Search

PURPOSE The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

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 efficacy and safety outcomes from the phase III KEYNOTE-407 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02775435 ). Eligible patients with previously untreated, metastatic squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel once every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Five hundred fifty-nine patients were randomly assigned in the intention-to-treat population (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 278; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 281). The median time from random assignment to data cutoff was 56.9 (range, 49.9-66.2) months. OS and PFS were improved with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.71 [0.59 to 0.85] and 0.62 [0.52 to 0.74]), with 5-year OS rates of 18.4% versus 9.7%, respectively. Toxicity was manageable. Among 55 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 90.9% and the 3-year OS rate after completion of 35 cycles (approximately 5 years after random assignment) was 69.5%. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained an OS and PFS benefit versus placebo plus chemotherapy in previously untreated, metastatic squamous NSCLC and is a standard-of-care first-line treatment option for metastatic squamous NSCLC regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression.

Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC.CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%.Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.

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.

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.

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.

BackgroundT-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are clinically validated biomarkers that independently predict pembrolizumab response. This study investigated prospective TcellinfGEP and TMB assessment in evaluating first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapies; the different treatment combinations evaluated may provide insight into the unique biology of each biomarker subgroup.MethodsKEYNOTE-495/KeyImPaCT is a group-sequential, adaptively randomized, multisite, open-label, phase 2 study investigating first-line pembrolizumab plus the VEGF/FGFR inhibitor lenvatinib, CTLA-4 inhibitor quavonlimab (MK-1308), or LAG-3 inhibitor favezelimab (MK-4280) in patients with advanced NSCLC. DNA and RNA were extracted from tumor tissue to determine TcellinfGEP and TMB; patients were assigned to one of four biomarker-defined subgroups (TcellinfGEPlowTMBlow, TcellinfGEPlowTMBhigh, TcellinfGEPhighTMBlow, TcellinfGEPhighTMBhigh) and randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive pembrolizumab (200mg IV Q3W)+lenvatinib (20mg oral QD), pembrolizumab+quavonlimab (75mg IV Q6W), or pembrolizumab+favezelimab (200mg [n=30] or 800mg [n=34] Q3W; the initial prespecified dose was 200mg but changed to 800mg based on emerging data). The primary end point was investigator-assessed ORR per RECIST v1.1. Multiple interim analyses will be performed until the prespecified clinical signal is observed. The first interim analysis for each combination therapy occurred after ≥10 patients had ≥12 weeks of follow-up.ResultsAt the data cutoff (January 11, 2021), 208 patients were treated (pembrolizumab+lenvatinib, n=72; pembrolizumab+quavonlimab, n=72; pembrolizumab+favezelimab 200mg, n=30; pembrolizumab+favezelimab 800mg, n=34). The overall assay success rate for testing and determining TcellinfGEP and TMB was 94%. In patients treated with pembrolizumab+lenvatinib, pembrolizumab+quavonlimab, or pembrolizumab+favezelimab, ORRs were generally highest in the TcellinfGEPhighTMBhigh subgroup (table 1); response rates were similar across combinations within this subgroup. ORR was low across combinations within the TcellinfGEPlowTMBlow subgroup. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 88%, 65%, 57%, and 59% of patients in the pembrolizumab+lenvatinib, pembrolizumab+quavonlimab, pembrolizumab+favezelimab 200mg and pembrolizumab+favezelimab 800mg arms, respectively. Consistent with the known TRAEs of these agents, most TRAEs were grade 1 or 2 in severity except in the pembrolizumab+lenvatinib arm (grade 3–5, 63%). Three deaths from TRAEs occurred (pembrolizumab+lenvatinib [n=2], brain hemorrhage and myocardial infarction; pembrolizumab+favezelimab 800 mg [n=1], pneumonitis).Abstract 457 Table 1Confirmed ORR by Therapy and Biomarker StatusConclusionsThese data demonstrate the feasibility and clinical usefulness of prospective TcellinfGEP and TMB assessment to study the clinical activity of three first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapies in patients with advanced NSCLC. Although sample sizes were small, the TcellinfGEPhighTMBhigh subgroup demonstrated the best response among the biomarker subgroups for all three combination therapies; further validation is needed to determine additional signals and may be addressed as more mature data become available.AcknowledgementsJeanne Fahey, PhD, of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA, provided critical review of the abstract. Elisha Dettman PhD, Mark Ayers MS, and Andrey Loboda PhD of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA, provided critical review of study translational data. Medical writing and/or editorial assistance was provided by Shane Walton, PhD, and Lei Bai, PhD, of ApotheCom (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03516981Ethics ApprovalThe study protocol and all amendments were approved by the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee at each study site. All patients provided written informed consent to participate in the clinical trial.

Background: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide; or platinum–etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum–etoposide consisted of 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 per min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to 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 in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum–etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus the platinum–etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. Findings: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 269 to the platinum–etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59–0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5–14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3–11·2) in the platinum–etoposide group, with 34% (26·9–41·0) versus 25% (18·4–31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum–etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. Funding: AstraZeneca.

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.

9035 Background: In the Phase 3 POSEIDON study in 1L mNSCLC, adding T to D+CT resulted in statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS vs CT. No new safety signals were identified and treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar for the T+D+CT and D+CT arms (15.5% and 14.1%). Here we present details of AEs and their management. Methods: 1013 pts with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 to 1L T+D+CT, D+CT or CT. Safety was assessed in all treated pts. Results: 330, 334 and 333 pts received T+D+CT, D+CT and CT; 78%, 82% and 74% received at least 4 cycles of platinum-based CT. The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were hematologic (anemia in 17%, 15% and 20% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms and neutropenia in 16%, 13% and 12%) and most were managed using standard approaches per local practice; 22%, 18% and 16% of pts received colony stimulating factors and 22%, 21% and 26% received blood transfusions. All grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 34%, 19% and 5% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms; a higher incidence of diarrhea/colitis, dermatitis/rash and endocrinopathies was seen with the addition of T to D+CT (Table). Grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 10%, 7% and 2% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms, and serious imAEs in 10%, 6% and 1%; imAEs led to discontinuation of any study treatment in 6%, 4% and 0.6%, and led to death in 0.6%, 0.3% and 0%. Most imAEs were low grade and manageable with systemic corticosteroids (received by 26%, 13% and 4% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms) or endocrine therapy (12%, 8% and 1%). Median time from first dose to onset of imAEs (TTO) was generally > 60 days and the majority of non-endocrine imAEs resolved (Table). Conclusions: In POSEIDON, the safety profile of all regimens was manageable per standard guidelines and in line with the known profiles of D, T+D and CT; the most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were those typically associated with CT. As expected, more imAEs occurred with T+D+CT than D+CT, but the incidence of grade 3 or 4 imAEs, imAE-related deaths and treatment discontinuations due to imAEs was generally similar in the IO arms. T+D did not compromise the ability to administer planned CT. Clinical trial information: NCT03164616. [Table: see text]

Background Novel adjuvant strategies are needed to optimise outcomes after complete surgical resection in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. Methods IMpower010 was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study done at 227 sites in 22 countries and regions. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with completely resected stage IB (tumours ≥4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC per the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permuted-block method (block size of four) to receive adjuvant atezolizumab (1200 mg every 21 days; for 16 cycles or 1 year) or best supportive care (observation and regular scans for disease recurrence) after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (one to four cycles). The primary endpoint, investigator-assessed disease-free survival, was tested hierarchically first in the stage II-IIIA population subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (SP263), then all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, and finally the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (stage IB-IIIA). Safety was evaluated in all patients who were randomly assigned and received atezolizumab or best supportive care. IMpower010 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02486718 (active, not recruiting). Findings Between Oct 7, 2015, and Sept 19, 2018, 1280 patients were enrolled after complete resection. 1269 received adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1005 patients were eligible for randomisation to atezolizumab (n=507) or best supportive care (n=498); 495 in each group received treatment. After a median follow-up of 32·2 months (IQR 27·4-38·3) in the stage II-IIIA population, atezolizumab treatment improved disease-free survival compared with best supportive care in patients in the stage II-IIIA population whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells (HR 0·66; 95% CI 0·50-0·88; p=0·0039) and in all patients in the stage II-IIIA population (0·79; 0·64-0·96; p=0·020). In the ITT population, HR for disease-free survival was 0·81 (0·67-0·99; p=0·040). Atezolizumab-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 53 (11%) of 495 patients and grade 5 events in four patients (1%). Interpretation IMpower010 showed a disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC, with pronounced benefit in the subgroup whose tumours expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumour cells, and no new safety signals. Atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy offers a promising treatment option for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumor activity in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study compared pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum (EP) with placebo plus EP for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage (ES) SCLC. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles plus 4 cycles of EP. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST version 1.1, blinded central review) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response were secondary end points. Prespecified efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = .0048 for PFS and .0128 for OS. RESULTS Of the 453 participants, 228 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus EP and 225 to placebo plus EP. Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91; P = .0023). Twelve-month PFS estimates were 13.6% with pembrolizumab plus EP and 3.1% with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab plus EP prolonged OS, the significance threshold was not met (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98; P = .0164). Twenty-four-month OS estimates were 22.5% and 11.2%, respectively. ORR was 70.6% in the pembrolizumab plus EP group and 61.8% in the placebo plus EP group; the estimated proportion of responders remaining in response at 12 months was 19.3% and 3.3%, respectively. In the pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP groups, respectively, any-cause adverse events were grade 3-4 in 76.7% and 74.9%, grade 5 in 6.3% and 5.4%, and led to discontinuation of any drug in 14.8% and 6.3%. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab plus EP significantly improved PFS compared with placebo plus EP as first-line therapy for patients with ES-SCLC. No unexpected toxicities were seen with pembrolizumab plus EP. These data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Contains fulltext : 225429.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. RESULTS: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

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.

PURPOSE In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-407 study, the addition of pembrolizumab to carboplatin-paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with little impact on severe toxicity. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-407. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13). Key PRO endpoints were change from baseline to weeks 9 and 18 (during and after platinum therapy) in the QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score and time to deterioration in the composite endpoint of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Two-sided, nominal P values are provided. RESULTS A total of 554 and 553 patients completed ≥ 1 QLQ-C30 or ≥ 1 QLQ-LC13 assessment, respectively. GHS/QoL score improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (least squares [LS] mean [95% CI] change from baseline: week 9, 1.8 [−0.9 to 4.4]; week 18, 4.3 [1.7 to 6.9]) and deteriorated in the placebo-combination group (week 9, −1.8 [−4.4 to 0.7]; week 18, −0.57 [−3.3 to 2.2]). Between-group differences were improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (difference in LS mean scores: week 9, 3.6 [95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9], nominal P = .0337; week 18, 4.9 [1.4 to 8.3], nominal P = .0060). Median time to deterioration in cough, chest pain, or dyspnea was not reached in either group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06]; nominal P = .125). CONCLUSION Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy maintained or improved HRQoL measurements relative to baseline and improved HRQoL versus chemotherapy alone at weeks 9 and 18. These results support use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic squamous NSCLC.

A quarter-century has passed since Annie Proulx’s The Shipping News won the Pulitzer Prize and kindled an international interest in Newfoundland, and in that time, the island has fostered a tourism industry catering to those expecting the quaint seaside villages of Proulx’s novel. This paper re-evaluates Proulx’s 1993 work, especially its imagination of Newfoundland as a geographically peripheral location at the edge of rapid economic change. The novel works through its internal newspaper, the Gammy Bird, to depict a community’s self-representation as resistance to outside economic and cultural forces, often framing traditional ‘native’ storytelling against modern, fact-driven journalistic conventions. Yet, The Shipping News is not a native text to Newfoundland, and its fictional reimagination of the island accomplishes the same outside obfuscation it ascribes to contemporary journalistic practice.

8500 Background: Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo) provides only a modest 5-year survival benefit in fully resected, high-risk early-stage NSCLC. We report the primary disease-free survival (DFS) results from the pre-planned interim analysis of IMpower010, a randomized phase 3 open-label trial of adjuvant atezolizumab (atezo; anti–PD-L1) vs best supportive care (BSC) after adjuvant chemo in patients (pts) with early-stage resected NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts had completely resected (4-12 weeks prior to enrollment) Stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC (AJCC/UICC v7) and ECOG PS 0-1. A total of 1280 pts were enrolled, and 1269 pts received up to four 21-day cycles of cisplatin-based chemo (plus pemetrexed, docetaxel, gemcitabine or vinorelbine). Of these pts (n=1269), 1005 were subsequently randomized 1:1 to 16 cycles of atezo 1200 mg Q3W or BSC. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed DFS and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) were tested hierarchically: first DFS in the PD-L1 TC ≥1% (SP263) subgroup with Stage II-IIIA disease, then DFS in all randomized pts with Stage II-IIIA disease, then DFS in the ITT population (Stage IB-IIIA) and finally OS in the ITT population. Efficacy assessments were based on randomized pts. Safety was assessed in the safety-evaluable population, defined as pts who received ≥1 dose of atezo or who had ≥1 post-baseline safety assessment if randomized to the BSC arm. Results: At data cutoff (January 21, 2021), median follow-up was 32.2 months in the ITT population. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. Atezo showed statistically significant DFS benefit vs BSC in the PD-L1 TC ≥1% Stage II-IIIA and all randomized Stage II-IIIA populations; the significance boundary was not crossed for DFS in the ITT population (Table). OS data were immature and not formally tested. Pts in the atezo arm received a median of 16 (range, 1-16) atezo doses. Any-grade AEs occurred in 92.7% (atezo) and 70.7% (BSC); events were Grade 3/4 in 21.8% and 11.5%, respectively. Grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred in 0.8% of pts in the atezo arm. AEs leading to atezo discontinuation occurred in 18.2% of atezo-treated pts. Conclusions: IMpower010 met its primary endpoint, showing DFS benefit with adjuvant atezo vs BSC after adjuvant chemo in pts with resected Stage II-IIIA NSCLC, with pronounced benefit in the PD-L1 TC ≥1% subgroup. The safety profile of atezo was consistent with prior experience of atezo monotherapy across indications and lines of therapy. Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Clinical trial information: NCT02486718. [Table: see text]

Purpose: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). Results: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was −1.6 (CI −9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). Conclusions: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. Trial Registry Information EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32 Plain language summary Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O ( n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab ( n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was −1.6 (95% CI −9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months ( p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

9001 Background: Pembro monotherapy showed durable antitumor activity as third-line or later therapy for metastatic SCLC, leading to FDA approval in that setting. KEYNOTE-604 was a double-blind, phase 3 study of pembro + EP vs placebo + EP as first-line therapy for ES-SCLC (NCT03066778). Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with previously untreated ES-SCLC and no untreated CNS metastases were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles plus 4 cycles of standard-dose EP. Pts with CR or PR after cycle 4 could receive PCI at investigator discretion. Randomization was stratified by platinum choice (carboplatin vs cisplatin), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), and LDH (≤ULN vs > ULN). Primary endpoints were OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1, blinded central review) in the ITT population. ORR, DOR, and safety were secondary endpoints. OS and PFS treatment differences were assessed by the stratified log-rank test. The protocol specified 2 interim analyses (IAs) and a final analysis (FA). Prespecified efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = 0.0048 for PFS at IA2 (prespecified final PFS analysis) and 0.0128 for OS at FA. Results: 453 pts were randomized. 223/228 pts assigned to pembro + EP and 222/225 assigned to placebo + EP received ≥1 dose of assigned treatment; 1 pt assigned to pembro + EP received placebo + EP in error. Median age was 65 y, 74% had ECOG PS 1, and 57% had LDH > ULN; more pts in the pembro + EP arm had baseline brain metastases (14% vs 10%). At FA (median follow-up, 21.6 mo), 9% of pts in the pembro + EP arm and 1% in the placebo + EP arm remained on study treatment; 12% and 14% received PCI. At IA2 (median follow-up, 13.5 mo), pembro + EP significantly improved PFS in the ITT population (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.61-0.91], P = 0.0023; median 4.5 vs 4.3 mo). At FA, pembro + EP prolonged OS in the ITT population, but the significance threshold was not met (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64-0.98], P = 0.0164; median 10.8 vs 9.7 mo). In a post hoc analysis of OS in the as-treated population, the nominal P value was smaller than the significance threshold (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97], P = 0.0124). ORR at FA was 71% for pembro + EP vs 62% for placebo + EP; median DOR was 4.2 vs 3.7 mo. Observed AEs were as expected; any-cause AEs were grade 3-4 in 77% vs 75%, grade 5 in 6% vs 5%, and led to discontinuation in 15% vs 6%. Conclusions: Pembro + EP significantly improved PFS and prolonged OS compared with placebo + EP as first-line therapy for pts with ES-SCLC. No unexpected toxicities were seen with pembro + EP. These data support the benefit of pembro-containing regimens for ES-SCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT03066778.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapy for metastatic, squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab (for patients with programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] expression on >/=50% of tumor cells). More recently, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was shown to significantly prolong overall survival among patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 559 patients with untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles; all the patients also received carboplatin and either paclitaxel or nanoparticle albumin-bound [nab]-paclitaxel for the first 4 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.8 months, the median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.8) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; P

BACKGROUND: Data on immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients are limited despite a need for new therapies. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: CheckMate 078 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial enrolling patients from China, Russia, and Singapore with NSCLC whose disease progressed during/after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Patients (N=504) were included regardless of tumour histology and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression; those with EGFR/ALK alterations were excluded. Patients were randomised 2:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks), stratified by performance status, histology, and tumour PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival. FINDINGS: OS was significantly improved with nivolumab (n=338) versus docetaxel (n=166); median OS (95% CI), 12·0 (10·4-14·0) versus 9·6 (7·6- 11·2) months, respectively; hazard ratio (97·7% CI), 0·68 (0·52-0·90); p=0·0006. ORR was 17% with nivolumab versus 4% with docetaxel; median duration of response was not reached versus 5·3 months. Minimum follow-up was 8·8 months. The frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events was 10% with nivolumab and 48% with docetaxel. INTERPRETATION: This is the first phase 3 study in a predominantly Chinese population reporting results with a PD-1 inhibitor. In this population with previously treated advanced NSCLC, nivolumab improved OS versus docetaxel. Results were consistent with global CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: CheckMate 078 is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02613507. FUNDING STATEMENT: The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: Y-LW has received grants from Roche; has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received non-financial support from AstraZeneca. JW has received non-financial support from AstraZeneca. TM has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Taiho, Takeda, and XCovery and has received personal fees from ACEA Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BristolMyers Squibb, Celgene, ChiMed, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, Ignyta Inc, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoGenex, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Taiho, Takeda, and Vertex. CB and J Cai are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors report no competing interests. ETHICS APPROVAL STATEMENT: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines on good clinical practice. The study protocol was approved by an institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each site. An independent data monitoring committee monitored the activity and safety of nivolumab versus docetaxel throughout the study

Background SB8 is a proposed biosimilar of the reference bevacizumab (BEV). This study compared the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of SB8 to BEV in patients with metastatic or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, patients were randomised (1:1) to receive SB8 or BEV with paclitaxel and carboplatin Q3W followed by SB8 or BEV maintenance therapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or 1 year from the randomisation of the last patient. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (ORR) by 24 weeks of chemotherapy; risk ratio was analyzed in the full analysis set (FAS) and risk difference was analyzed in the per-protocol set (PPS). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), safety, PK, and immunogenicity. Results A total of 763 patients (SB8, n = 379; BEV, n = 384) were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between SB8 and BEV. In the FAS, the best ORR was 47.6% in SB8 and 42.8% in BEV; the risk ratio was 1.11 and its 90% CI was [0.975, 1.269], which was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of [0.737, 1.357]. In the PPS, the best ORR was 50.1% in SB8 and 44.8% in BEV; the risk difference was 5.3% and its 95% CI was [−2.2%, 12.9%], of which the lower margin was contained within and the upper margin was outside the pre-defined equivalence margin of [−12.5%, 12.5%]. The secondary efficacy endpoints in the FAS were comparable between SB8 vs BEV: median PFS (8.50 vs 7.90 months), median OS (14.90 vs 15.80 months), and median DOR (5.60 vs 5.85 months). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was comparable between SB8 vs BEV (92.1% vs 91.1%). The most frequently occurring TEAEs were alopecia, anaemia, and nausea. PK parameters (Ctrough and Cmax) and the incidence of overall anti-drug antibodies (16.1% vs 11.0%) were comparable between SB8 vs BEV. Conclusions This study demonstrated equivalence between SB8 and BEV in terms of best ORR risk ratio. Other efficacy endpoints, safety, PK, and immunogenicity were comparable between SB8 and BEV. Clinical trial identification NCT02754882. Legal entity responsible for the study Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. Funding Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. Disclosure M. Reck: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. J. Choi: Full / Part-time employment: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. D. Shin: Full / Part-time employment: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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 The combination of necitumumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with stage IV squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the phase III SQUamous NSCLC treatment with the Inhibitor of EGF REceptor (SQUIRE) trial. Paclitaxel-carboplatin was selected as an alternative standard of care in the current phase II study. Patients and Methods Patients were randomized (stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and sex) 2:1 to ≤ six 3-week cycles (Q3W) of paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without necitumumab. Chemotherapy was paclitaxel 200 mg/m 2 on day 1 Q3W and carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 Q3W. Necitumumab 800 mg, on days 1 and 8, was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomized to the necitumumab-containing arm (n = 110) or the chemotherapy-only arm (n = 57). The combination of necitumumab with chemotherapy resulted in an ORR of 48.9% versus 40.0%. Median progression-free survival and OS were 5.4 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.0) and 13.2 versus 11.2 months (HR, 0.83; P = .379) in each treatment arm, respectively. Disease control rate was 87.2% versus 84.0%. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events typically associated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies showing a > 2% increase were hypomagnesemia (5.7% vs. 0) and rash (2.8% vs. 0). Any Grade thromboembolic events occurred in Conclusion The results of our study support previously reported results that the combination of necitumumab with chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC and shows a safety profile consistent with that of EGFR monoclonal antibodies.

Background PD-L1 expression determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) can be a useful biomarker to assess the likelihood of benefit with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies in pts with mNSCLC. Understanding the impact of sample type (primary tumour or metastatic) on predictivity of benefit will inform the suitability of such samples for clinical testing. MYSTIC (NCT02453282) was an open-label, phase III study of durvalumab (D) ± tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (CT) as first-line treatment for mNSCLC; stratification factors for randomisation included tumour cell (TC) PD-L1 expression (≥25% vs Methods All pts enrolled in MYSTIC were assessed centrally for TC staining for PD-L1 from tissue samples acquired Results Of 1118 pts randomised, 716 (64.0%) provided a primary tumour sample and 402 (36.0%) provided a metastatic sample. The prevalence of PD-L1 TC ≥25% assessed using primary vs metastatic samples was 43.0% vs 44.8% (p = 0.569). Outcomes in pts with TC ≥ 25% determined using samples of each type are shown. Table . 1491P Primary tumour sample PD-L1 TC ≥25% Metastatic sample PD-L1 TC ≥25% Durvalumab (n = 104) Chemotherapy (n = 100) Durvalumab (n = 59) Chemotherapy (n = 62) Median OS, months 15.8 13.0 20.5 12.9 HR for OS vs CT (95% CI) 0.81 (0.59–1.11) - 0.65 (0.41–1.01) - 24-month OS, % 33.4 19.1 46.9 28.6 ORR, % 30.8 37.0 44.1 38.7 Median DoR, months Not reached 4.4 Not reached 4.1 Conclusions In MYSTIC, PD-L1 TC ≥25% prevalence was similar using primary or metastatic samples. Favourable HRs for OS with D vs CT were seen in pts with TC ≥ 25% expression as determined in either the primary tumour or a metastatic site. Results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective nature of the analysis. Clinical trial identification NCT02453282 (release date: 25 May 2015). Editorial acknowledgement Samantha Holmes, PhD, of Cirrus Communications (Macclesfield, UK), an Ashfield company, funded by AstraZeneca and in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines. Legal entity responsible for the study AstraZeneca PLC. Funding AstraZeneca. Disclosure N. Reinmuth: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bohringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Takeda; Honoraria (self): Pfizer. A. Boothman: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. B.C. Cho: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Ono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Yuhan; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Janssen; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: TheraCanVac Inc; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): MOGAM Institute; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Dong-A ST; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self), Licensing / Royalties: Champions Oncology; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Dizal Pharma; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): MSD. K.H. Lee: Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca. M. Ahn: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Spouse / Financial dependant: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): BIND Biosciences; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eli Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): MedImmune; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer. M. Scott: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. J. Whiteley: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. J. Walker: Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. V. Karwe: Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. P. Mukhopadhyay: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. P. Thiyagarajah: Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. U. Scheuring: Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. N. Rizvi: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck KGaA; Advisory / Consultancy: Regeneron; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Gritstone Oncology; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: ARMO Biosciences. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background High TMB is predictive of PFS benefit with anti-PD-(L)1 ± anti-CTLA-4 therapy in mNSCLC. Preliminary results from MYSTIC (NCT02453282), an open-label, Phase III trial of first-line durvalumab (D; anti-PD-L1), ± tremelimumab (T; anti-CTLA-4), vs platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) in mNSCLC, indicate that blood TMB (bTMB, ≥16 mut/Mb; GuardantOMNI [Guardant Health]) from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) correlates positively with tissue (t) TMB (≥10 mut/Mb) (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = 0.6) and is predictive of survival benefit with D±T vs CT. Efficacy outcomes were assessed using additional exploratory cut-offs for bTMB and ≥10 mut/Mb for tTMB. Methods Pts with EGFR and ALK wild-type, immunotherapy/CT-naïve mNSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to D (20 mg/kg i.v. q4w); D (20 mg/kg i.v. q4w) + T (1 mg/kg i.v. q4w up to 4 doses); or CT. bTMB was evaluated with the GuardantOMNI platform. tTMB was evaluated with the FoundationOne tissue NGS platform. bTMB cut-off was defined as ≥20 mut/Mb (bTMB≥20). Data cut-off: Oct 4, 2018 (OS); Jun 1, 2017 (PFS). Results 1118 pts were randomized. Baseline sample datasets were: bTMB 809; tTMB 460 pts, with baseline characteristics balanced between treatment arms. bTMB≥20 was associated with improved OS (D+T vs CT: HR 0.49 [95% CI 0.32, 0.74]; D vs CT: HR 0.72 [95% CI 0.50, 1.05]) and PFS (D+T vs CT: HR 0.53 [95% CI 0.34, 0.81]; D vs CT: HR 0.77; [95% CI 0.52, 1.13]); 24-mo survival: D+T 48.1% (95% CI 35.5, 59.7), D 33.8% (95% CI 23.4, 44.5) and CT 19.4% (95% CI 11.0, 29.5). Data for tTMB are shown (table). Additional cut-offs will be presented. Conclusion MYSTIC provides the most comprehensive data set to date supporting TMB as a predictive biomarker of OS benefit with immunotherapy. In exploratory analyses, bTMB≥20 was associated with OS and PFS benefit with D±T vs CT, with the greatest magnitude of benefit observed for pts receiving D+T. bTMB ≥20 mut/MbbTMB Citation Format: Solange Peters, Byoung Chul Cho, Niels Reinmuth, Ki Hyeong Lee, Alexander Luft, Myung-Ju Ahn, Paul Baas, Manuel Cobo Dols, Alexey Smolin, David Vicente, Vladimir Moiseyenko, Scott J. Antonia, Kazuhiko Nakagawa, Sarah B. Goldberg, Edward Kim, Rajiv Raja, Philip Brohawn, Delyth Clemett, Piruntha Thiyagarajah, Urban Scheuring, Feng Liu, Naiyer Rizvi. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) as a biomarker of survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): Blood and tissue TMB analysis from MYSTIC, a Phase III study of first-line durvalumab ± tremelimumab vs chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT074.

9016 Background: MYSTIC, an open-label, Ph3 trial of first-line D (anti-PD-L1) ± T (anti-CTLA-4) vs platinum-based CT, showed an improvement in OS with D vs CT in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 expression ≥25% (PD-L1 TC ≥25%; HR 0.76 [97.54% CI 0.56–1.02], p = 0.036). Exploratory analyses showed bTMB was a predictive biomarker for OS with D±T vs CT. We report further exploratory analyses of OS according to PD-L1 and bTMB. Methods: Immunotherapy/CT-naïve pts with mNSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to D, D+T or CT. bTMB levels (mut/Mb) were evaluated with the GuardantOMNI platform (Guardant Health), and PD-L1 TC expression with the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) IHC assay. Results: D improved OS vs CT in pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25% across bTMB levels (PD-L1 TC ≥25%/bTMB≥20 HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.45, 1.39]; PD-L1 TC ≥25%/bTMB < 20 HR 0.64 [95% CI 0.45, 0.90]). In contrast, D+T improved OS vs CT in pts with bTMB≥20 across different PD-L1 TC expression levels (Table; PD-L1 TC ≥25%/bTMB≥20 HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.23, 0.84]; PD-L1 TC < 1%/bTMB≥20 HR 0.42 [95% CI 0.17, 0.97]). Additional cutoffs and outcomes in subgroups defined by both biomarkers will be presented. Conclusions: These exploratory analyses from MYSTIC support PD-L1 TC expression as an appropriate predictive biomarker for OS with D vs CT, while suggesting bTMB as a predictive biomarker for OS with D+T in mNSCLC. These biomarkers appear to be independent and both may be important for mNSCLC treatment decisions. Interpretation of these data may be limited by small sample sizes; further investigations are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02453282. [Table: see text]

9048 Background: MYSTIC, an open-label, Phase 3 trial of first-line D (anti-PD-L1) ± T (anti-CTLA-4) vs platinum CT in mNSCLC, showed an improvement in overall survival (OS) with D vs CT in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 expression ≥25% (TC ≥25% [primary analysis population]; D vs CT, HR 0.76 [97.54% CI 0.56–1.02], p = 0.036; D+T vs CT, HR 0.85 [98.77% CI 0.61–1.17], p = 0.202). Here we summarize PROs from MYSTIC. Methods: Immunotherapy/CT-naïve mNSCLC pts were randomized (1:1:1) to D, D+T, or CT. Symptoms, function, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 v3 questionnaire and its lung cancer module, QLQ-LC13. A change in score from baseline ≥10 points was predefined as clinically meaningful (CM). Mean changes from baseline (over 12 mos) for prespecified symptoms were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Time from randomization to the first CM deterioration (TTD) was analyzed. Results: Among pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25% (n = 488), there were no differences between arms in symptoms, function, or global health status/QoL at baseline. Compliance with completing the questionnaires was ≥60% to wk 120 in the D±T arms, and to wk 40 (C30) and wk 44 (LC13) in the CT arm. MMRM analysis showed significant between-arm differences in changes from baseline in favor of D for fatigue (difference vs CT −9.5) and appetite loss (−11.9; CM), and D+T for fatigue (−11.7; CM). Significantly longer TTD (median, mos) was seen with D and D+T vs CT for appetite loss (12.8 and 5.6 vs 4.5), constipation (14.6 and 9.0 vs 5.5), nausea/vomiting (16.7 and 9.7 vs 4.5), and dyspnea (10.6 and 7.4 vs 5.6); D vs CT for diarrhea (16.3 vs 9.0), insomnia (9.3 vs 6.2), and hemoptysis (not reached vs 10.3); and D+T vs CT for fatigue (5.6 vs 2.0). Significantly longer TTD (median, mos) was also seen with D and D+T vs CT for function (cognitive [9.1 and 6.6 vs 5.2], physical [9.0 and 7.4 vs 4.2], role [D vs CT only; 7.3 vs 3.7], social [12.9 and 5.4 vs 5.2]), and global health status/QoL (5.9 and 6.8 vs 5.5). Conclusions: Pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25% treated with D±T had a reduced symptom burden over time and longer TTD for symptoms, function, and global health status/QoL compared to pts receiving CT. Clinical trial information: NCT02453282.

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.

Introduction Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results. Methods A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m 2 IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m 2 IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected. Results Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%). Conclusions The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL.

Purpose Patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have poor survival outcomes despite first-line chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum. This randomized, double-blind phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) plus ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for a total of four doses each in a phased induction schedule (chemotherapy in cycles one to four; ipilimumab or placebo beginning in cycle three up to cycle six), followed by ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) among patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 1,132 patients randomly assigned, 954 received at least one dose of study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 478; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 476). Median OS was 11.0 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 10.9 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.09; P = .3775). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 4.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.97). Rates and severity of treatment-related adverse events were similar between arms, except for diarrhea, rash, and colitis, which were more frequent with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Rate of treatment-related discontinuation was higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (18% v 2% with chemotherapy plus placebo). Five treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and two with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion Addition of ipilimumab to chemotherapy did not prolong OS versus chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Several ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with programmed death-1 inhibitors in 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.