RESUMO
Objectives: In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring). Results: In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.
RESUMO
Outcomes for patients with lung cancer have been improved substantially through the integration of surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy for patients with early-stage disease. Meanwhile, advances in our understanding of molecular mechanisms have substantially advanced our treatment of patients with advanced lung cancer through the introduction of targeted therapies, immune approaches, improvements in chemotherapy, and better supportive care. However, the majority of these advances have occurred among patients with good functional status, normal organ function, and with the social and economic support systems to be able to benefit most from these treatments. The aim of this article is to bring greater attention to management of lung cancer in patients who are medically compromised, which remains a major barrier to care delivery. Impaired performance status is associated with poor outcomes and correlates with the high prevalence of cachexia among patients with advanced lung cancer. CT imaging is emerging as a research tool to quantify muscle loss in patients with cancer, and new therapeutics are on the horizon that may provide important adjunctive therapy in the future. The benefits of cancer therapy for patients with organ failure are poorly understood because of their exclusion from clinical trials. The availability of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may provide alternatives that may be easier to deliver in this population, but clinical trials of these new agents in this population are vital. Patients with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by lung cancer because of higher rates of tobacco addiction and the impact of socioeconomic status on delay in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. For all patients who are medically compromised with lung cancer, multidisciplinary approaches are particularly needed to evaluate these patients and to incorporate rapidly changing therapeutics to improve outcomes.