Search

Background In the phase 3 CheckMate 078 study, nivolumab showed significant overall survival (OS) benefit and superior tolerability versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data on long-term outcomes with immunotherapy in Asian patients are limited. We report 2-year efficacy and safety data. Methods Patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n = 338) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks; n = 166) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety. Results After 25.9 months minimum follow-up, 21 patients (6 %) remained on nivolumab versus 0 on docetaxel. Median OS was 11.9 months with nivolumab versus 9.5 months with docetaxel (HR: 0.75; 95 % CI: 0.61–0.93); 2-year OS rates were 28 % versus 18 %, respectively. Survival benefits were observed across a variety of predefined subgroups. At 2 years, 39 % and 0 % of responders had ongoing responses with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 % of patients with nivolumab versus 47 % with docetaxel, leading to discontinuation in 4 % and 5 % of patients, respectively. No new treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusion At 2 years, nivolumab maintained a favorable safety profile and continued to demonstrate superior OS versus docetaxel in this predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated NSCLC. These data are consistent with long-term outcomes from the global CheckMate 017/057 studies.

Objectives Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of the biosimilar candidate SB8 was compared to its reference product bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with metastatic or recurrent nonsquamous non―small cell lung cancer. Methods Patients were randomized (1:1) in a phase III, double-blind study to receive intravenous SB8 or BEV 15 mg/kg with paclitaxel/carboplatin every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by SB8 or BEV maintenance monotherapy. The primary endpoint was best overall response rate (ORR) by 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, safety, PK, and immunogenicity. Results 763 patients (SB8, n = 379; BEV, n = 384) were randomized; baseline characteristics were well balanced. Best ORR in the FAS was 47.6% and 42.8%, and best ORR in the PPS was 50.1% and 44.8% for SB8 and BEV, respectively. The risk ratio of best ORR was 1.11 (90% CI, 0.975−1.269), and the risk difference in best ORR was 5.3% (95% CI, −2.2%–12.9%). Median survival outcomes were comparable between SB8 and BEV: progression-free survival was 8.50 vs 7.90 months, respectively (HR [95% CI], 0.99 [0.83–1.18]; p = 0.9338); overall survival was 14.90 vs 15.80 months, respectively (HR [95% CI], 1.03 [0.83–1.28]; p = 0.7713); and duration of response was 7.70 vs 7.00 months, respectively (HR [95% CI], 1.05 [0.81–1.37]; p = 0.6928). Severity and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, PK, and immunogenicity were comparable between SB8 and BEV. Conclusion This study demonstrated equivalence between SB8 and BEV in terms of best ORR risk ratio, with comparable safety, PK, and immunogenicity.

Summary Background VEGF and VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 antagonist monoclonal antibody, to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Methods For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 20 countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic, HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web response system to receive cisplatin (80 mg/m2, on the first day) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days), every 21 days, and either ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. 5-Fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on days 1–5) was permitted in patients unable to take capecitabine. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat in the first 508 patients. We did a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint, including a central review of CT scans. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02314117. Findings Between Jan 28, 2015, and Sept 16, 2016, 645 patients were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=326) or placebo plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=319). Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab group than the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·753, 95% CI 0·607–0·935, p=0·0106; median progression-free survival 5·7 months [5·5–6·5] vs 5·4 months [4·5–5·7]). A sensitivity analysis based on central independent review of the radiological images did not corroborate the investigator-assessed difference in progression-free survival (HR 0·961, 95% CI 0·768–1·203, p=0·74). There was no difference in overall survival between groups (0·962, 0·801–1·156, p=0·6757; median overall survival 11·2 months [9·9–11·9] in the ramucirumab group vs 10·7 months [9·5–11·9] in the placebo group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (85 [26%] of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 85 [27%] of 315 in the placebo group), anaemia (39 [12%] vs 44 [14%]), and hypertension (32 [10%] vs 5 [2%]). The incidence of any-grade serious adverse events was 160 (50%) of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group and 149 (47%) of 315 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events were vomiting (14 [4%] in the ramucirumab group vs 21 [7%] in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (11 [3%] vs 19 [6%]). There were seven deaths in each group, either during study treatment or within 30 days of discontinuing study treatment, which were the result of treatment-related adverse events. In the ramucirumab group, these adverse events were acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest, gastric haemorrhage, peritonitis, pneumothorax, septic shock, and sudden death (n=1 of each). In the placebo group, these adverse events were cerebrovascular accident (n=1), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (n=2), pulmonary embolism (n=2), sepsis (n=1), and small intestine perforation (n=1). Interpretation Although the primary analysis for progression-free survival was statistically significant, this outcome was not confirmed in a sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival by central independent review, and did not improve overall survival. Therefore, the addition of ramucirumab to cisplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is not recommended as first-line treatment for this patient population. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

The phase 3 MYSTIC study of durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with tumor cell (TC) programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 25% did not meet its primary endpoints. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab, durvalumab + tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were assessed in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% using EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30/LC13. Changes from baseline (12 months) for prespecified PRO endpoints of interest were analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration (TTD) by stratified log-rank tests.There were no between-arm differences in baseline PROs (N = 488). Between-arm differences in MMRM-adjusted mean changes from baseline favored at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P.01) for C30 fatigue: durvalumab (-9.5; 99% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to -2.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (-11.7; 99% CI, -19.4 to -4.1); and for C30 appetite loss: durvalumab (-11.9; 99% CI, -21.1 to -2.7). TTD was longer with at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P.01) for global health status/quality of life: durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0); and for physical functioning: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30); as well as for the key symptoms of dyspnea: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0) (both LC13); fatigue: durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8); and appetite loss: durvalumab (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30).Durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy reduced symptom burden and improved TTD of PROs, suggesting it had no detrimental effects on quality of life in metastatic NSCLC patients.

Objectives LUME-Lung 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial investigating nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with nintedanib+docetaxel in the overall population and overall survival was significantly improved in the pre-specified analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the frequency of characteristic adverse events (AEs) commonly seen with existing anti-angiogenic agents. Materials and methods The incidence and intensity of AEs were evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication ( N =1307) and for the two main histologies: adenocarcinoma ( n =653) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; n =553). AEs of special interest were analyzed by category, preferred term, and worst CTCAE grade and included perforation, hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events, and skin disorders. Results and conclusion The incidence of patients with all-grade gastrointestinal (GI) perforations was low and balanced between arms (0.5% in both) and across histologies; the incidence of non-GI perforations was 1.2% with nintedanib+docetaxel versus 0.2% with placebo+docetaxel. The incidence of some events was higher with nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel; hypertension (3.5% vs 0.9%), rash (11.0% vs 8.1%), and cutaneous adverse reactions (13.0% vs 10.7%). Rash and cutaneous adverse reactions were predominantly Grade 1–2 with both treatments. The incidence of all-grade bleeding was also slightly higher in nintedanib+docetaxel-treated patients (14.1% vs 11.6%) driven by between-treatment differences in the SCC subpopulation; most events were Grade 1–2. The proportion of patients with a thromboembolic event was low and comparable between arms for all grades (5.1% vs 4.6%) and Grade ≥3 (2.1% vs 3.1%). Safety evaluation of the LUME-Lung 1 study showed that the frequency of AEs commonly associated with other anti-angiogenic agents was lower with nintedanib+docetaxel. Survival benefits from addition of nintedanib to docetaxel in patients with adenocarcinoma after first-line therapy can be achieved alongside a manageable safety profile.

Background Ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab + paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Design Patients (n = 130) with chemotherapy-naive ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Phased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio) = 0.64; P = 0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR = 0.93; P = 0.37) or OS (HR = 0.75; P = 0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively. Conclusion These results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.

Purpose Ipilimumab, which is an anti–cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity. Conclusion Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.