Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a new treatment option for patients without ...progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4–6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval CI 0.63–1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54–1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1–high tumours.
The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.
The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.
Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based ...chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636.
Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1–17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5–8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2–7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·70–0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9–18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0–15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69–1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1–17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7–15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83–1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo.
Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.
4503
Background: For pts without disease progression during 1L plt-based chemotherapy (chemo), maintenance immunotherapy is a new mUC treatment option. IMvigor130 was a global, randomized Phase III ...study evaluating 1L atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs atezo monotherapy (Arm B) and placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) in patients with mUC (Galsky Lancet 2020). The final analysis showed that improved OS in Arm A vs Arm C of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population did not reach statistical significance (Galsky ASCO GU 2023). Here we report a post hoc analysis examining OS outcomes by response during atezo/placebo + chemo “induction” based on the final OS analysis. Methods: For Arms A and C, per protocol, investigators pre-specified the type of chemo pts received (gem + either cisplatin cis or carboplatin carbo), which was also a randomization stratification factor. Pts without progressive disease (PD) were allowed to continue atezo or placebo after 4 to 6 cycles of plt/gem. This post hoc analysis evaluated post-induction (Wk 18) OS in pts who completed 4 to 6 cycles of chemo followed by ≥1 dose of atezo or placebo and who had a best response of at least stable disease (SD) without PD at any time (up to and including Wk 18 tumor assessment). Post-progression OS was evaluated in pts who had PD at any time (up to and including Wk 18 tumor assessment). OS analyses by type of chemo were also performed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used, with HRs adjusted for known prognostic factors (and response for non-PD pts) and stratified by enrollment stage. Results: The time from last pt randomized to the data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022) was 49 mo (overall ITT population). OS improvements favoring Arm A vs C appeared greater for pts treated with cis than with carbo. In the cis subgroup, OS rates at 36 mo were 47% (Arm A) and 34% (Arm C) for pts who achieved at least SD during induction. Additional efficacy data are shown. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, the initial response to induction therapy did not seem to impact OS outcomes. Consistent with prior analyses, these data suggest that cis-treated pts may derive a greater benefit from the addition of atezo than carbo-treated pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . Table: see text
IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus ...platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C.
In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m
intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m
intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.
Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 95% CI 0·73-1·00; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 37% of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 34% of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 37% vs 115 30%), decreased neutrophil count (98 22% vs 95 24%), thrombocytopenia (95 21% vs 70 18%), and decreased platelet count (92 20% vs 92 24%). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia n=1 each) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis n=1 each) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.
Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed.
F Hoffmann-La Roche.
The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based ...chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design.
In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m
body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m
body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell IC expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.
Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 95% CI 0·82-1·16). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two 1% in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 34% in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one <1% vs 115 30%), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 24%), and decreased platelet count (one <1% vs 92 24%). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.
The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals.
F Hoffmann-La Roche.
LBA440
Background: The IMvigor130 primary analysis demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit with 1L atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) in pts with mUC (Galsky Lancet ...2020). Interim data showed improved OS with Arm A vs C but did not cross the pre-specified threshold for significance (Galsky Lancet 2020; Galsky AACR 2021). In exploratory analyses, OS improved when atezo was combined with cisplatin (cis) vs carboplatin (carbo) regardless of PD-L1 status. Here, we report final OS data from Arms A and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo alone) or C. Arm A and C pts received cis or carbo per investigator (INV) choice. Co-primary endpoints were PFS per INV RECIST 1.1 and OS (Arm A vs C), and OS (Arm B vs C), tested hierarchically. Safety, ORR and DOR, disease control rate (DCR; confirmed CR, PR or SD ≥ 6 mo) and pre-specified exploratory OS data are also reported. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022 (49 mo since last pt randomly assigned), in ITT pts, OS benefit was not statistically significant; in the cis subgroup, HR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.57, 1.01; Table). In ITT pts, DCR was 65% (290/447) in Arm A and 60% (239/397) in Arm C. 81% of safety-evaluable pts (370/454) in Arm A and 80% (312/389) in Arm C had a Gr 3/4 tx-related AE (TRAE). Gr 5 TRAEs occurred in 9 pts (2%) in Arm A and 4 (1%) in Arm C; Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest were seen in 41 pts (9%) in Arm A and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: In this final analysis, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem did not reach statistical significance in ITT pts with mUC. As seen with prior exploratory data, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem was greater when pts received cis vs carbo. No new safety signals were seen. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . Table: see text
LBA441
Background: Two interim OS analyses from IMvigor130 demonstrated non-statistically significant OS benefit with atezo monotherapy (Arm B) vs placebo + platinum (investigator INV choice of ...carboplatin or cisplatin carbo or cis)/gemcitabine (plt/gem; Arm C) in patients (pts) with PD-L1–high (IC2/3) mUC, as well as a favorable safety profile vs chemo (Galsky Lancet 2020, Davis AACR 2021). Exploratory data showed clinical benefit with atezo monotherapy in cis-ineligible pts with IC2/3 tumors. Here, we report the final OS analysis from IMvigor130 Arms B and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo + plt/gem; not reported here), B or C. Due to the statistical testing hierarchy, no formal comparison of OS (co-primary endpoint) in Arm B vs C was performed in ITT and IC2/3 pts. ORR and DOR, both per INV-assessed RECIST 1.1 (secondary endpoints), and safety were assessed. Subgroup analyses of OS in cis-ineligible pts and disease control rate (DCR, confirmed CR, PR or SD ≥6 mo) were exploratory. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022, time since last pt randomly assigned was 49 mo. OS data (Table) did not show benefit for ITT pts, while an HR of 0.56 (0.34, 0.91) was seen in the cis-ineligible IC2/3 subgroup. In the ITT population, the 24-mo OS rates were 34% in Arm B and 32% in Arm C. ORR was 24% (87/359; 38% DCR) in Arm B and 44% (158/356; 59% DCR) in Arm C; median DOR was 29.6 and 8.1 mo, respectively. In cis-ineligible IC2/3 pts, ORR was 40% (20/50) in Arm B and 33% (14/43) in Arm C. Median DOR was not evaluable in Arm B and 6.2 mo in Arm C. Of safety-evaluable pts, 57 of 354 in Arm B (16%) and 312 of 389 in Arm C (80%) had a Gr 3/4 treatment-related AE (TRAE); 3 (1%) and 4 (1%), respectively, had a Gr 5 TRAE. Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest occurred in 36 pts (10%) in Arm B and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: The final OS analysis was consistent with previous data. Atezo monotherapy continued to show better tolerability vs chemo with no new safety concerns. These exploratory data support the benefit-risk ratio of atezo monotherapy vs chemo for first-line cis-ineligible IC2/3 mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . Table: see text
In metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), cisplatin versus carboplatin leads to durable disease control in a subset of patients. The IMvigor130 trial reveals more favorable effects with atezolizumab ...combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) versus gemcitabine and carboplatin (GemCarbo). This study investigates the immunomodulatory effects of cisplatin as a potential explanation for these observations. Our findings indicate that improved outcomes with GemCis versus GemCarbo are primarily observed in patients with pretreatment tumors exhibiting features of restrained adaptive immunity. In addition, GemCis versus GemCarbo ± atezolizumab induces transcriptional changes in circulating immune cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation and T cell activation programs. In vitro experiments demonstrate that cisplatin, compared with carboplatin, exerts direct immunomodulatory effects on cancer cells, promoting dendritic cell activation and antigen-specific T cell killing. These results underscore the key role of immune modulation in cisplatin’s efficacy in mUC and highlight the importance of specific chemotherapy backbones in immunotherapy combination regimens.
Display omitted
•Patients with tumors showing preexisting adaptive immunity benefit more from cisplatin•Cisplatin versus carboplatin modulates immune-related transcriptional programs•Tumor cells primed by cisplatin versus carboplatin are sensitive to T cell killing
Galsky et al. demonstrate that durable cancer control with cisplatin versus carboplatin is most prominent in patients with pretreatment tumors demonstrating features of restrained adaptive immunity. In vitro, they demonstrate that cisplatin versus carboplatin exerts direct immunomodulatory effects on cancer cells, promoting dendritic cell activation and antigen-specific T cell killing.
The goal of this study was to determine the benefit in terms of time disease control (TDC) achieved by the succession of chemotherapy beyond the third line in patients treated for recurrent ...epithelial ovarian cancer. Secondary objectives were to identify patients who benefited from treatments beyond 3 lines and to estimate overall survival and disease-free progression lengths.
The cohort of 122 patients was identified from a pharmacy database of patients treated with chemotherapy between 1992 and 2010. The evaluation of benefit obtained by each line was based on TDC duration, defined as the interval between the beginning of the treatment and the date of progressive disease or death.
Median TDC durations was 4.15 (0-54.7), 4 (0-21.7), 3.34 (0-29.6), 4.97 (0-29.2), and 3.13 months (0-15) for the fourth to eighth lines, respectively. Time to disease control was longer than 6 months in 34% to 40% of patients treated by lines 4 to 8. The most important factor influencing TDC length beyond the third line was the TDC duration observed in the 2 previous lines of therapy. Median overall survival after the third line was 15.3 months (95% confidence interval, 12-20 months). Factors associated with longer overall survival after 3 lines were performance status lower than 2 (P = 0.0058), no hepatic metastasis (P = 0.0098), no pulmonary metastasis (P = 0.0003), and platinum sensitivity (P = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: These results may justify the administration of chemotherapy beyond the third line, in particular when the 2 previous lines are effective and resulted in disease control longer than 6 months.
Focal adhesions (FAs) initiate chemical and mechanical signals involved in cell polarity, migration, proliferation and differentiation. Super-resolution microscopy revealed that FAs are organized at ...the nanoscale into functional layers from the lower plasma membrane to the upper actin cytoskeleton. Yet, how FAs proteins are guided into specific nano-layers to promote interaction with given targets is unknown. Using single protein tracking, super-resolution microscopy and functional assays, we link the molecular behavior and 3D nanoscale localization of kindlin with its function in integrin activation inside FAs. We show that immobilization of integrins in FAs depends on interaction with kindlin. Unlike talin, kindlin displays free diffusion along the plasma membrane outside and inside FAs. We demonstrate that the kindlin Pleckstrin Homology domain promotes membrane diffusion and localization to the membrane-proximal integrin nano-layer, necessary for kindlin enrichment and function in FAs. Using kindlin-deficient cells, we show that kindlin membrane localization and diffusion are crucial for integrin activation, cell spreading and FAs formation. Thus, kindlin uses a different route than talin to reach and activate integrins, providing a possible molecular basis for their complementarity during integrin activation.
PDF