Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).

Efbemalenograstim alfa not inferior to pegfilgrastim in providing neutrophil support in women with breast cancer undergoing myelotoxic chemotherapy: results of a phase 2 randomized, multicenter, open-label trial.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy in a phase 2, dose-finding, open-label study (NCT01648322, ClinicalTrials.gov, 2012-07-19). METHODS: 232 patients received up to 4 cycles of chemotherapy, 141 patients with docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC) and 91 patients with docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (TAC). Patients were randomized to efbemalenograstim alfa (80, 240, or 320 µg/kg [TC]; 240 or 320 µg/kg [TAC]) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg) on Day 2 of each cycle. RESULTS: Efbemalenograstim alfa was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim in duration of moderate and severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 1.0 × 109/L) in TAC Cycle 1 (mean [SD] of 2.1 [1.58] and 2.1 [1.46] days for 240 µg/kg and 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa, respectively, and 1.8 [1.28] days for pegfilgrastim), with a difference (95% CI) of 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1) days. ANC nadir occurred between Days 7-8 of TAC Cycle 1, with mean [SD] of 0.68 [1.064], 0.86 [1.407] and 0.78[1.283] × 109/L for 240 µg/kg, 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. Time to ANC recovery post nadir (defined as an ANC > 2.0 × 109/L after the expected ANC nadir) was 2.0-2.4 and 1.9 days for TAC patients treated with efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. No significant difference was found between any dose of efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim in TAC Cycle 1 for incidence of moderate to severe neutropenia (76%-77% of patients) or incidence of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L; 63%-72%). Efbemalenograstim alfa exhibited similar safety profile to pegfilgrastim. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (1.8%) patients, 2 patients each for 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, with no event considered related to study drug. CONCLUSION: Efbemalenograstim alfa was comparable to pegfilgrastim in efficacy and safety. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01648322.

First-Line Ipatasertib, Atezolizumab, and Taxane Triplet for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Clinical and Biomarker Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a triplet regimen combining immune checkpoint blockade, AKT pathway inhibition, and (nab-) paclitaxel as first-line therapy for locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The single-arm CO40151 phase Ib study (NCT03800836), the single-arm signal-seeking cohort of IPATunity130 (NCT03337724), and the randomized phase III IPATunity170 trial (NCT04177108) enrolled patients with previously untreated mTNBC. Triplet therapy comprised intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg (days 1 and 15), oral ipatasertib 400 mg/day (days 1-21), and intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (or nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2; days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days. Exploratory translational research aimed to elucidate mechanisms and molecular markers of sensitivity and resistance. RESULTS: Among 317 patients treated with the triplet, efficacy ranged across studies as follows: median progression-free survival (PFS) 5.4 to 7.4 months, objective response rate 44% to 63%, median duration of response 5.6 to 11.1 months, and median overall survival 15.7 to 28.3 months. The safety profile was consistent with the known toxicities of each agent. Grade ≥3 adverse events were more frequent with the triplet than with doublets or single-agent paclitaxel. Patients with PFS >10 months were characterized by NF1, CCND3, and PIK3CA alterations and increased immune pathway activity. PFS <5 months was associated with CDKN2A/CDKN2B/MTAP alterations and lower predicted phosphorylated AKT-S473 levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mTNBC receiving an ipatasertib/atezolizumab/taxane triplet regimen, molecular characteristics may identify those with particularly favorable or unfavorable outcomes, potentially guiding future research efforts.

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.

Efbemalenograstim alfa, an Fc fusion protein, long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia following chemotherapy: results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. A total of 122 subjects received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin). Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously inject a single 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1, and all subjects received efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, the mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.3 days and 3.9 days for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo respectively (95% CI, 2.3, 3.4). As the lower bound of the 95% CI was > 0, superiority of efbemalenograstim alfa over placebo can be declared. In addition, the incidence of FN in Cycle 1 was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0016). Patients in the efbemalenograstim alfa group required less intravenous antibiotics (3.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.0119). Most adverse events were consistent with those expected for breast cancer patient receiving TA chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Efbemalenograstim alfa is effective and safe for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who are receiving TA chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02872103, August 19, 2016.

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.

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.

Durvalumab in Combination With Olaparib Versus Durvalumab Alone as Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic NSCLC: The Phase 2 ORION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Increased DNA damage triggered through poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition may modify tumor immunogenicity, sensitizing tumors to immunotherapy. ORION (NCT03775486) evaluated the combination of olaparib with durvalumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: ORION is a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, international study. Patients with metastatic NSCLC (without activating EGFR or ALK aberrations) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled to receive initial therapy with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously; every 3 wk) plus platinum-based chemotherapy for four cycles. Patients without disease progression were then randomized (1:1) to maintenance durvalumab (1500 mg; every 4 wk) plus either olaparib (300 mg orally) or placebo (both twice daily); randomization was stratified by objective response during initial therapy and tumor histologic type. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and February 2020, 269 of 401 patients who received initial therapy were randomized. As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up: 9.6 mo), median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval: 5.3-7.9) with durvalumab plus olaparib versus 5.3 months (3.7-5.8) with durvalumab plus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.02, p = 0.074). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of durvalumab and olaparib. Anemia was the most common adverse event (AE) with durvalumab plus olaparib (26.1% versus 8.2% with durvalumab plus placebo). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs (34.3% versus 17.9%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (10.4% versus 4.5%) was numerically higher with durvalumab plus olaparib versus durvalumab plus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with durvalumab in combination with olaparib was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus durvalumab alone, although numerical improvement was observed.

Trifluridine-Tipiracil and Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Preliminary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and 7.5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.).

Hybrid palliation versus nonhybrid management for a multi-institutional cohort of infants with critical left heart obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics and overall survival for infants with critical left heart obstruction after hybrid palliation (bilateral pulmonary artery banding with or without ductal stenting) versus nonhybrid management (eg, Norwood, primary transplantation, biventricular repair, or transcatheter/surgical aortic valvotomy). METHODS: From 2005 to 2019, 1045 infants in the Congenital Heart Surgeons' Society critical left heart obstruction cohort underwent interventions across 28 institutions. Using a balancing score propensity analysis, 214 infants who underwent hybrid palliation and 831 infants who underwent nonhybrid management were proportionately matched regarding variables significantly associated with mortality and variables noted to significantly differ between groups. Overall survival between the 2 groups was adjusted by applying balancing scores to nonparametric estimates. RESULTS: Compared with the nonhybrid management group, infants who underwent hybrid palliation had lower birth weight, smaller gestational age, and higher prevalence of in-utero interventions, noncardiac comorbidities, preoperative mechanical ventilation, absent interatrial communication, and moderate or severe mitral valve stenosis (all P values < .03). Unadjusted 12-year survival after hybrid palliation and nonhybrid management, was 55% versus 69%, respectively. After matching, 12-year survival after hybrid palliation versus nonhybrid management was 58% versus 63%, respectively (P = .37). Among matched infants born weighing <2.5 kg, 2-year survival after hybrid palliation versus nonhybrid management was 37% versus 51%, respectively (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Infants born with critical left heart obstruction who undergo hybrid palliation have more high-risk characteristics and anatomy versus infants who undergo nonhybrid management. Nonetheless, after adjustment, there was no significant difference in 12-year survival after hybrid palliation versus nonhybrid management. Mortality remains high, and hybrid palliation confers no survival advantage, even for lower-birth-weight infants.

Cardiac Safety and Efficacy of SB3 Trastuzumab Biosimilar for ERBB2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Trastuzumab has been the standard of care for the treatment of patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer; however, cardiac events have been reported. This long-term follow-up study provides clinical evidence supporting the similarity of a trastuzumab biosimilar (SB3) to reference trastuzumab (TRZ). Objective: To compare cardiac safety and efficacy between SB3 and TRZ for patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer after up to 6 years of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, conducted from April 2016 to January 2021, included patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer from a multicenter double-blind, parallel-group, equivalence phase 3 randomized clinical trial of SB3 vs TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy who completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. Interventions: In the original trial, patients were randomized to either SB3 or TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy for 8 cycles (4 cycles of docetaxel followed by 4 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). After surgery, patients continued SB3 or TRZ monotherapy for 10 cycles of adjuvant treatment per previous treatment allocation. Following neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, patients were monitored for up to 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure and asymptomatic, significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The secondary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 538 female patients were included (median age, 51 years [range, 22-65 years]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the SB3 and TRZ groups. Cardiac safety was monitored for 367 patients (SB3, n = 186; TRZ, n = 181). Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 8.5-78.1 months). Asymptomatic, clinically significant LVEF decreases were rarely reported (SB3, 1 patient [0.4%]; TRZ, 2 [0.7%]). No patient experienced symptomatic cardiac failure or death due to a cardiovascular event. Survival was evaluated for the 367 patients in the cardiac safety cohort and an additional 171 patients enrolled after a protocol amendment (538 patients [SB3, n = 267; TRZ, n = 271]). No difference was observed in EFS or OS between treatment groups (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = .34; OS: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; P = .07). Five-year EFS rates were 79.8% (95% CI, 74.8%-84.9%) in the SB3 group and 75.0% (95% CI, 69.7%-80.3%) in the TRZ group, and OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 89.2%-95.7%) in the SB3 group and 85.4% (95% CI, 81.0%-89.7%) in the TRZ group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, SB3 demonstrated cardiac safety and survival comparable to those of TRZ after up to 6 years of follow-up in patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02771795.

Far-reaching impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global cancer research.

Clinical research is crucial for national cancer control plans. Prior to the Russian invasion on 24th Feb 2022 both Russia and Ukraine were significant contributors to global clinical trials and cancer research. In this short analysis we describe this and the impact that the conflict has had with wider consideration for the global cancer research ecosystems.

Outcomes of Patients With Sickle Cell Disease and Trait After Congenital Heart Disease Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hemoglobinopathy that can cause multiorgan dysfunction. This study assessed the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing operations for congenital heart disease who had SCD or sickle cell trait (SCT). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with SCD or SCT who had records in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database between 2014 and 2019. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed between the SCD and SCT groups and the control group for further analysis. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 73, 411, and 36 501 patients in the SCD, SCT, and control groups, respectively. Median (25%-75% interquartile range) age at surgery was 2.8 (0.4-9.7), 0.60 (0.2-3.1), and 0.70 (0.2-6.4) years in the SCD, SCT, and control cohorts, respectively. Operative mortality, surgery duration, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and cross-clamp time were not significantly different among the 3 groups. The SCD group had a higher rate of postsurgical cardiac arrest than its propensity score-matched control group (5.5% vs 0%, P < .05); otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in the outcomes between the SCD and SCT groups and their respective matched control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality after cardiothoracic procedures in patients with SCD or SCT appeared similar to our control patients. While these patients may require unique perioperative management, they can undergo cardiac surgery without an observed increase in mortality.

Five-Year Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Programmed Death Ligand-1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 1% in the KEYNOTE-042 Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We report 5-year results from the phase III KEYNOTE-042 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02220894). Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations and with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 1% received pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles or chemotherapy (carboplatin + paclitaxel or pemetrexed) for 4-6 cycles with optional maintenance pemetrexed. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, ≥ 20%, and ≥ 1% groups. Patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab with ≥ stable disease could begin second-course pembrolizumab upon progression. One thousand two hundred seventy-four patients were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab, n = 637; chemotherapy, n = 637). Median follow-up time was 61.1 (range, 50.0-76.3) months. OS outcomes favored pembrolizumab (v chemotherapy) regardless of PD-L1 TPS (hazard ratio [95% CI] for TPS ≥ 50%, 0.68 [0.57 to 0.81]; TPS ≥ 20%, 0.75 [0.64 to 0.87]; TPS ≥ 1%, 0.79 [0.70 to 0.89]), with estimated 5-year OS rates with pembrolizumab of 21.9%, 19.4%, and 16.6%, respectively. No new toxicities were identified. Objective response rate was 84.3% among 102 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab and 15.2% among 33 patients who received second-course pembrolizumab. First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to show durable clinical benefit versus chemotherapy after 5 years of follow-up in PD-L1-positive, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations and remains a standard of care.

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.

Overall Survival with Palbociclib and Fulvestrant in Women with HR+/HER2- ABC: Updated Exploratory Analyses of PALOMA-3, a Double-blind, Phase III Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: To conduct an updated exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) with a longer median follow-up of 73.3 months and evaluate the prognostic value of molecular analysis by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) were randomized 2:1 to receive palbociclib (125 mg orally/day; 3/1 week schedule) and fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly) or placebo and fulvestrant. This OS analysis was performed when 75% of enrolled patients died (393 events in 521 randomized patients). ctDNA analysis was performed among patients who provided consent. RESULTS: At the data cutoff (August 17, 2020), 258 and 135 deaths occurred in the palbociclib and placebo groups, respectively. The median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 34.8 months (28.8-39.9) in the palbociclib group and 28.0 months (23.5-33.8) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). The 6-year OS rate (95% CI) was 19.1% (14.9-23.7) and 12.9% (8.0-19.1) in the palbociclib and placebo groups, respectively. Favorable OS with palbociclib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant was observed in most subgroups, particularly in patients with endocrine-sensitive disease, no prior chemotherapy for ABC and low circulating tumor fraction and regardless of ESR1, PIK3CA, or TP53 mutation status. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The clinically meaningful improvement in OS associated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant was maintained with >6 years of follow-up in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, supporting palbociclib plus fulvestrant as a standard of care in these patients.

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.

Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52-64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8-32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3-9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52-0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). INTERPRETATION: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of PF-05280014 (a Trastuzumab Biosimilar) Treatment in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: PF-05280014 was compared with trastuzumab sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU), each plus paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase III study. Equivalence between treatment groups was demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report long-term safety and overall survival (OS) over 6 years after the first patient was screened. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized patients received intravenous PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU, each plus paclitaxel, until objective disease progression. OS, long-term safety, subgroup safety (patients ongoing after day 378), and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were assessed based on the final statistical analysis plan amended for the ad-hoc analyses. RESULTS: Of 707 randomized patients (n = 352, PF-05280014; n = 355, trastuzumab-EU), 252 (71.6%) in the PF-05280014 and 251 (70.7%) in the trastuzumab-EU group discontinued treatment due to objective progression. Overall, 451 (63.8%) patients completed the study. Between groups (PF-05280014; trastuzumab-EU), estimated median TTDs were 12.25 and 12.06 months (p = 0.692); 61 (17.3%) and 67 (18.9%) patients died; stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.929 (95% confidence interval 0.656-1.316; p = 0.339); estimated survival rates were 82.3 and 77.4% at 2 years and 77.2 and 75.3% at 3 years. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (98.6%; 96.6%) and for grades ≥3 (41.0%; 43.1%) were comparable between groups. In patients (n = 265; n = 264) ongoing after day 378, the incidences of any TEAEs, grade ≥3 TEAEs, and serious TEAEs were comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Long-term safety and OS were consistent with previous results and demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01989676 (21 November 2013); and EudraCT: 2013-001352-34 (18 December 2013).