User login
Treatments linked to death in COVID patients with thoracic cancers
Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.
At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.
“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
About TERAVOLT
The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.
In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.
Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.
Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.
Baseline characteristics and outcomes
Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.
Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).
A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m2, and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.
Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).
“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.
As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.
Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.
Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
Prior treatments and COVID therapy
Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.
Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.
Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.
COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
Factors associated with death
In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.
In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).
In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.
“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”
“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”
Strengths and limitations
There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.
He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.
“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”
Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.
Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.
The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.
Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.
At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.
“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
About TERAVOLT
The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.
In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.
Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.
Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.
Baseline characteristics and outcomes
Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.
Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).
A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m2, and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.
Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).
“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.
As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.
Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.
Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
Prior treatments and COVID therapy
Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.
Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.
Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.
COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
Factors associated with death
In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.
In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).
In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.
“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”
“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”
Strengths and limitations
There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.
He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.
“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”
Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.
Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.
The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.
Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.
At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.
“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
About TERAVOLT
The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.
In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.
Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.
Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.
Baseline characteristics and outcomes
Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.
Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).
A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m2, and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.
Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).
“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.
As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.
Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.
Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
Prior treatments and COVID therapy
Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.
“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.
Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.
Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.
COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
Factors associated with death
In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.
In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).
In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.
“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”
“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”
Strengths and limitations
There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.
He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.
“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”
Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.
Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.
The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.
FROM ASCO 2020
Combo drug improves survival in older patients with high-risk/secondary AML
The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.
As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.
The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.
Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.
At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.
“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.
CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.
The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.
The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.
As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.
The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.
Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.
At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.
“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.
CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.
The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.
The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.
As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.
The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.
Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.
At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.
“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.
CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.
The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.
FROM ASCO 2020
Tumor markers are ‘valuable’ for relapse detection in rare CNS tumors
according to a pooled analysis of cooperative group trials.
The findings suggest a role for the routine use of tumor markers for surveillance in CNS-NGGCT patients, said Adriana Fonseca, MD, a pediatric neuro-oncology fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
She presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
This pooled analysis represents the largest prospective cohort to date of relapsed intracranial germ cell tumors, Dr. Fonseca said. The analysis included 483 patients enrolled in five prospective CNS-NGGCT trials between 1989 and 2016. There were 106 patients who relapsed after the end of therapy; the relapsed patients had a median age of 13 years (range, 1-30 years) at diagnosis and 82% were male.
Tumor marker utility
There were 86 patients with tumor marker assessments at diagnosis, and 83 had tumor marker elevations in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or both.
The three patients without tumor marker elevations at diagnosis had mixed GCT, choriocarcinoma, and yolk sac tumor, which are usually associated with tumor marker elevation, so this will be investigated further, Dr. Fonseca said.
The sensitivity of tumor markers at diagnosis was 94% for serum, 83% for CSF, and 97% for either serum or CSF.
The median time to relapse was 15.5 months. Relapses were local in 45 patients (44%), distant in 32 (33%), and combined in 22 (21%). Three intracranial relapses were located outside of the radiation field and were classified as distant.
Only two patients presented with isolated tumor marker elevations as the sole evidence of relapse, and the elevations usually preceded the presence of macroscopic disease, Dr. Fonseca said.
At the time of relapse, 88% of patients (n = 73) had tumor marker elevations. The sensitivity of tumor markers was 82% in serum, 85% in CSF, and 88% in either.
To better understand if tumor markers can be used for surveillance, the researchers analyzed data from patients who had either serum or CSF tumor marker levels available at both diagnosis and relapse.
Of the 74 evaluable patients who had elevated tumor markers at diagnosis, 68 had elevated tumor markers at relapse as well. This means 92% of relapsed patients were detectable by tumor markers, Dr. Fonseca said.
“Only six patients had tumor marker–negative relapses, and interestingly, one patient who was tumor marker negative at diagnosis relapsed with tumor markers positive,” she added.
Rationale and next steps
CNS-NGGCTs are rare and heterogeneous tumors that respond best when treated using multimodal approaches, including surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation, according to Dr. Fonseca. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates range from 72%-84% and 82%-93% respectively.
“GCTs are unique as they express tumor markers, such as AFP and beta-HCG, which we know are sensitive and specific and used for diagnostic and monitoring purposes,” Dr. Fonseca said.
Current surveillance strategies use a combination of brain and spine MRI and serum tumor markers with declining frequency over time.
“CSF tumor markers are not performed during follow-up, and they are usually obtained only at the time of relapse,” Dr. Fonseca said. “But what is the best surveillance strategy? We have to remember that some of our patients require sedation to undergo MRI, and recurrent sedations in children have been recently associated with potential detrimental neurocognitive effects.”
Similarly, the administration of gadolinium used for MRI has been associated with an increased risk of renal fibrosis and negative neurological outcomes.
“Additionally, nonspecific areas of enhancement are commonly encountered and can lead to unnecessary further investigations,” Dr. Fonseca said, adding that this can contribute to patients’ and parents’ anxiety and to increased overall health care costs and resource utilization.
Recent Children’s Oncology Group data showed that 98% of patients with extracranial germ cell tumors who relapsed were detectable by tumor markers alone, and this led to a change in surveillance guidelines for those patients. This raised the question as to whether a similar approach could be used in CNS-NCCGTs, Dr. Fonseca explained.
“We hypothesized that tumor markers alone may be sufficient for relapse detection in children and adolescents treated for CNS-NGGCT, and hence, the frequency and associated risk with serial MRIs could be safely avoided,” she said.
Though this study was limited by missing data in some cases, the inclusion of trials from different eras, and the use of different detection techniques across trials, the findings confirm the sensitivity of tumor markers in this setting.
“Tumor markers represent a valuable surveillance strategy with the potential to reduce MRI frequency in these patients,” Dr. Fonseca said. “Additionally, the higher proportion of tumor marker–negative relapses, compared to extracranial GCTs, suggests a different biological behavior. Further studies to investigate the biology of the primary versus relapsed samples in GCTs are currently needed.”
Dr. Fonseca and colleagues are “currently undertaking some correlative outcomes analyses to try to understand if the elevation or nonelevation to tumor markers is correlated with survival. We also would like to elucidate the optimal MRI frequency required for surveillance,” she said.
Dr. Fonseca reported having no disclosures, and the researchers disclosed no funding for the study.
sworcester@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Fonseca A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 2503.
according to a pooled analysis of cooperative group trials.
The findings suggest a role for the routine use of tumor markers for surveillance in CNS-NGGCT patients, said Adriana Fonseca, MD, a pediatric neuro-oncology fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
She presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
This pooled analysis represents the largest prospective cohort to date of relapsed intracranial germ cell tumors, Dr. Fonseca said. The analysis included 483 patients enrolled in five prospective CNS-NGGCT trials between 1989 and 2016. There were 106 patients who relapsed after the end of therapy; the relapsed patients had a median age of 13 years (range, 1-30 years) at diagnosis and 82% were male.
Tumor marker utility
There were 86 patients with tumor marker assessments at diagnosis, and 83 had tumor marker elevations in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or both.
The three patients without tumor marker elevations at diagnosis had mixed GCT, choriocarcinoma, and yolk sac tumor, which are usually associated with tumor marker elevation, so this will be investigated further, Dr. Fonseca said.
The sensitivity of tumor markers at diagnosis was 94% for serum, 83% for CSF, and 97% for either serum or CSF.
The median time to relapse was 15.5 months. Relapses were local in 45 patients (44%), distant in 32 (33%), and combined in 22 (21%). Three intracranial relapses were located outside of the radiation field and were classified as distant.
Only two patients presented with isolated tumor marker elevations as the sole evidence of relapse, and the elevations usually preceded the presence of macroscopic disease, Dr. Fonseca said.
At the time of relapse, 88% of patients (n = 73) had tumor marker elevations. The sensitivity of tumor markers was 82% in serum, 85% in CSF, and 88% in either.
To better understand if tumor markers can be used for surveillance, the researchers analyzed data from patients who had either serum or CSF tumor marker levels available at both diagnosis and relapse.
Of the 74 evaluable patients who had elevated tumor markers at diagnosis, 68 had elevated tumor markers at relapse as well. This means 92% of relapsed patients were detectable by tumor markers, Dr. Fonseca said.
“Only six patients had tumor marker–negative relapses, and interestingly, one patient who was tumor marker negative at diagnosis relapsed with tumor markers positive,” she added.
Rationale and next steps
CNS-NGGCTs are rare and heterogeneous tumors that respond best when treated using multimodal approaches, including surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation, according to Dr. Fonseca. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates range from 72%-84% and 82%-93% respectively.
“GCTs are unique as they express tumor markers, such as AFP and beta-HCG, which we know are sensitive and specific and used for diagnostic and monitoring purposes,” Dr. Fonseca said.
Current surveillance strategies use a combination of brain and spine MRI and serum tumor markers with declining frequency over time.
“CSF tumor markers are not performed during follow-up, and they are usually obtained only at the time of relapse,” Dr. Fonseca said. “But what is the best surveillance strategy? We have to remember that some of our patients require sedation to undergo MRI, and recurrent sedations in children have been recently associated with potential detrimental neurocognitive effects.”
Similarly, the administration of gadolinium used for MRI has been associated with an increased risk of renal fibrosis and negative neurological outcomes.
“Additionally, nonspecific areas of enhancement are commonly encountered and can lead to unnecessary further investigations,” Dr. Fonseca said, adding that this can contribute to patients’ and parents’ anxiety and to increased overall health care costs and resource utilization.
Recent Children’s Oncology Group data showed that 98% of patients with extracranial germ cell tumors who relapsed were detectable by tumor markers alone, and this led to a change in surveillance guidelines for those patients. This raised the question as to whether a similar approach could be used in CNS-NCCGTs, Dr. Fonseca explained.
“We hypothesized that tumor markers alone may be sufficient for relapse detection in children and adolescents treated for CNS-NGGCT, and hence, the frequency and associated risk with serial MRIs could be safely avoided,” she said.
Though this study was limited by missing data in some cases, the inclusion of trials from different eras, and the use of different detection techniques across trials, the findings confirm the sensitivity of tumor markers in this setting.
“Tumor markers represent a valuable surveillance strategy with the potential to reduce MRI frequency in these patients,” Dr. Fonseca said. “Additionally, the higher proportion of tumor marker–negative relapses, compared to extracranial GCTs, suggests a different biological behavior. Further studies to investigate the biology of the primary versus relapsed samples in GCTs are currently needed.”
Dr. Fonseca and colleagues are “currently undertaking some correlative outcomes analyses to try to understand if the elevation or nonelevation to tumor markers is correlated with survival. We also would like to elucidate the optimal MRI frequency required for surveillance,” she said.
Dr. Fonseca reported having no disclosures, and the researchers disclosed no funding for the study.
sworcester@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Fonseca A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 2503.
according to a pooled analysis of cooperative group trials.
The findings suggest a role for the routine use of tumor markers for surveillance in CNS-NGGCT patients, said Adriana Fonseca, MD, a pediatric neuro-oncology fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
She presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
This pooled analysis represents the largest prospective cohort to date of relapsed intracranial germ cell tumors, Dr. Fonseca said. The analysis included 483 patients enrolled in five prospective CNS-NGGCT trials between 1989 and 2016. There were 106 patients who relapsed after the end of therapy; the relapsed patients had a median age of 13 years (range, 1-30 years) at diagnosis and 82% were male.
Tumor marker utility
There were 86 patients with tumor marker assessments at diagnosis, and 83 had tumor marker elevations in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or both.
The three patients without tumor marker elevations at diagnosis had mixed GCT, choriocarcinoma, and yolk sac tumor, which are usually associated with tumor marker elevation, so this will be investigated further, Dr. Fonseca said.
The sensitivity of tumor markers at diagnosis was 94% for serum, 83% for CSF, and 97% for either serum or CSF.
The median time to relapse was 15.5 months. Relapses were local in 45 patients (44%), distant in 32 (33%), and combined in 22 (21%). Three intracranial relapses were located outside of the radiation field and were classified as distant.
Only two patients presented with isolated tumor marker elevations as the sole evidence of relapse, and the elevations usually preceded the presence of macroscopic disease, Dr. Fonseca said.
At the time of relapse, 88% of patients (n = 73) had tumor marker elevations. The sensitivity of tumor markers was 82% in serum, 85% in CSF, and 88% in either.
To better understand if tumor markers can be used for surveillance, the researchers analyzed data from patients who had either serum or CSF tumor marker levels available at both diagnosis and relapse.
Of the 74 evaluable patients who had elevated tumor markers at diagnosis, 68 had elevated tumor markers at relapse as well. This means 92% of relapsed patients were detectable by tumor markers, Dr. Fonseca said.
“Only six patients had tumor marker–negative relapses, and interestingly, one patient who was tumor marker negative at diagnosis relapsed with tumor markers positive,” she added.
Rationale and next steps
CNS-NGGCTs are rare and heterogeneous tumors that respond best when treated using multimodal approaches, including surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation, according to Dr. Fonseca. The 5-year event-free and overall survival rates range from 72%-84% and 82%-93% respectively.
“GCTs are unique as they express tumor markers, such as AFP and beta-HCG, which we know are sensitive and specific and used for diagnostic and monitoring purposes,” Dr. Fonseca said.
Current surveillance strategies use a combination of brain and spine MRI and serum tumor markers with declining frequency over time.
“CSF tumor markers are not performed during follow-up, and they are usually obtained only at the time of relapse,” Dr. Fonseca said. “But what is the best surveillance strategy? We have to remember that some of our patients require sedation to undergo MRI, and recurrent sedations in children have been recently associated with potential detrimental neurocognitive effects.”
Similarly, the administration of gadolinium used for MRI has been associated with an increased risk of renal fibrosis and negative neurological outcomes.
“Additionally, nonspecific areas of enhancement are commonly encountered and can lead to unnecessary further investigations,” Dr. Fonseca said, adding that this can contribute to patients’ and parents’ anxiety and to increased overall health care costs and resource utilization.
Recent Children’s Oncology Group data showed that 98% of patients with extracranial germ cell tumors who relapsed were detectable by tumor markers alone, and this led to a change in surveillance guidelines for those patients. This raised the question as to whether a similar approach could be used in CNS-NCCGTs, Dr. Fonseca explained.
“We hypothesized that tumor markers alone may be sufficient for relapse detection in children and adolescents treated for CNS-NGGCT, and hence, the frequency and associated risk with serial MRIs could be safely avoided,” she said.
Though this study was limited by missing data in some cases, the inclusion of trials from different eras, and the use of different detection techniques across trials, the findings confirm the sensitivity of tumor markers in this setting.
“Tumor markers represent a valuable surveillance strategy with the potential to reduce MRI frequency in these patients,” Dr. Fonseca said. “Additionally, the higher proportion of tumor marker–negative relapses, compared to extracranial GCTs, suggests a different biological behavior. Further studies to investigate the biology of the primary versus relapsed samples in GCTs are currently needed.”
Dr. Fonseca and colleagues are “currently undertaking some correlative outcomes analyses to try to understand if the elevation or nonelevation to tumor markers is correlated with survival. We also would like to elucidate the optimal MRI frequency required for surveillance,” she said.
Dr. Fonseca reported having no disclosures, and the researchers disclosed no funding for the study.
sworcester@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Fonseca A et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 2503.
FROM ASCO 2020
Sequential chemoradiation improves DFS in early-stage cervical cancer
In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.
“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Study rationale and details
“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”
Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.
“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”
To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.
The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.
All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m2.
Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m2 of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m2 of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.
The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
DFS results
In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.
The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).
Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.
In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.
The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.
In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).
In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
Overall survival and safety
As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.
In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.
Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).
Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.
There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.
However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.
“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”
This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.
In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.
“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Study rationale and details
“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”
Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.
“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”
To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.
The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.
All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m2.
Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m2 of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m2 of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.
The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
DFS results
In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.
The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).
Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.
In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.
The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.
In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).
In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
Overall survival and safety
As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.
In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.
Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).
Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.
There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.
However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.
“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”
This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.
In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.
“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Study rationale and details
“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”
Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.
“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”
To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.
The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.
All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m2.
Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m2 of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m2 of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.
The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
DFS results
In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.
The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).
Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.
In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.
The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.
In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).
In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
Overall survival and safety
As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.
In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.
Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).
Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.
There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.
However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.
“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”
This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.
SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.
FROM ASCO 2020
Immunotherapy combo improves ORR, PFS in PD-L1+ NSCLC
Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.
Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.
“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”
Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).
The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.
CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.
Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
ORR and PFS
The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).
With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).
The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.
There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).
There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.
She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
Adverse events
As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.
“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.
Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.
A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
Data inspire cautious optimism
The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.
Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.
“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”
There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.
She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”
Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.
“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”
CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.
SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.
Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.
Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.
“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”
Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).
The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.
CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.
Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
ORR and PFS
The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).
With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).
The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.
There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).
There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.
She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
Adverse events
As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.
“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.
Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.
A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
Data inspire cautious optimism
The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.
Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.
“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”
There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.
She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”
Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.
“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”
CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.
SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.
Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.
Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.
“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”
Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).
The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.
CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.
Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
ORR and PFS
The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).
With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).
The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.
There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).
There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.
She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
Adverse events
As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.
“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.
Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.
A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
Data inspire cautious optimism
The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.
Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.
“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”
There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.
She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”
Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.
“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”
CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.
SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.
FROM ASCO 2020
First-in-kind anti-CD47 antibody shows promise for MDS and AML treatment
Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.
Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.
Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.
No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.
Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.
Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.
The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.
“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.
The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.
Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.
Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.
Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.
No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.
Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.
Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.
The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.
“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.
The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.
Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.
Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.
Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.
No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.
Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.
The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.
Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.
The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.
“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.
The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.
SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.
FROM ASCO 2020
CheckMate 9LA: ‘Doing better’ for stage IV/recurrent NSCLC
Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.
Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).
A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).
In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
Details of CheckMate 9LA
CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.
Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.
The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.
If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.
Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.
The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
Results prompt FDA approval
Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).
With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).
Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.
One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.
Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.
Challenges to overcome
In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).
Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
Better by design
In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.
Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.
Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.
Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.
Longer follow-up needed
In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.
As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.
It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
Do the best you can
Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.
In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.
Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.
Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.
Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).
A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).
In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
Details of CheckMate 9LA
CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.
Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.
The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.
If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.
Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.
The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
Results prompt FDA approval
Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).
With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).
Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.
One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.
Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.
Challenges to overcome
In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).
Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
Better by design
In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.
Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.
Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.
Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.
Longer follow-up needed
In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.
As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.
It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
Do the best you can
Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.
In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.
Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.
Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.
Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).
A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).
In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
Details of CheckMate 9LA
CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.
Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.
The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.
If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.
Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.
The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
Results prompt FDA approval
Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).
With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).
Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.
One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.
Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.
Challenges to overcome
In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).
Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
Better by design
In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.
Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.
Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.
Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.
Longer follow-up needed
In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.
As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.
It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
Do the best you can
Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.
In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.
Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.
FROM ASCO 2020
Combo exhibits activity in metastatic mucosal melanoma
according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.
Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.
To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.
The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.
The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.
As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.
Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.
A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).
“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.
“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.
The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.
SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.
according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.
Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.
To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.
The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.
The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.
As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.
Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.
A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).
“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.
“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.
The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.
SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.
according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.
Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.
To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.
The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.
The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.
As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.
Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.
A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).
“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.
“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.
The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.
SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.
FROM ASCO 2020
Adding low-dose ipi to pembro seems safer, still effective for advanced melanoma
The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.
“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity
“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.
Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.
The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.
“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”
“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”
However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
Patients and treatment
The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.
Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.
The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.
Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.
The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
Response details
There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.
“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”
“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”
“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
Survival and safety
The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.
“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.
Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.
The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.
This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.
SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.
The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.
“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity
“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.
Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.
The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.
“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”
“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”
However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
Patients and treatment
The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.
Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.
The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.
Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.
The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
Response details
There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.
“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”
“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”
“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
Survival and safety
The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.
“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.
Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.
The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.
This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.
SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.
The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.
“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity
“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.
Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.
The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.
“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”
“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”
However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
Patients and treatment
The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.
Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.
The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.
Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.
The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
Response details
There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.
“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”
“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”
“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
Survival and safety
The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.
“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.
Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.
The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.
This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.
SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.
FROM ASCO 2020
Key clinical point: Low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma, according to an investigator.
Major finding: There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27%. The rate of grade 3/4 adverse events was 27%.
Study details: Phase 2 study of 70 patients, 61 of whom were evaluable for response.
Disclosures: The study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company.
Source: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.
Weekly cisplatin new standard in postop head and neck cancer
For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.
These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.
The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.
Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.
“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.
Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”
He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”
Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.
Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.
Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
‘Contentious issue’
In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”
One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.
For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”
Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m2 plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”
He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.
His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.
The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.
They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m2 CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m2 CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.
For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.
The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).
The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m2.
The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).
As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.
The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).
Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).
On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.
There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.
The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.
The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.
Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.
Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.
These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.
The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.
Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.
“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.
Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”
He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”
Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.
Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.
Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
‘Contentious issue’
In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”
One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.
For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”
Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m2 plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”
He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.
His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.
The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.
They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m2 CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m2 CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.
For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.
The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).
The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m2.
The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).
As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.
The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).
Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).
On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.
There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.
The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.
The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.
Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.
Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.
These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.
The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.
Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.
“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.
Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”
He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”
Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.
Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.
Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
‘Contentious issue’
In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”
One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.
For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”
Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m2 plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”
He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.
His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.
The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.
They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m2 CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m2 CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.
For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.
The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).
The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m2.
The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).
As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.
The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).
Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).
On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.
There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.
The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.
The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.
Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.
Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2020