Osimertinib after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a recommended treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and as adjuvant treatment for resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown preliminary efficacy in unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC without progression during or after chemoradiotherapy to receive osimertinib or placebo until disease progression occurred (as assessed by blinded independent central review) or the regimen was discontinued. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients who had undergone chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib (143 patients) or placebo (73 patients). Osimertinib resulted in a significant progression-free survival benefit as compared with placebo: the median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with osimertinib versus 5.6 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio for disease progression or death of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.24; P<0.001). The percentage of patients who were alive and progression free at 12 months was 74% (95% CI, 65 to 80) with osimertinib and 22% (95% CI, 13 to 32) with placebo. Interim overall survival data (maturity, 20%) showed 36-month overall survival among 84% of patients with osimertinib (95% CI, 75 to 89) and 74% with placebo (95% CI, 57 to 85), with a hazard ratio for death of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.56; P = 0.53). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 35% in the osimertinib group and 12% in the placebo group; radiation pneumonitis (majority grade, 1 to 2) was reported in 48% and 38%, respectively. No new safety concerns emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with osimertinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than placebo in patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; LAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03521154.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of PD-L1-Selected Patients with NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression are not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving patients with metastatic nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC who had not previously received chemotherapy and who had PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumor cells or at least 1% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells as assessed by the SP142 immunohistochemical assay. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive atezolizumab or chemotherapy. Overall survival (primary end point) was tested hierarchically according to PD-L1 expression status among patients in the intention-to-treat population whose tumors were wild-type with respect to EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. Within the population with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors, overall survival and progression-free survival were also prospectively assessed in subgroups defined according to findings on two PD-L1 assays as well as by blood-based tumor mutational burden. RESULTS: Overall, 572 patients were enrolled. In the subgroup of patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors who had the highest expression of PD-L1 (205 patients), the median overall survival was longer by 7.1 months in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20.2 months vs. 13.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; P = 0.01). Among all the patients who could be evaluated for safety, adverse events occurred in 90.2% of the patients in the atezolizumab group and in 94.7% of those in the chemotherapy group; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 30.1% and 52.5% of the patients in the respective groups. Overall and progression-free survival favored atezolizumab in the subgroups with a high blood-based tumor mutational burden. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab treatment resulted in significantly longer overall survival than platinum-based chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, regardless of histologic type. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower110 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409342.).

Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib (256 patients) or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy (131 patients). Cohort A included 245 patients with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM, and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had tumors with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

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.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Apalutamide for Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is an inhibitor of the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor. Whether the addition of apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) would prolong radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with placebo plus ADT among patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer has not been determined. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer to receive apalutamide (240 mg per day) or placebo, added to ADT. Previous treatment for localized disease and previous docetaxel therapy were allowed. The primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 525 patients were assigned to receive apalutamide plus ADT and 527 to receive placebo plus ADT. The median age was 68 years. A total of 16.4% of the patients had undergone prostatectomy or received radiotherapy for localized disease, and 10.7% had received previous docetaxel therapy; 62.7% had high-volume disease, and 37.3% had low-volume disease. At the first interim analysis, with a median of 22.7 months of follow-up, the percentage of patients with radiographic progression-free survival at 24 months was 68.2% in the apalutamide group and 47.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for radiographic progression or death, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.60; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was also greater with apalutamide than with placebo (82.4% in the apalutamide group vs. 73.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 42.2% in the apalutamide group and 40.8% in the placebo group; rash was more common in the apalutamide group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival were significantly longer with the addition of apalutamide to ADT than with placebo plus ADT, and the side-effect profile did not differ substantially between the two groups. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; TITAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02489318.).

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in older and younger patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 study (TAGS).

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine and tipiracil (FTD/TPI) demonstrated survival benefit vs placebo and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (mGC/GEJC) in the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TAGS study. This subgroup analysis of TAGS examined efficacy/safety outcomes by age. METHODS: In TAGS, patients with mGC/GEJC and ≥ 2 prior therapies were randomized (2:1) to receive FTD/TPI 35 mg/m2 or placebo, plus best supportive care. A preplanned subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years. RESULTS: Among 507 randomized patients (n = 337 FTD/TPI; n = 170 placebo), 55%, 45%, and 14% were aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Overall survival hazard ratios for FTD/TPI vs placebo were 0.67 (95% CI 0.51-0.89), 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.02), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.33-1.37) in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Regardless of age, patients receiving FTD/TPI experienced improved progression-free survival and stayed longer on treatment than those receiving placebo. Among FTD/TPI-treated patients, frequencies of any-cause grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age subgroups (80% each), although grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was more frequent in older patients [40% (≥ 65 and ≥ 75 years); 29% (< 65 years)]; AE-related discontinuation rates did not increase with age [14% (< 65 years), 12% (≥ 65 years), and 12% (≥ 75 years)]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this subgroup analysis show the efficacy and tolerability of FTD/TPI treatment regardless of age in patients with mGC/GEJC who had received 2 or more prior treatments.

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated PD-L1-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: 2-year update of the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (cutoff: 10/26/2017), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong OS vs paclitaxel as second-line (2L) therapy in PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 gastric/GEJ cancer. We present results in CPS ≥ 1, ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 populations after two additional years of follow-up (cutoff: 10/07/2019). METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤ 35 cycles or standard-dose paclitaxel. Primary endpoints: OS and PFS (CPS ≥ 1 population). HRs were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 366/395 patients (92.7%) with CPS ≥ 1 died. Pembrolizumab demonstrated a trend toward improved OS vs paclitaxel in the CPS ≥ 1 population (HR, 0.81); 24-month OS rates: 19.9% vs 8.5%. Pembrolizumab incrementally increased the OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment (CPS ≥ 5: HR, 0.72, 24-month rate, 24.2% vs 8.8%; CPS ≥ 10: 0.69, 24-month rate, 32.1% vs 10.9%). There was no difference in median PFS among treatment groups (CPS ≥ 1: HR, 1.25; CPS ≥ 5: 0.98; CPS ≥ 10: 0.79). ORR (pembrolizumab vs paclitaxel) was 16.3% vs 13.6% (CPS ≥ 1), 20.0% vs 14.3% (CPS ≥ 5), and 24.5% vs 9.1% (CPS ≥ 10); median DOR was 19.1 months vs 5.2, 32.7 vs 4.8, and NR vs 6.9, respectively. Fewer treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred with pembrolizumab than paclitaxel (53% vs 84%). CONCLUSION: In this long-term analysis, 2L pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS but was associated with higher 24-month OS rates than paclitaxel. Pembrolizumab also increased OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment among patients with PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer and led to fewer TRAEs than paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.

Comparison of iodine-125 plaque brachytherapy and gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery treatment outcomes for uveal melanoma patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacies of iodine-125 brachytherapy (IBT) and gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKRS) in the treatment of posterior uveal melanoma. METHODS: The demographic data and tumor characteristics at diagnosis of 201 patients treated with IBT and 52 patients treated with GKRS were recorded. The two treatments were then compared in terms of complications, local control, eye retention, metastasis, and overall survival rate. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 56 months for the GKRS group and 45 months for the IBT group (p = 0.167). There were no significant differences in demographic data or tumor characteristics between the groups at diagnosis. Radiation retinopathy, radiation optic neuropathy, and neovascular glaucoma occurred at similar rates in both groups. However, radiation maculopathy and cataracts occurred more frequently in the GKRS group. The number of cases that have developed vision loss (worsening of best-corrected visual acuity on three or more lines on the Snellen chart) was significantly higher in the GKRS group (60%) compared to the IBT group (44%) (p = 0.048). Local control, metastasis, and 5-year overall survival rates were statistically similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: GKRS can be preferred as an eye-sparing treatment option for posterior uveal melanoma in cases where brachytherapy cannot be used.

Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02853305. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7-36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5-8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4-7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65-0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5-19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3-16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72-1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1-17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3-16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6-19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6-23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77-1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo. INTERPRETATION: Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

A Challenging Task: Identifying Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) According to ESMO Guidelines: The CUPISCO Trial Experience.

BACKGROUND: CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS: As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION: Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Pain and Fatigue in the Phase 3 TITAN Study.

PURPOSE: We performed an exploratory analysis of prostate cancer-related pain and fatigue on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide (240 mg/day) or placebo, with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled TITAN trial (NCT02489318). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes for pain and fatigue were evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory. Time to deterioration (TTD) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method; hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. General estimating equations for logistic regression estimated treatment-related differences in the likelihood of worsening pain or fatigue. RESULTS: Compliance for completing the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory was high (96% to 97%) in the first year. Median followup times were similar between treatments (19 to 22 months). Median pain TTD was longer with apalutamide than placebo for "pain at its least in the last 24 hours" (28.7 vs 21.8 months, respectively; p=0.0146), "pain interfered with mood" (not estimable vs 22.4 months; p=0.0017), "pain interfered with walking ability" (28.7 vs 20.2 months; p=0.0027), "pain interfered with relations" (not estimable vs 23.0 months; p=0.0139) and "pain interfered with sleep" (28.7 vs 20.9 months; p=0.0167). Likelihood for fatigue and worsening fatigue were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide plus ADT vs placebo plus ADT reported consistently favorable TTD of pain. No difference for change in fatigue was observed with apalutamide vs placebo.

Health-related quality of life in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer with second-line pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-061.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis population (i.e., PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1) of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival or progression-free survival. Pembrolizumab had a favorable safety profile in the all-patient population. We present results of prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses. METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ gastric cancer questionnaire (QLQ-STO22), and EuroQol 5-dimension, 3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Data were analyzed from patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and who completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 12 least-squares mean (LSM) change in global health status (GHS)/QoL, functional/symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (TTD; ≥ 10-point decrease from baseline) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 371 patients (pembrolizumab, n = 188; paclitaxel, n = 183). Compliance and completion rates for all 3 questionnaires were similar in both groups at baseline and week 12. There was no difference in LSM change between groups (- 3.54; 95% CI - 8.92 to 1.84) in GHS/QoL at week 12. LSM change from baseline to week 12 for most QLQ-C30, QLQ-STO22, and EQ-5D-3L subscales indicated some worsening of QoL in both groups. TTD for GHS/QoL, nausea/vomiting, and appetite loss subscales in QLQ-C30 and the pain subscales in QLQ-STO22 were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population with advanced gastric and GEJ cancer receiving second-line treatment, HRQoL was similar in patients receiving pembrolizumab and those receiving paclitaxel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.