User login
Datopotamab deruxtecan for advanced NSCLC encouraging so far
according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).
Limited benefit from existing treatments
Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.
TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
Subgroup with AGAs
The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”
The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
Further evaluation ongoing
Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.
Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”
Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”
The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).
Limited benefit from existing treatments
Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.
TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
Subgroup with AGAs
The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”
The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
Further evaluation ongoing
Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.
Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”
Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”
The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).
Limited benefit from existing treatments
Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.
TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
Subgroup with AGAs
The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”
The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
Further evaluation ongoing
Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.
Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”
Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”
The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
FROM ESMO 2021
TULIP trial shows extended survival in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
FROM ESMO 2021
ctDNA may be a better surrogate for survival than RECIST
according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.
Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.
Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.
Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).
Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).
Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”
The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.
The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.
Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.
Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.
Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).
Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).
Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”
The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.
The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
according to Alexander Noor Shoushtari, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Tebentafusp is the first therapy to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in uveal melanoma, Dr. Shoushtari noted in a 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation Sept. 17 (abstract 17570). He noted further that, in prior research, OS was improved regardless of RECISTv1.1 best response, suggesting that better surrogate efficacy endpoints are needed.
Uveal melanoma is a rare melanoma type with low mutational burden, but frequent liver metastases. Benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is poor, and there is no established standard of care once the disease becomes metastatic. “Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not as good for treating this type of melanoma as they are for treating cutaneous disease, and traditionally preferred treatment is within clinical trials,” Dr. Shoushtari said. In frontline trials, 1-year survival has been in the 50% range. Tebentafusp is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific soluble T-cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic. It is designed to target gp100 (a melanoma-associated antigen) through a high-affinity TCR-binding domain and an anti-CD3 T-cell–engaging domain, which redirects T cells to kill gp100 positive melanocytic expressing tumor cells.
Prior research has demonstrated a disconnect between RECIST response classification and tebentafusp OS benefit. In the IMCgp100-202 study among patients treated first-line for metastatic uveal melanoma with tebentafusp or investigator choice, intent-to-treat analysis showed a survival probability benefit for tebentafusp (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71), with a best response of progressive disease population HR of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68). While the RECIST response rate was only 9.1%, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94). “That suggests that RECIST is not a fantastic way to predict who will benefit from this drug,” Dr. Shoushtari stated.
Similarly in the IMCgp100-102 study of tebentafusp monotherapy in second-line metastatic uveal melanoma (n = 127), the RECIST response rate was 5%. Duration of response was 8.7 months and median OS was 16.8 months. Historical second-line OS has been reported at 7.8 months. The 1- and 2-year survival (62%/37%) compared favorably with historical rates (37%/15%), as well. Dr. Shoushtari noted that 92% of patients had detectable ctDNA with mutations in known uveal melanoma oncogenes. He pointed out that baseline ctDNA levels significantly correlated with tumor burden. Also, 70% of evaluable patients had any ctDNA reduction, with 0.5-3.2 log reduction in 99.9%, a 0.5 log reduction in 68% and 3 log reduction (cleared) in 14% of patients. ctDNA reduction, Dr. Shoushtari said, was associated with greater mean tumor shrinkage and with less tumor growth. Importantly, there was a linear correlation between ctDNA reduction and better OS (R2, 0.88, P < .0001).
Among all evaluable patients, comparing those with less than 0.5 log ctDNA reduction with those with at least a 0.5 log reduction showed a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .03). Among those whose best response was progressive disease, 35% had at least a 0.5 log reduction in ctDNA with an OS hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.2-0.94; P = .027), compared with less than a 0.5 log reduction. Among those whose best response was stable disease, 28% had at least 1 log reduction with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.16-1.43; P = .16) for OS, compared with those with less than 1 log reduction. Dr. Shoushtari pointed out that “14% of patients cleared ctDNA, including some (n = 12) with best RECIST responses of stable or progressive disease. All patients with ctDNA clearance were alive beyond 1 year; with a hazard ratio, compared to those who had not cleared ctDNA, of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.03-0.57).
Summing up, Dr. Shoushtari said that ctDNA was detectable in more than 90% of second-line tebentafusp-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and correlated with tumor burden. About 70% had ctDNA reduction versus 39% with tumor shrinkage and 5% RECIST response. The linear correlation between the magnitude of ctDNA reduction and improved OS on tebentafusp, was uncoupled from best RECIST response. “For tebentafusp, ctDNA reduction may be a better surrogate of overall survival than RECIST response.”
The ESMO-appointed discussant for the study, Christian Rolfo, MD, PhD, MBA, Icahan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, examined the tebentafusp study author’s claim that the radiographic assessment of tumors may underestimate the effect of tebentafusp, compared with ctDNA. The strengths of the study include, he said, that it is a drug- and tumor-specific evaluation of the role of ctDNA as a surrogate of response. “Its strength is that it shows an important correlation between ctDNA levels and overall survival, and that response rate is evaluated better with ctDNA.” A question that remains open, Dr. Rolfo added, is whether RECIST criteria are still a good comparator for biologic response.
The study was funded by Immunocore Dr. Shoushtari disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
FROM ESMO 2021
Study supports add-on therapy for germline and wildtype BRCA mutations
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nivo/ipi combo now ‘standard of care’ in mesothelioma
After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.
Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.
She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.
Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.
The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.
Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.
In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.
The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.
This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.
There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.
Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.
Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
Study details
Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.
A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.
The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.
Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.
However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.
Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.
An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.
In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.
At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.
Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.
Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.
This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.
The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.
However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.
Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.
Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.
Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.
Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.
She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.
Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.
The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.
Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.
In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.
The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.
This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.
There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.
Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.
Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
Study details
Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.
A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.
The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.
Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.
However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.
Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.
An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.
In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.
At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.
Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.
Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.
This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.
The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.
However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.
Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.
Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.
Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.
Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.
She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.
Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.
On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.
The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.
Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.
In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.
The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.
This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.
There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.
Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.
Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
Study details
Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.
A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.
The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.
Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.
However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.
Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.
An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.
In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.
At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.
Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.
Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.
Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.
This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.
This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.
The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.
However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.
Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.
Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.
Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Twelve-month overall survival benefit with ribociclib for metastatic breast cancer
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
FROM ESMO 2021
Durvalumab combos beat monotherapy for unresectable stage 3 NSCLC
Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.
“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.
They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.
Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.
Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).
There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.
The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.
“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.
The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.
Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.
The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.
“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.
They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.
Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.
Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).
There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.
The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.
“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.
The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.
Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.
The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.
“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.
Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.
They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.
Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.
Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).
There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.
The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.
“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.
The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.
Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.
The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.
The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2021
Mediastinal relapse risk lower with PORT, but no survival benefit
The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.
For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.
Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”
The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.
The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).
“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.
For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.
Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).
Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.
The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.
For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.
Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”
The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.
The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).
“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.
For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.
Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).
Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.
The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.
For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.
Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”
The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.
The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).
“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.
For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.
Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).
Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.
The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2021
‘New first-line standard of care’ in cervical cancer
That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.
The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.
“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.
Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.
“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”
KEYNOTE-826 details
This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.
The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).
PFS and OS results
The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).
The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).
OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.
The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).
In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).
Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).
Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.
The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.
Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.
He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.
KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.
The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.
“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.
Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.
“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”
KEYNOTE-826 details
This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.
The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).
PFS and OS results
The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).
The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).
OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.
The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).
In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).
Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).
Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.
The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.
Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.
He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.
KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.
The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.
“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.
Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.
“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”
KEYNOTE-826 details
This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.
The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).
PFS and OS results
The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).
The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.
In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).
OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.
The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).
In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).
Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).
Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.
The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.
Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.
He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.
KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
Adjuvant pembro success in early melanoma raises questions
However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.
This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.
Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.
The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.
Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.
Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”
However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”
Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.
Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.
Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.
So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”
As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.
He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.
Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.
Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.
The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”
Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”
“That will have to change,” he suggested.
Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.
Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.
She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.
Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”
He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.
Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.
She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”
Details of the results in earlier stage disease
The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.
Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.
In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.
Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.
In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.
The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.
At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.
Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).
“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”
“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”
When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.
Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.
Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.
In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.
Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.
Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.
Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.
The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.
This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.
Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.
The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.
Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.
Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”
However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”
Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.
Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.
Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.
So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”
As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.
He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.
Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.
Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.
The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”
Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”
“That will have to change,” he suggested.
Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.
Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.
She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.
Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”
He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.
Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.
She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”
Details of the results in earlier stage disease
The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.
Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.
In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.
Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.
In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.
The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.
At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.
Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).
“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”
“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”
When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.
Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.
Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.
In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.
Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.
Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.
Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.
The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the results raise many questions, says an expert invited to discuss the new data.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is already approved in the United States for use in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement following complete resection, having been shown to prolong both recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in stage 3 melanoma.
This latest trial involved patients with slightly earlier disease, those with resected stage 2B and 2C melanoma. These patients are at “high risk” of disease recurrence and have similar outcomes to stage 3A and 3B melanoma patients, explained study presenter Jason J. Luke, MD, director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.
Results from the KEYNOTE-716 trial showed that adjuvant pembrolizumab is also beneficial in this earlier stage disease: it improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) by 35% and improved distant metastasis-free survival by 40% compared with placebo.
Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an “effective treatment option with a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with high-risk stage 2 melanoma,” Dr. Luke concluded.
The manufacturer, Merck, has said that these new results have already been accepted for priority review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, making it likely that the indication will be extended to include patients with earlier disease.
Dr. Luke presented the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology 2021 annual meeting.
Invited discussant Omid Hamid, MD, chief of research/immuno-oncology, the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, said that Dr. Luke’s presentation was “amazing.”
However, these new results have “sabotaged how we think about how we treat our patients and how we’re going to think about what we do in the future.”
Dr. Hamid noted that the incidence of stage 2B and 2C melanoma is “equal” to that of stage 3 disease, “so with a proposed approval” of pembrolizumab in this earlier setting, “we will have a lot more patients” to treat earlier in their disease course.
Of course, this raises the inevitable question of how to treat these patients when they relapse, and how to treat these patients in the metastatic setting “having already exhausted single-agent PD-1 therapy,” he commented.
Dr. Hamid said that the current results also reveal the “current problem” with adjuvant therapy, which is that “we don’t know who benefits,” and there is a subset patients who “never recur” even if they are untreated.
So the questions are: “How come all get treated? What about the risks of toxicity? The costs? And where do we fit these patients into clinic?”
As with so many presentations of immunotherapy trial data, the need for biomarkers was raised, with Dr. Hamid emphasizing the need for predictive biomarkers that could exclude patients, and save them from toxicity.
He noted that there were data with another checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab (Opdivo), in the adjuvant setting (from the CheckMate 238 trial) that suggested higher tumor mutation burden and tumor interferon-gamma levels could play a role, and he hopes that similar data may be available from this latest trial.
Also, there are ongoing and upcoming trials in patients with stage 2B and 2C melanoma that may answer some of the outstanding questions, including a study of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade before resection, and the DETECTION trial, which is exploring circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy postsurgery.
Then there is the NivoMela trial that will look at nivolumab in stage 2A as well as 2B and 2C disease, while the REFINE trial will assess whether giving immunotherapy less often to patients with advanced cancer, including those with melanoma, results in fewer side effects while continuing to be effective.
The current results also raise the question of whether to go “earlier and earlier” with adjuvant immunotherapy into “poor risk” stage 1 melanoma, which is already being tried in the United States, although there is “no clear understanding of what to do for those patients.”
Overall, Dr. Hamid said that the results of KEYNOTE-716 have “created more questions than answers,” including its impact on the inclusion criteria for phase 3/4 clinical trials, “which now exclude patients who have received adjuvant therapy within 6 months.”
“That will have to change,” he suggested.
Some of the questions raised by Dr. Hamid were discussed on social media, sparking a lively Twitter debate on how best to take the results forward and into the clinic.
Florentia Dimitriou, MD, a dermatology consultant in the Skin Cancer Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, said the data were “great” but she was “still unclear” over who needs adjuvant immunotherapy in this setting.
She also emphasized that, for her, the greater RFS benefit seen in T3b than in T4b disease “doesn’t make sense,” and she also highlighted the finding of long-term toxicity in approximately 18% of patients.
Dr. Luke replied that he agrees that the T3b/T4b results are puzzling but he said the event rate was “low” and the data are “immature,” and that he hopes to have “more info soon.”
He acknowledged that around 18% of patients taking pembrolizumab went on to receive hormone therapy for adverse events, including 13.9% due to hypothyroidism, and others including hypophysitis, adrenal sufficiency, and type 1 diabetes. However, he also pointed out that about 5% of patients in this study had background thyroid issues. The risks and benefits of treatment need to be discussed with patients, he added.
Over a series of tweets, Rebecca J. Lee, PhD, NIHR clinical lecturer in medical oncology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, said, “we need to know more” about the distant metastasis-free survival results, and that results for overall survival are “really” needed.
She also emphasized the need for biomarkers to identify those patients who are likely to benefit, and whether benefit can be upfront or early on in treatment. Dr. Lee added that, as endocrine thyroid toxicity occurs after a median of 3.3 months, “pretreatment biomarkers will be more important than on-treatment biomarkers in this setting.”
Details of the results in earlier stage disease
The KEYNOTE-716 trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, resected, high-risk stage 2 melanoma aged ≥ 12 years and a good performance status. The majority (~64%) had stage 2B melanoma, and the rest had stage 2C. T3b disease was present in 41% of patients, 23% had T4a disease, and 35% had T4b disease.
Patients were randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo.
In a subsequent part of the study, patients with recurrence will be unblended, with either crossover from the placebo to active treatment group or rechallenge with pembrolizumab for up to 2 years.
Presenting the first part, Dr. Luke said that, of 487 patients assigned to pembrolizumab, 483 started treatment, of whom 206 have completed treatment, 133 are still on therapy, and 144 have discontinued.
In the placebo group, 489 patients were assigned and 486 began treatment. Of those, 229 completed treatment, 152 are still ongoing, and 105 discontinued.
The two groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median age was approximately 60 years, with only one patient enrolled who was aged 12-17 years.
At 12 months, the study met its primary endpoint.
Relapse-fee survival was 90.5% in patients treated with pembrolizumab versus 83.1% in the placebo group, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.65 (P = .00658).
“Despite this trial hitting this primary endpoint very early, there are a number of patients who are censored later in the curves,” Dr. Luke said, adding that “we will continue to see these data mature.”
“In fact, it’s our full expectation that curves will continue to separate over time.”
When looking at key subgroups, Dr. Luke showed that the results favored pembrolizumab when stratifying patients by age, gender, race, and performance status.
Interestingly, patients with T3b disease did a lot better on pembrolizumab compared with those who had T4b disease, at a hazard ratio for recurrence of 0.44 versus 0.94.
Data on recurrence patterns revealed that 11.1% of patients taking pembrolizumab had an event, with 6.4% experiencing skin and/or lymph node regional recurrence and 4.7% distant recurrence.
In the placebo group, 16.8% of patients had a recurrence event, with 8.4% having a loco-regional recurrence and 7.8% a distant recurrence.
Dr. Luke explained that this equates to an approximate 40% reduction in distant recurrence with pembrolizumab over placebo.
Finally, the researchers examined change in global health status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life score. Examining mean change over time, they found that there were no clinically meaningful changes, and the scores in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups tracked each other during the course of follow-up.
Quality of life was, therefore, “only minimally changed,” Dr. Luke said.
The study was funded by MSD. Dr. Luke and Dr. Hamid have declared relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.