumor-agnostic approvals, describing their mechanisms of action; biomarker prevalence; study design; companion diagnostics; regulatory aspects, including comparisons of global regulatory requirements; and health technology assessment approval. Also discussed are practical considerations relating to the regulatory approval of tumor-agnostic indications, specifically (i) recommendations for the design stage to mitigate the risk that exceptions may occur if a treatment is initially hypothesized to be effective for all tumor types and (ii) because drug development continues after approval of a tumor-agnostic indication, recommendations for further development of tumor-specific indications in first-line patients in the setting of a randomized confirmatory basket trial, acknowledging the challenges in this area. These recommendations and practical considerations may provide insights for the future development of drugs for tumor-agnostic indications.

Statistical Considerations on the Use of RWD/RWE for Oncology Drug Approvals: Overview and Lessons Learned.

Despite increasing utilization of real-world data (RWD)/real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory submissions, their application to oncology drug approvals has seen limited success. Real-world data is most commonly summarized as a benchmark control for a single arm study or used to augment the concurrent control in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). While there has been substantial research on usage of RWD/RWE, our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of their use in oncology drug approval submissions to inform future RWD/RWE study design. We will review examples of applications and summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each example identified by regulatory agencies. A few noteworthy case studies will be reviewed in detail. Operational aspects of RWD/RWE study design/analysis will be also discussed.

A variation of a 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose from a phase 2 trial to a phase 3 trial for oncology drug development.

In a recent article, Zhang et al. proposed a 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose, based on efficacy compared to the control arm, from a Phase 2 trial to a Phase 3 trial for oncology drug development. In this article, we communicate a variation of the proposed design which selects a dose to expand based on direct comparison of high dose to low dose when both doses demonstrate promising efficacy compared to the control arm.

A 2-in-1 adaptive design to seamlessly expand a selected dose from a phase 2 trial to a phase 3 trial for oncology drug development.

In oncology, dose-finding studies are largely performed only in Phase I clinical trials and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), a dose initially developed for systemic chemotherapies, is by default selected for the Phase 3 confirmatory trial. With the advent of anti-cancer therapies such as molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies, a paradigm shift is underway from the use of conventional MTD approaches to improved dose selection strategies for oncology programs. In response to this new challenge, new study designs are needed to optimize dose selection while still bring life-changing new therapies to patients as soon as possible. In this paper, we propose a 2-in-1 adaptive design starting with a Phase 2 trial with randomized evaluation of multiple doses and only select one dose to expand to a Phase 3 trial if efficacy evidence is observed based on an interim evaluation. The lowest dose will be selected if multiple doses show promising efficacy unless the higher dose demonstrates a more compelling treatment effect, and study will be seamlessly expanded to a Phase 3 trial with the selected dose with patients enrolled in the Phase 2 portion also used for the statistical inference in the Phase 3 portion. The overall Type I error can be controlled under a mild assumption. Simulation studies are conducted to confirm the control of Type I error and to demonstrate the desirable operating characteristics of the proposed design.

Accuracy and Safety of Novel Designs for Phase I Drug-Combination Oncology Trials.

Despite numerous innovative designs having been published for phase I drug-combination dose finding trials, their use in real applications is rather limited. As a working group under the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section, our goal is to identify the unique challenges associated with drug combination, share industry's experiences with combination trials, and investigate the pros and cons of the existing designs. Toward this goal, we review seven existing designs and distinguish them based on the criterion of whether their primary objectives are to find a single maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the MTD contour (i.e., multiple MTDs). Numerical studies, based on either industry-specified fixed scenarios or randomly generated scenarios, are performed to assess their relative accuracy, safety, and ease of implementation. We show that the algorithm-based 3+3 design has poor performance and often fails to find the MTD. The performance of model-based combination trial designs is mixed: some demonstrate high accuracy of finding the MTD but poor safety, while others are safe but with compromised identification accuracy. In comparison, the model-assisted designs, such as BOIN and waterfall designs, have competitive and balanced performance in the accuracy of MTD identification and patient safety, and are also simple to implement, thus offering an attractive approach to designing phase I drug-combination trials. By taking into consideration the design's operating characteristics, ease of implementation and regulation, the need for advanced infrastructures, as well as the risk of regulatory acceptance, our paper offers practical guidance on the selection of a suitable dose-finding approach for designing future combination trials.

Augmenting Real-World Data Through Modeling Key Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: An Example of Patients With Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Pembrolizumab.

PURPOSE: To compare and characterize baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) differences by key oncology eligibility criteria for real-world patients from the Flatiron Health database with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received pembrolizumab monotherapy. METHODS: Real world data (RWD) were from the Flatiron Health advanced NSCLC database and include patients who initiated pembrolizumab monotherapy (first, second, or third line of therapy) by November 30, 2019. At the data cutoff (May 31, 2020), the median survival follow-up time was 8.4 months. Eligible patients satisfy the criteria of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 and laboratory values indicative of adequate organ function. RWD were analyzed for all patients and patients with a programmed cell death ligand-1 tumor proportion score ≥ 1%. Patients were divided into three categories: ineligible, eligible, and unknown (who satisfy all observed criteria, with at least one missing). An augmented population was also formed, which combines the latter two groups through a propensity-based adjustment. RESULTS: At the data cutoff, N = 3,877 patients with NSCLC received pembrolizumab monotherapy (1L = 2,682, 2L = 946, and 3L = 249). OS was consistently lower for the ineligible with similar survival for the eligible and augmented. Among all patients, the median OS in months (95% CI) was 8.2 (7.5 to 9.6), 16.3 (14.5 to 18.4), 16.4 (15.1 to 19.3), and 16.8 (15.6 to 18.5) for the ineligible (47%, n = 1,827), unknown (27%, n = 1,045), eligible (26%, n = 1,005), and augmented, respectively. The results were similar for patients with a programmed cell death ligand-1 tumor proportion score ≥ 1%. CONCLUSION: Real-world patients who received pembrolizumab monotherapy and meet key clinical eligibility criteria exhibited similar baseline characteristics and OS profiles as the unknown and augmented patient groups. Population augmentation is a feasible approach for improving the power of RWD analysis.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Master Protocol Framework: Basket, Umbrella and Platform Trials.

Master protocol, categorized as basket trial, umbrella trial or platform trial, is an innovative clinical trial framework that aims to expedite clinical drug development, enhance trial efficiency, and eventually bring medicines to patients faster. Despite a clear uptake on the advantages in the concepts and designs, master protocols are still yet to be widely used. Part of that may be due to the fact that the master protocol framework comes with the need for new statistical designs and considerations for analyses and operational challenges. In this article, we provide an overview of the master protocol framework, unify the definitions with some examples, review the statistical methods for the designs and analyses, and focus our discussions on some practical considerations and recommendations of master protocols to help practitioners better design and implement such studies.

Overall Survival With Second-Line Pembrolizumab in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial Versus Propensity-Adjusted Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: To compare and characterize overall survival (OS) differences between clinical trial data from the KEYNOTE-010 trial and real-world data (RWD) from the Flatiron Health database in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received second-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. METHODS: Clinical trial data were from the randomized phase II/III KEYNOTE-010 trial that enrolled patients from August 28, 2013, to February 27, 2015. At data cutoff for KEYNOTE-010, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab patients was 11.2 months. RWD were from Flatiron Health advanced NSCLC database and included patients who initiated second-line pembrolizumab from January 26, 2015, to February 28, 2019. At data cutoff for Flatiron, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab-treated patients was 6.1 months. Clinical trial data from KEYNOTE-010 and RWD from Flatiron were analyzed without adjustment, with propensity adjustment, and filtered per the main KEYNOTE-010 eligibility criteria (EC) of histologically/cytologically confirmed PD-L1-positive NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, no prior therapy with docetaxel for NSCLC, and laboratory values indicative of adequate organ function in addition to prior line of therapy requirements. RESULTS: Among 243 patients from KEYNOTE-010 and 782 from Flatiron, median age was 63 v 68 years, and 64% v 54% were male, respectively. OS data from KEYNOTE-010 and Flatiron were similar without any adjustment (n = 782; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.15) and after both filtering and propensity adjustment (n = 221; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.34). CONCLUSION: Without any adjustment, as well as after applying similar EC and appropriate statistical methods, RWD demonstrated similar effectiveness for pembrolizumab in second-line NSCLC as observed in randomized clinical trials.

Are tumor size changes predictive of survival for checkpoint blockade based immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma?

BACKGROUND: In oncology clinical development, objective response rate, disease control rate and early tumor size changes are commonly used as efficacy metrics for early decision-making. However, for immunotherapy trials, it is unclear whether these early efficacy metrics are still predictive of long-term clinical benefit such as overall survival. The goal of this paper is to identify appropriate early efficacy metrics predictive of overall survival for immunotherapy trials. METHODS: Based on several checkpoint blockade based immunotherapy studies in metastatic melanoma, we evaluated the predictive value of early tumor size changes and RECIST-based efficacy metrics at various time points on overall survival. The cut-off values for tumor size changes to predict survival were explored via tree based recursive partitioning and validated by external data. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the cut-offs. RESULTS: The continuous tumor size change metric and RECIST-based trichotomized response metric at different landmark time points were found to be statistically significantly associated with overall survival. The predictive values were higher at Week 12 and 18 than those at Week 24. The percentage of tumor size changes appeared to have comparable or lower predictive values than the RECIST-based trichotomized metric, and a cut-off of approximately 10% tumor reduction appeared to be reasonable for predicting survival. CONCLUSIONS: An approximate 10% tumor reduction may be a reasonable cut-off for early decision-making while the RECIST-based efficacy metric remains the primary tool. Early landmark analysis is especially useful for decision making when accrual is fast. Composite response rate (utilizing different weights for PR/CR and SD) may be worth further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials gov, NCT01295827 , Registered February 15, 2011; NCT01704287 , Registered October 11, 2012; NCT01866319 , Registered May 31, 2013.

Adaptive expansion of biomarker populations in phase 3 clinical trials.

It is well documented in this genomic era that an investigational new drug may have greater treatment effect in a biomarker positive population than in the biomarker negative population. However, limited by preclinical data and early phase clinical data, a lot of Phase 3 confirmatory trials are initiated without fully understanding the biomarker effect. In this article, we will investigate the impact of adaptive population expansion on the overall Type I error in two statistical designs. The endpoint for making the adaptive decision can be different from the primary endpoint of the study. The first design allows expansion of study population from biomarker positive patients to all-comers if the treatment effect in the biomarker positive population is more impressive than expected, suggesting broader activity of the study drug. We show that, under this design, the trial outcome can be tested at the desired alpha level without inflating the Type I error when the adaptive decision is based on the primary endpoint of the study or based on an endpoint non-negatively correlated with the primary endpoint, an assumption that generally holds in practice. The second design allows addition of biomarker positive patients in an all-comer study if the treatment effect in the biomarker negative population is less impressive than expected, suggesting lower probability of success in the all-comer population. We show that, under this design, the trial outcome can always be tested at the desired alpha level without inflating the Type I error.

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression and Response to the Anti-Programmed Death 1 Antibody Pembrolizumab in Melanoma.

Purpose Expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a potential predictive marker for response and outcome after treatment with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1). This study explored the relationship between anti-PD-1 activity and PD-L1 expression in patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827). Patients and Methods Six hundred fifty-five patients received pembrolizumab10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or once every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg once every 3 weeks. Tumor response was assessed every 12 weeks per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by independent central review. Primary outcome was objective response rate. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Membranous PD-L1 expression in tumor and tumor-associated immune cells was assessed by a clinical trial immunohistochemistry assay (22C3 antibody) and scored on a unique melanoma (MEL) scale of 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who were blinded to clinical outcome; a score ≥ 2 (membranous staining in ≥ 1% of cells) was considered positive. Results Of 451 patients with evaluable PD-L1 expression, 344 (76%) had PD-L1-positive tumors. Demographic and staging variables were equally distributed among PD-L1-positive and -negative patients. An association between higher MEL score and higher response rate and longer PFS (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.82) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.83) was observed ( P < .001 for each). Objective response rate was 8%, 12%, 22%, 43%, 57%, and 53% for MEL 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Conclusion PD-L1 expression in pretreatment tumor biopsy samples was correlated with response rate, PFS, and OS; however, patients with PD-L1-negative tumors may also achieve durable responses.

Association of Pembrolizumab With Tumor Response and Survival Among Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

IMPORTANCE: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway limits immune responses to melanoma and can be blocked with the humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association of pembrolizumab with tumor response and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicohort, phase 1b clinical trials (enrollment, December 2011-September 2013). Median duration of follow-up was 21 months. The study was performed in academic medical centers in Australia, Canada, France, and the United States. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older and had advanced or metastatic melanoma. Data were pooled from 655 enrolled patients (135 from a nonrandomized cohort [n = 87 ipilimumab naive; n = 48 ipilimumab treated] and 520 from randomized cohorts [n = 226 ipilimumab naive; n = 294 ipilimumab treated]). Cutoff dates were April 18, 2014, for safety analyses and October 18, 2014, for efficacy analyses. EXPOSURES: Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks continued until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or investigator decision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (best overall response of complete response or partial response) in patients with measurable disease at baseline per independent central review. Secondary end points included toxicity, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 655 patients (median [range] age, 61 [18-94] years; 405 [62%] men), 581 had measurable disease at baseline. An objective response was reported in 194 of 581 patients (33% [95% CI, 30%-37%]) and in 60 of 133 treatment-naive patients (45% [95% CI, 36% to 54%]). Overall, 74% (152/205) of responses were ongoing at the time of data cutoff; 44% (90/205) of patients had response duration for at least 1 year and 79% (162/205) had response duration for at least 6 months. Twelve-month progression-free survival rates were 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) in the total population and 52% (95% CI, 43%-60%) among treatment-naive patients. Median overall survival in the total population was 23 months (95% CI, 20-29) with a 12-month survival rate of 66% (95% CI, 62%-69%) and a 24-month survival rate of 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%). In treatment-naive patients, median overall survival was 31 months (95% CI, 24 to not reached) with a 12-month survival rate of 73% (95% CI, 65%-79%) and a 24-month survival rate of 60% (95% CI, 51%-68%). Ninety-two of 655 patients (14%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) and 27 of 655 (4%) patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related AE. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in 59 patients (9%). There were no drug-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab administration was associated with an overall objective response rate of 33%, 12-month progression-free survival rate of 35%, and median overall survival of 23 months; grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 14%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01295827.

Evaluation of Immune-Related Response Criteria and RECIST v1.1 in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Treated With Pembrolizumab.

PURPOSE: We evaluated atypical response patterns and the relationship between overall survival and best overall response measured per immune-related response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks. Atypical responses were identified by using centrally assessed irRC data in patients with ≥ 28 weeks of imaging. Pseudoprogression was defined as ≥ 25% increase in tumor burden at week 12 (early) or any assessment after week 12 (delayed) that was not confirmed as progressive disease at next assessment. Response was assessed centrally per irRC and RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Of the 655 patients with melanoma enrolled, 327 had ≥ 28 weeks of imaging follow-up. Twenty-four (7%) of these 327 patients had atypical responses (15 [5%] with early pseudoprogression and nine [3%] with delayed pseudoprogression). Of the 592 patients who survived ≥ 12 weeks, 84 (14%) experienced progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC. Two-year overall survival rates were 77.6% in patients with nonprogressive disease per both criteria (n = 331), 37.5% in patients with progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC (n = 84), and 17.3% in patients with progressive disease per both criteria (n = 177). CONCLUSION: Atypical responses were observed in patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Based on survival analysis, conventional RECIST might underestimate the benefit of pembrolizumab in approximately 15% of patients; modified criteria that permit treatment beyond initial progression per RECIST v1.1 might prevent premature cessation of treatment.

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. METHODS: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p<0·0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0·50, 0·39-0·64; p<0·0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27-41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31-45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10-22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two [1%] of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one [<1%] of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight [5%] of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two [1%] patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two [1%]) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine [5%]), fatigue (eight [5%]), neutropenia (six [4%]), and leucopenia (six [4%]) in those assigned to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Phase I Study of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475; Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody) in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose, antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a 3 + 3 dose escalation study, 10 patients received pembrolizumab 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity. Seven additional patients received 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Thirteen patients participated in a 3-week intrapatient dose escalation (dose range, 0.005-10 mg/kg) followed by 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Maximum administered dose was 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. One patient with melanoma and one with Merkel cell carcinoma experienced complete responses of 57 and 56+ weeks' duration, respectively. Three patients with melanoma experienced partial responses. Fifteen patients with various malignancies experienced stable disease. One patient died of cryptococcal infection 92 days after pembrolizumab discontinuation, following prolonged corticosteroid use for grade 2 gastritis considered drug related. Pembrolizumab exhibited pharmacokinetic characteristics typical of humanized monoclonal antibodies. Maximum serum target engagement was reached with trough levels of doses greater than or equal to 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Mechanism-based translational models with a focus on intratumor exposure prediction suggested robust clinical activity would be observed at doses ≥2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab was well tolerated and associated with durable antitumor activity in multiple solid tumors. The lowest dose with full potential for antitumor activity was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab has shown potent antitumour activity at different doses and schedules in patients with melanoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in patients with ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. METHODS: In an open-label, international, multicentre expansion cohort of a phase 1 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses were randomly assigned with a computer-generated allocation schedule (1:1 final ratio) to intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set (all treated patients with measurable disease at baseline). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01295827. FINDINGS: 173 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (n=89) or 10 mg/kg (n=84). Median follow-up duration was 8 months. ORR was 26% at both doses--21 of 81 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and 20 of 76 in the 10 mg/kg group (difference 0%, 95% CI -14 to 13; p=0·96). Treatment was well tolerated, with similar safety profiles in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups and no drug-related deaths. The most common drug-related adverse events of any grade in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups were fatigue (29 [33%] vs 31 [37%]), pruritus (23 [26%] vs 16 [19%]), and rash (16 [18%] vs 15 [18%]). Grade 3 fatigue, reported in five (3%) patients in the 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab group, was the only drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse event reported in more than one patient. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that pembrolizumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks might be an effective treatment in patients for whom there are few effective treatment options. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) receptor is a negative regulator of T-cell effector mechanisms that limits immune responses against cancer. We tested the anti-PD-1 antibody lambrolizumab (previously known as MK-3475) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We administered lambrolizumab intravenously at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 or 3 weeks or 2 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma, both those who had received prior treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab and those who had not. Tumor responses were assessed every 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients with advanced melanoma were treated. Common adverse events attributed to treatment were fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea; most of the adverse events were low grade. The confirmed response rate across all dose cohorts, evaluated by central radiologic review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was 38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25 to 44), with the highest confirmed response rate observed in the cohort that received 10 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks (52%; 95% CI, 38 to 66). The response rate did not differ significantly between patients who had received prior ipilimumab treatment and those who had not (confirmed response rate, 38% [95% CI, 23 to 55] and 37% [95% CI, 26 to 49], respectively). Responses were durable in the majority of patients (median follow-up, 11 months among patients who had a response); 81% of the patients who had a response (42 of 52) were still receiving treatment at the time of analysis in March 2013. The overall median progression-free survival among the 135 patients was longer than 7 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, including those who had had disease progression while they had been receiving ipilimumab, treatment with lambrolizumab resulted in a high rate of sustained tumor regression, with mainly grade 1 or 2 toxic effects. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01295827.).