User login
Intensive surveillance after CRC resection does not improve survival
However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.
In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).
Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.
However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”
Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.
He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.
Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”
Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
Study details
The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.
PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.
Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.
At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
Results
The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).
There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.
There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).
The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.
The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.
The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.
SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.
However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.
In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).
Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.
However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”
Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.
He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.
Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”
Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
Study details
The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.
PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.
Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.
At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
Results
The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).
There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.
There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).
The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.
The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.
The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.
SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.
However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.
In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).
Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.
However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”
Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.
He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.
Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”
Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
Study details
The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.
PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.
Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.
Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.
At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
Results
The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).
There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.
There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).
The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.
The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.
The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.
SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.
FROM ESMO 2020
Durable efficacy with MK-6482 in VHL-associated RCC
according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.
Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.
The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.
The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).
The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
Efficacy and safety
At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.
By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.
The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.
“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.
Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.
In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.
“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.
Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
Remaining questions and next steps
The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.
“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.
While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.
“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.
However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?
Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.
according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.
Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.
The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.
The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).
The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
Efficacy and safety
At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.
By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.
The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.
“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.
Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.
In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.
“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.
Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
Remaining questions and next steps
The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.
“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.
While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.
“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.
However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?
Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.
according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.
Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.
The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.
The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).
The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
Efficacy and safety
At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.
By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.
The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.
“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.
Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.
In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.
“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.
Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
Remaining questions and next steps
The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.
“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.
While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.
“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.
However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?
Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.
ESMO 2020
Chemoradiation boosts glioblastoma survival in real-world setting
A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.
That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.
“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.
“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.
However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.
Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.
The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.
During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.
The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.
Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
Registry data study
To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).
The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.
The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.
Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.
“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
Real-world results
Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”
Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.
Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.
“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.
No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.
SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.
A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.
That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.
“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.
“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.
However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.
Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.
The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.
During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.
The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.
Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
Registry data study
To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).
The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.
The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.
Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.
“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
Real-world results
Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”
Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.
Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.
“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.
No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.
SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.
A comparison of U.S. and European treatment patterns for glioblastomas provides further evidence that adding systemic chemotherapy with temozolomide to radiotherapy offers a significant survival benefit over radiotherapy alone, and wider uptake of chemoradiation in Europe would extend the benefit to more patients.
That conclusion comes from a study of registry data from both sides of the Atlantic. The study showed a doubling in 2-year survival rates for patients with glioblastomas treated with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, a practice change that was prompted by a phase 3 trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.
“Using population data from cancer registries, we observed a huge increase in radiotherapy plus chemotherapy between 1999 and 2013 in Europe and the U.S.,” said Francesco Giusti, PhD, of the European Commission Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.
“Data from 1999 to 2005 was already showing a clear survival advantage for patients treated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone,” he added.
However, when Dr. Giusti and colleagues compared practice patterns from before and after the publication of the practice-changing trial, they found that about 10% more patients in the United States were receiving combined chemotherapy and radiation, a difference reflected in superior survival rates in the U.S., he said.
Dr. Giusti presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
He and his colleagues looked at data from cancer registries contributing to the European Cancer Information System and the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data.
The data set included patients diagnosed from 1999 through 2013 with glioblastoma as a first tumor.
During that time, results from the aforementioned phase 3 trial were published. They showed that, at a median follow-up of 28 months, the median survival was 14.6 months for the 287 patients assigned to radiotherapy plus temozolomide, compared with 12.1 months for the 286 patients randomized to radiotherapy alone.
The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the combination therapy group was 0.63 (P < .001). The 2-year survival rate was 26.5% for chemoradiation and 10.4% for radiation alone.
Adding temozolomide to radiotherapy in the trial also appeared to be safe. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events was 7%.
Registry data study
To see how practice patterns changed in the United States and Europe after publication of the trial, Dr. Giusti and colleagues used registry data to calculate the proportion of cases by treatment type and overall survival during 1999-2005 (pre-study) and 2009-2013 (post-study).
The data included 34,229 cases from 11 countries in Europe and 36,925 cases from the United States.
The percentage of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiation increased steadily over the study period. For example, among 18- to 49-year-olds, the percentage receiving the combined modalities in Europe increased from 20% in 1999-2001 to 70% in 2010-2013. In the United States, 40% of the same age group received combination therapy in 1999-2001, and this percentage grew to 80% in 2010-2013.
Overall survival rates in the general population were similar to those seen in the clinical trial during 1999-2005, when 2-year overall survival rates for patients treated with radiation alone were 11% in Europe and 12% in the United States. For patients treated with combined therapy, the respective 2-year survival rates in Europe and the United States were 24% and 25%.
“In the period after the trial, we observed a increasing 2-year survival rate to 28% in Europe and 29% in the U.S. for patients with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Giusti said.
Real-world results
Invited discussant Matthias Preusser, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said the study shows that “population-based investigations are very valuable and should be further developed so that we can see how treatment patterns vary between countries and what the regional variations are, and whether new treatment standards actually reach clinical practice, and also to see whether there’s an effect on a population basis that is different from what is seen in controlled clinical trials.”
Dr. Preusser said it’s clear from the study that survival is increased with the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy, and more patients in the United States than in Europe received the combination during the study period.
Pointing to a treatment algorithm from the European Association of Neuro-oncology published in 2017, Dr. Preusser noted that radiotherapy alone may still be recommended for patients with unfavorable prognostic factors or patients 70 years and older with methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter non-methylated tumors.
“It seems the differences in the age distribution between the U.S. and European populations that were analyzed could be one explanation why the radiochemotherapy combination was applied more often in the U.S. population,” Dr. Preusser said.
No outside funding was used to support the study. Dr. Giusti and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Preusser disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Merck, which markets temozolomide under the name Temodar.
SOURCE: Giusti F et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract 365MO.
FROM ESMO 2020
Clinical factors and treatment tied to COVID-19 mortality in cancer patients
according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.
The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.
Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.
Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72
The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.
The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.
Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).
Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).
In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).
Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71
An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.
Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.
Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.
The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).
The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.
An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.
Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.
“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.
This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.
SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.
according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.
The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.
Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.
Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72
The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.
The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.
Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).
Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).
In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).
Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71
An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.
Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.
Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.
The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).
The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.
An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.
Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.
“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.
This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.
SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.
according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.
The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.
Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.
Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72
The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.
The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.
Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).
Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).
In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).
Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71
An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.
Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.
Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.
The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).
The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.
An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.
Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.
“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.
This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.
SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.
FROM ESMO 2020
Atezolizumab strikes out in ovarian cancer
“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Explaining the negative results
The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.
Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.
Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.
There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.
It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
Patient and treatment details
IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.
Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.
Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).
In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).
Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
Efficacy and safety
In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.
The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.
Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.
In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.
Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.
Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
What the future holds
Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).
Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).
Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.
She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.
The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.
SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.
“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Explaining the negative results
The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.
Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.
Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.
There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.
It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
Patient and treatment details
IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.
Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.
Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).
In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).
Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
Efficacy and safety
In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.
The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.
Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.
In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.
Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.
Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
What the future holds
Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).
Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).
Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.
She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.
The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.
SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.
“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Explaining the negative results
The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.
Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.
Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.
There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.
It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
Patient and treatment details
IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.
Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.
Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).
In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).
Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
Efficacy and safety
In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.
The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.
She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.
Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.
In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.
Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.
Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
What the future holds
Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).
Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).
Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.
She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.
The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.
SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.
FROM ESMO 2020
High-dose TRT: A new standard of care for LS-SCLC?
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.
The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.
Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.
“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
Study details
Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.
The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.
All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).
The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
Efficacy
There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).
Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).
Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).
Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.
Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
Safety
There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.
Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.
Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).
There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.
“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.
“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.
Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.
The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.
“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.
Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.
“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.
The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.
FROM ESMO 2020
Apatinib plus gefitinib: Better PFS but more toxicity
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”
A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
Study rationale and details
Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.
Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.
To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).
The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).
Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
Efficacy and safety
The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.
The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).
Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).
In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).
Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.
The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.
Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
Cause for hesitation
“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”
She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.
Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.
The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.
SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.
FROM ESMO 2020
Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX improves DFS, OS effect uncertain
Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.
The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.
It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).
Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
Study details
In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.
He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.
The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:
- Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
- Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.
Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
Results
The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).
The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.
A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).
Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).
Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.
He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.
RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).
PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.
Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.
The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.
It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).
Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
Study details
In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.
He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.
The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:
- Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
- Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.
Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
Results
The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).
The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.
A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).
Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).
Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.
He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.
RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).
PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.
Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.
The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.
It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).
Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
Study details
In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.
He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.
The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:
- Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
- Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.
Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
Results
The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).
The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.
A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).
Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).
Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.
He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.
RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).
PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.
aotto@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.
FROM ESMO 2020
Divergent findings with paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel in TNBC
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
The trials, IMpassion130 and IMpassion131, both enrolled patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced TNBC.
In IMpassion131, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.
In IMpassion130, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel did not improve OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population but did provide a “clinically meaningful” improvement in OS among PD-L1-positive patients, according to investigators.
IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 were presented during the same session at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020.
Potential reasons for the different outcomes in the two studies require further exploration, according to David Miles, MD, of Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, England, who presented the findings from IMpassion131.
ESMO discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, posited three possible explanations for the divergent findings. The steroids necessary with paclitaxel dosing may have had a negative effect on immune checkpoint inhibitor activity, differences in study populations may have played a role, or the divergent findings could be caused by chance.
Steroid use in IMpassion131 could have played a negative role because of its lympholytic activity, but other indications with steroid use have not demonstrated attenuated benefits, said Leisha A. Emens, MD, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who presented the findings from IMpassion130 at ESMO 2020.
“If I were a patient, based on the data to date, I would want nab-paclitaxel with atezolizumab,” Dr. Emens said.
Trial details
Both trials are phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of women with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC who had received no prior therapy for advanced TNBC.
IMpassion130 included 451 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 randomized to placebo plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at a starting dose of 100 mg/m2 via IV infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle for at least six cycles.
In both studies, patients received atezolizumab at 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in their active treatment arms.
IMpassion131 included 651 patients randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab plus paclitaxel (n = 431) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n = 220). Patients received paclitaxel at 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms in both studies. Less than half of patients – 45% in IMpassion131 and 41% in IMpassion130 – were PD-L1 positive.
Results of IMpassion131
The primary endpoint in IMpassion131 was PFS, and there was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms.
“The primary objective of IMpassion131 was not met,” Dr. Miles said. “[The] addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not significantly improve PFS in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.”
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median PFS was 5.7 months in the placebo arm and 6.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.82, P = .20).
In the ITT population, the median PFS was 5.6 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.86).
In subgroup analyses, Dr. Miles noted, “There was no clue about adverse or beneficial effects in any subgroup.”
The updated OS analysis demonstrated no benefit with atezolizumab in the ITT population or the PD-L1-positive population. In fact, there was a trend toward better OS for the control group in the latter analysis.
In the PD-L1-positive population, the median OS was 28.3 months in the control arm and 22.1 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.12). The 2-year OS rates were 51% and 49%, respectively.
In the ITT population, the median OS was 22.8 months in the control arm and 19.2 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 1.11). The 2-year OS rates were 45% and 42%, respectively.
The safety profile of the atezolizumab-paclitaxel combination was consistent with known side effects of the individual drugs, Dr. Miles said. There were four fatal treatment-related adverse events in the atezolizumab arm.
Results of IMpassion130
Presenting the final OS analysis from IMpassion130, Dr. Emens noted that the study’s findings have led to recommendations for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC in international guidelines.
The median OS in the ITT population was 18.7 months in the placebo arm and 21.0 months in the atezolizumab arm (stratified HR, 0.87, P = .077). The 3-year OS rates were 25% and 28%, respectively.
The median OS in the PD-L1-positive population was 17.9 months in the placebo arm and 25.4 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.67). The 3-year OS rates were 22% and 36%, respectively.
A P value is not available for the between-arm OS comparison in the PD-L1-positive population. OS was not formally tested in this group because the OS boundary for statistical significance was not crossed in the ITT population. However, Dr. Emens said there was a “clinically meaningful” OS benefit observed with atezolizumab in the PD-L1-positive patients.
Treatment withdrawals caused by adverse events were more common in the atezolizumab arm (19% vs. 8%). The most common of these was neuropathy, Dr. Emens said. However, she noted that atezolizumab-related adverse events were generally low grade and easily managed.
“These results support a positive benefit-risk profile for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Emens concluded.
Both studies were funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Miles, Dr. Emens, and Dr. Carey disclosed financial relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCES: Miles D et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA15; Emens LA et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA16.
FROM ESMO 2020
‘Paradigm shift’ in gastric junction cancers with nivolumab
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.
However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.
The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.
Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.
The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).
The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).
PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).
The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.
At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.
These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.
“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”
“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”
Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.
This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.
Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).
In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).
Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.
Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.
Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Nivolumab in adjuvant setting
The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.
This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.
Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.
Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”
However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.
In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.
Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.
CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2020