Summary Background Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, ...reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02008227. Findings Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months 95% CI 11·8–15·7 vs 9·6 months 8·6–11·2; hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·62–0·87, p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months 95% CI 12·6–18·0 with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months 8·8–12·0 with docetaxel; HR 0·74 95% CI 0·58–0·93; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 95% CI 0·59–0·96). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 95% CI 0·54–0·98; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 0·60–0·89; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 15% of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 43% of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. Interpretation To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.
The phase 2 POPLAR and phase 3 OAK studies of the anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC revealed significant ...improvements in survival versus docetaxel (p = 0.04 and 0.0003, respectively). Longer follow-up permits evaluation of continued benefit of atezolizumab. This study reports the final overall survival (OS) and safety findings from both trials.
POPLAR randomized 287 patients (atezolizumab, 144; docetaxel, 143) and OAK randomized 1225 patients (atezolizumab, 613; docetaxel, 612). The patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg fixed dose) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated.
A longer OS was observed in patients receiving atezolizumab versus docetaxel in POPLAR (median OS = 12.6 mo versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.58–1.00) and OAK (median OS = 13.3 versus 9.8 mo; hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68–0.89). The 4-year OS rates in POPLAR were 14.8% (8.7–20.8) and 8.1% (3.2–13.0) and those in OAK were 15.5% (12.4–18.7) and 8.7% (6.2–11.3) for atezolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. Atezolizumab had improved OS benefit compared with docetaxel across all PD-L1 expression and histology groups. Most 4-year survivors in the docetaxel arms received subsequent immunotherapy (POPLAR, 50%; OAK, 65%). Of the 4-year survivors, most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and nonsquamous histological classification and approximately half were responders (POPLAR: atezolizumab, seven of 15; docetaxel, three of four; OAK: atezolizumab, 24 of 43; docetaxel, 11 of 26). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 16% of atezolizumab 4-year survivors in POPLAR and OAK, respectively.
Long-term follow-up suggests a consistent survival benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, or subsequent immunotherapy. Atezolizumab had no new safety signals, and the safety profile was similar to that in previous studies.
The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = ...1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat ITT 850 ITT850 and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed.
Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m2, intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1–expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab.
Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio HR = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64–0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70–0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed.
The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up.
Patients with cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and 8% to 15% of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience a VTE event during the course of ...their disease. The incidence of VTE in molecularly defined NSCLC subgroups is still unclear. In this study, we investigated the incidence and the clinical correlates of VTE in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC enrolled in the METROS trial (NCT02499614).
The METROS trial is a prospective phase II study designed to assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of crizotinib in patients with pre-treated metastatic NSCLC ROS1 rearrangement (cohort A) or with MET amplification or MET exon 14 mutation (cohort B). Patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC enrolled within cohort A and the expansion cohort of the trial were included in the primary analysis.
Among 48 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC enrolled in the METROS study, 20 (41.6%) of 48 had at least 1 VTE event. Among them, 7 (35%) of 20 patients had ≥ 2 VTE events. VTE events consisted of pulmonary embolism (46.4%), deep vein thrombosis (39.2%), renal vein thrombosis (7.1%), internal jugular thrombosis (3.5%), and peripheral inserted central catheter-related thrombosis (3.5%). VTE events occurred at disease progression in 35.7% of cases, at diagnosis in 32.1% of cases, and during chemotherapy or crizotinib in 17.8% and 14.2%, respectively.
The incidence of VTE is 3- to 5-fold higher in patients harboring ROS1-rearrangment than previously observed for the general population with NSCLC. Larger studies are warranted to confirm our findings and determine whether the molecular profile of NSCLC should be incorporated into a risk-stratification tool and decision-making algorithm for VTE diagnosis and prophylaxis.
The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with oncogene-addicted non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still in need of further investigation. In this study, we demonstrated a higher incidence of VTE in patients with advanced ROS1-rearranged NSCLC, which was 3- to 5-fold higher compared with the general population with NSCLC. Our results suggest that the molecular profile of NSCLC should be incorporated into a risk-stratification tool and decision-making algorithm for VTE diagnosis and prophylaxis.
Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%.
We evaluated post-progression ...treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6–38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5–17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 9.4%) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 5.5%) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients’ features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148).
In the real-world scenario NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% treated with first-line single-agent pembrolizumab achieve worse outcomes as compared to the Keynote-024 trial. Poor post-progression outcomes are major determinants of the global results that should be considered when counselling patients for first-line treatment choices.
•Treatment sequencing is a viable option for NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%.•Post-progression pathways of a cohort of NSCLC receiving pembrolizumab were reported.•Post-progression outcomes are major determinants for worse clinical outcomes.•Our results should be considered when counselling patients for first-line choices.
BackgroundThe association between obesity and outcomes in patients receiving programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors has already been confirmed in pre-treated ...non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, regardless of PD-L1 tumor expression.MethodsWe present the outcomes analysis according to baseline body mass index (BMI) and BMI variation in a large cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 expression ≥50%, receiving first line pembrolizumab. We also evaluated a control cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with first line platinum-based chemotherapy. Normal weight was set as control group.Results962 patients and 426 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. Obese patients had a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR) (OR=1.61 (95% CI: 1.04–2.50)) in the pembrolizumab cohort, while overweight patients had a significantly lower ORR (OR=0.59 (95% CI: 0.37–0.92)) within the chemotherapy cohort. Obese patients had a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.61 (95% CI: 0.45–0.82)) in the pembrolizumab cohort. Conversely, they had a significantly shorter PFS in the chemotherapy cohort (HR=1.27 (95% CI: 1.01–1.60)). Obese patients had a significantly longer overall survival (OS) within the pembrolizumab cohort (HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.49–0.99)), while no significant differences according to baseline BMI were found in the chemotherapy cohort. BMI variation significantly affected ORR, PFS and OS in both the pembrolizumab and the chemotherapy cohorts.ConclusionsBaseline obesity is associated to significantly improved ORR, PFS and OS in metastatic NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 expression of ≥50%, receiving first line pembrolizumab, but not among patients treated with chemotherapy. BMI variation is also significantly related to clinical outcomes.
Background: The current clinical practice for patients affected by Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with uncommon mutation is based on afatinib and osimertinib, second and third generation of ...Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) respectively. For uncommon EGFR mutations, it is still unclear which EGFR TKI is most effective, since there are few dedicated prospective studies and Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques trace an increasingly large and sometimes little-known population of EGFR mutations.
Objective: To determine the economic impact associated to afatinib and osimertinib, a Budget Impact model considering a 3-year time horizon with two scenarios was developed: a first scenario, called AS IS, based on treatment with afatinib and osimertinib according to a distribution of market shares as emerged from clinical practice; a second suitable scenario, called TO BE, based on reviewed literature data, assuming for each year a 10%, 15% and 20% increase in afatinib use, respectively.
Methods: Budget Impact analysis was conducted using a dynamic cohort model, in which the annual number of patients with NSCLC and uncommon mutations was equally distributed over 12 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) data for afatinib and osimertinib were extrapolated up to 36 months from published Kaplan Meier curves, and then the number of patients was estimated for each treatment.
Results: The increase of 10% in afatinib use allowed a saving of drug acquisition costs for the Italian NHS, over the 3-year time horizon, of –€ 622,432. The univariate sensitivity analysis shows the market share of osimertinib to be the parameter significantly affecting the results achieved in the base case.
Conclusions: The potential increase in the use of afatinib in patients with NSCLC and uncommon mutations leads to lower drug acquisition costs, lower Budget Impact and a saving of money for the Italian NHS.
Background
Patients with programmed cell death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) ≥50% metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and ECOG performance status (PS) of 2 treated with first‐line immunotherapy have ...heterogeneous clinical assessment and outcomes.
Methods
To explore the role of immune‐inflammatory surrogates by the validated lung immuno‐oncology prognostic score (LIPS) score, including the neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the pretreatment use of steroids, alongside other prognostic variables. A retrospective analysis of 128 patients with PS2 and PD‐L1 ≥50% mNSCLC treated between April 2018 and September 2019 with first‐line pembrolizumab in a real‐world setting was performed.
Results
With a median follow‐up of 15.3 months, the 1‐year overall survival (OS) and median progression‐free survival (PFS) were 32.3% (95% CI: 30.9–33.9) and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.8–4.7), respectively. The NLR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and pretreatment steroids results were the only significant prognostic factors on the univariate analysis and independent prognostic factors by the multivariate analysis on both OS and PFS. The LIPS score, including the NLR and pretreatment steroids, identified 29 (23%) favourable‐risk patients, with 0 factors, 1‐year OS of 67.6% and median PFS of 8.2 months; 57 (45%) intermediate‐risk patients, with 1 factor, 1‐year OS 32.1% and median PFS 2.7 months; 42 (33%) poor‐risk patients, with both factors, 1‐year OS of 10.7% and median PFS of 1.2 months.
Conclusions
The assessment of pre‐existing imbalance of the host immune response by combined blood and clinical immune‐inflammatory markers may represent a way to unravel the heterogeneous outcome and assessment of patients with mNSCLC and poor PS in the immune‐oncology setting.
LIPS‐based suggestions for the first‐line treatment of patients with mNSCLC with PD‐L1 ≥ 50% and ECOG PS 2. The LIPS consists of the following validated prognostic factors: use of pretreatment steroids, NLR ≥4. The OS curve refers to all patients according to the LIPS score and corresponds to Figure 1A. For further details, see Figure 1 legend.
PDF
