Summary Background Longer duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is associated with prolonged overall survival and improved progression-free survival. We ...investigated capecitabine added to maintenance bevacizumab after initial treatment with bevacizumab and docetaxel in this setting. Methods We did this open-label randomised phase 3 trial at 54 hospitals in Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Turkey. We enrolled patients with HER2-negative measurable metastatic breast cancer; each received three to six cycles of first-line bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and docetaxel (75–100 mg/m2 ) every 3 weeks. Progression-free patients were randomly assigned with an interactive voice-response system by block (size four) randomisation (1:1) to receive either bevacizumab and capecitabine or bevacizumab only (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice per day on days 1–14, every 3 weeks) until progression, stratified by oestrogen receptor status (positive vs negative), visceral metastases (present vs absent), response status (stable disease vs response vs non-measurable), and lactate dehydrogenase concentration (≤1·5 vs >1·5 × upper limit of normal). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (from randomisation) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00929240. Findings Between July 16, 2009, and March 7, 2011 (when enrolment was prematurely terminated), 284 patients received initial bevacizumab and docetaxel; 185 (65%) were randomly assigned (91 to bevacizumab and capecitabine versus 94 to bevacizumab only). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group than in the bevacizumab only group (median 11·9 months 95% CI 9·8–15·4 vs 4·3 months 3·9–6·8; stratified hazard ratio 0·38 95% CI 0·27–0·55; two-sided log-rank p<0·0001), as was overall survival (median 39·0 months 95% CI 32·3–not reached vs 23·7 months 18·5–31·7; stratified HR 0·43 95% CI 0·26–0·69; two-sided log-rank p=0·0003). Results for time to progression were consistent with those for progression-free survival. 78 (86%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and 72 (77%) in the bevacizumab only group had an objective response. Clinical benefit was recorded in 92 (98%) patients in the bevacizumab alone group and 90 (99%) in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group. Mean change from baseline in global health score did not differ significantly between groups. Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the maintenance phase were more common with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with bevacizumab only (45 49% of 91 patients vs 25 27% of 92 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse events were hand–foot syndrome (28 31% in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group vs none in the bevacizumab alone group), hypertension (eight 9% vs three 3%), and proteinuria (three 3% vs four 4%). Serious adverse events were reported by ten (11%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and seven (8%) patients in the bevacizumab only group. Interpretation Despite prematurely terminated accrual and the lack of information about post-progression treatment, both progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly improved with bevacizumab and capecitabine compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment. These results might inform future maintenance trials and current first-line treatment strategies for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background Combining bevacizumab with first-line or second-line chemotherapy improves progression-free survival in HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. We assessed the ...efficacy and safety of further bevacizumab therapy in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer whose disease had progressed after treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Methods In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients who had HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after receiving 12 weeks or more of first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy from 118 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a central interactive voice response system using a block randomisation schedule (block size four) stratified by hormone receptor status, first-line progression-free survival, selected chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase concentration, to receive second-line single-agent chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Second-line therapy was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. At progression, patients randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone received third-line chemotherapy without bevacizumab; those randomly assigned to bevacizumab continued bevacizumab with third-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival from randomisation to second-line progression or death in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01250379. Findings Between Feb 17, 2011, and April 3, 2013, 494 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (247 in each group). The median duration of follow-up at the time of this prespecified primary progression-free survival analysis was 15·9 months (IQR 9·1–21·7) in the chemotherapy-alone group and 16·1 months (10·6–22·7) in the combination group. Progression-free survival was significantly longer for those patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy than for those with chemotherapy alone (median: 6·3 months 95% CI 5·4–7·2 vs 4·2 months 3·9–4·7, respectively, stratified hazard ratio HR 0·75 95% CI 0·61–0·93, two-sided stratified log-rank p=0·0068). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were hypertension (33 13% of 245 patients receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy vs 17 7% of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (29 12% vs 20 8%), and hand-foot syndrome (27 11% vs 25 11%). Grade 3 proteinuria occurred in 17 (7%) of 245 patients receiving combination therapy and one (<1%) of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Serious adverse events were reported in 61 (25%) of 245 patients receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus 44 (18%) of 238 patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Interpretation These results suggest that continued VEGF inhibition with further bevacizumab is a valid treatment option for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease was stabilised or responded to first-line bevacizumab with chemotherapy. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) are typically excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and there are limited data on outcomes in this population. The ...single-arm international SAUL study of atezolizumab enrolled a broader ‘real-world’ patient population. We present outcomes in patients with a history of AID.
Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was safety. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end-point. Subgroup analyses of AID patients were prespecified.
Thirty-five of 997 treated patients had AID at baseline, most commonly psoriasis (n = 15). Compared with non-AID patients, AID patients experienced numerically more adverse events (AEs) of special interest (46% versus 30%; grade ≥3 14% versus 6%) and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (26% versus 12%), but without relevant increases in treatment-related deaths (0% versus 1%) or AEs necessitating treatment discontinuation (9% versus 6%). Pre-existing AID worsened in four patients (11%; two flares in two patients); three of the six flares resolved, one was resolving, and two were unresolved. Efficacy was similar in AID and non-AID patients (median OS, 8.2 versus 8.8 months, respectively; median progression-free survival, 4.4 versus 2.2 months; disease control rate, 51% versus 39%).
In 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with pre-existing AID, incidences of special- interest and treatment-related AEs appeared acceptable. AEs were manageable, rarely requiring atezolizumab discontinuation. Treating these patients requires caution, but pre-existing AID does not preclude atezolizumab therapy.
NCT02928406.
•Data are limited on patients with autoimmune disease (AID) receiving immunotherapy.•SAUL evaluated atezolizumab in a broad population with urinary tract carcinoma.•Subgroup analyses of 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with AID were prespecified.•Treatment-related adverse events were manageable.•Treating AID patients with atezolizumab requires caution, but AID is not a barrier.
Atezolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, is approved for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma. SAUL evaluated atezolizumab in a broader, pretreated population, ...including patients ineligible for the pivotal IMvigor211 phase 3 trial of atezolizumab.
To determine the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in an international real-world setting.
Between November 2016 and March 2018 (median follow-up 12.7mo), 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma who experienced progression during or after one to three prior therapies for inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease were enrolled. Patients with renal impairment, treated central nervous system metastases, or stable controlled autoimmune disease were eligible; 10% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 and 98% were platinum pretreated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928406).
Atezolizumab 1200mg every 3wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR).
The median treatment duration was 2.8mo (range 0–19); 22% remained on treatment and 8% discontinued because of toxicity. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 45% of patients. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, asthenia, colitis, and hypertension (each in 1%). Median OS was 8.7mo (95% confidence interval CI 7.8–9.9). The 6-mo OS rate was 60% (95% CI 57–63%), median PFS was 2.2mo (95% CI 2.1–2.4), and the ORR was 13% (95% CI 11–16%; 3% complete responses). Among IMvigor211-like patients (excluding ECOG PS 2 and other IMvigor211 exclusion criteria), median OS was 10.0mo (95% CI 8.8–11.9) and 6-mo OS was 65% (95% CI 61–69%).
SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in a real-world pretreated population with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy overall and in the IMvigor211-like subgroup is consistent with previous pivotal anti-PD-L1/PD-1 urothelial carcinoma trials. These results support the use of atezolizumab in urinary tract carcinoma, including patients with limited treatment options.
In this international study we investigated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab treatment for advanced urinary tract cancer in a large population of pretreated patients, including those who would not normally be candidates for clinical trials. Patients tolerated the treatment well, even if they had autoimmune disease, were being treated with corticosteroids, or had disease that had spread to their brain. Life expectancy in this study for patients typical of everyday clinical practice was similar to that seen in trials that enrolled only selected fitter patients.
SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in real-world patients with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy in the IMvigor211-like subgroup and the broader unselected population was consistent with previous anti-PD-L1/PD-1 pivotal trials, supporting the use of atezolizumab in these patients.
PURPOSEAtezolizumab is an established treatment option for pretreated urothelial carcinoma, demonstrating efficacy in phase II/III trials. The SAUL study enrolled a broader patient population to ...determine safety and efficacy in underrepresented subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODSPatients with metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss of clinical benefit, or patient/physician decision. The primary endpoint was safety. Efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Analyses by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) and renal impairment were prespecified; post hoc analyses explored outcomes by tumor location. RESULTSA total of 1,004 patients were enrolled. Subgroup analyses in patients with older age, renal impairment, or upper tract urothelial carcinoma showed safety and efficacy similar to those in patients without these characteristics. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had clinical features typically associated with aggressive disease; median overall survival was 2.3 months versus 10.0 months in patients with ECOG PS0/1. Patients with PD-L1 expression on ≥5% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells tended to have better outcomes than those with <5% PD-L1 expression, although conclusions on the relative efficacy of atezolizumab cannot be drawn from this single-arm study. CONCLUSIONSThe understudied populations included in the SAUL study had similar outcomes to those in more selected populations included in phase II/III trials of atezolizumab, except for those with ECOG PS 2. Age ≥80 years and/or creatinine clearance <30 ml/minute does not preclude administration of atezolizumab; however, treatment risk versus benefit must be carefully assessed in patients with ECOG PS 2.
Abstract only
5036
Background: Atezo, which targets PD-L1, is an approved therapy for LA/M urothelial carcinoma based on the IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 trials. The single-arm SAUL study (NCT02928406) ...showed consistent activity and safety in a broader population, including understudied scenarios, eg pts with renal impairment or other IMvigor211 exclusion criteria. Methods: Pts with LA/M UTC received atezo 1200 mg q3w until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Post hoc analyses explored outcomes in pts classified as: chemotherapy (CT) ineligible (calculated creatine clearance CrCl 15– < 30 mL/min); cisplatin ineligible and carboplatin eligible (CrCl 30– < 60 mL/min); or cisplatin eligible (CrCl ≥60 mL/min). Results: Of 1004 enrolled pts, 46 (5%) were classified as CT ineligible and 420 (42%) as cisplatin ineligible. Results are summarized below. Conclusions: These post hoc analyses suggest pts typically considered cisplatin or CT ineligible are candidates for atezo. Pts with renal impairment achieved similar ORR and DCR to pts with CrCl ≥60 mL/min, without increased toxicity. Imbalances in pt characteristics may explain numerical differences in OS. Clinical trial information: NCT02928406 . Table: see text
Abstract only
5035
Background: Pts with PS > 1 have a poor prognosis and are often excluded from clinical trials. The single-arm SAUL study (NCT02928406) evaluated atezo in a ‘real-world’ population. ...Overall, safety and efficacy were consistent with prior trials. However, ECOG PS 2 pts had worse overall survival (OS) but fewer adverse events (AEs) than ECOG PS 0/1 pts Sternberg, 2019, likely reflecting shorter treatment duration and warranting exploration. Methods: Pts with mUTC received atezo 1200 mg q3w until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Post hoc analyses compared baseline factors, AEs and efficacy in pts with ECOG PS 2 vs 0/1. In this analysis, AE incidences were restricted to the first 45 days of atezo to adjust for differing treatment exposure. Results: None of the baseline factors explored was significantly associated with worse OS or disease control rate (DCR) in ECOG PS 2 pts. However, pts with visceral metastases and ECOG PS 2 had particularly poor outcomes. Safety appeared similar between subgroups. Conclusions: ECOG PS 2 pts have a dismal prognosis. The higher proportion with poor prognostic factors despite similar age in ECOG PS 2 vs 0/1 pts may suggest that poor PS was related to disease rather than comorbidities. Risk/benefit should be considered especially carefully when treating pts with ECOG PS 2 due to high-burden/visceral disease. Clinical trial information: NCT02928406 . Table: see text
Abstract only
492
Background: Atezo is an approved therapy for mUC based on the IMvigor210 (IM210) and IMvigor211 (IM211) phase 2 and 3 trials. The single-arm phase 3b SAUL study in a broader patient ...(pt) population showed consistent efficacy and safety. The value of complete response to immunotherapy is well recognized, but less is known about the benefit of partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). We performed post hoc analyses of outcomes in pts with PR/SD in atezo trials. Methods: Pts with mUC received atezo 1200 mg q3w until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Baseline characteristics, efficacy and safety were analyzed in pts achieving PR or SD in IM210 cohort 2 (2nd line), IM211 (atezo and chemotherapy CT arms analyzed separately) and SAUL. Data cutoffs were 5/5/15, 3/13/17 and 9/16/18, respectively. Results: The analysis population included 229 PR and 583 SD pts (183 and 421, respectively, treated with atezo); ~40% of pts had 0 Bellmunt risk factors. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between trials. PD-L1 IC 2/3 was more common in PR than SD pts in atezo-treated (41% vs 26%) and CT-treated (37% vs 23%) pts. Median time to best response (PR or SD) was 2.1 mo across trials and treatments. In PR pts, disease control (DC) and overall survival (OS) durations were longer with atezo than CT (Table). Durations of DC and OS were shorter in SD than PR pts; OS was numerically longer with atezo than with CT in the SD population. Presence of more Bellmunt risk factors was associated with worse OS with CT but showed only a weak (SD pts) or no (PR pts) association in atezo-treated pts. Conclusions: Pts achieving a PR or SD have meaningful OS expectancy; pts with PR on atezo have sustained DC. Clinical trial information: NCT02108652 ; NCT02302807 ; NCT02928406 . Table: see text
Abstract only
488
Background: UTUC is rarer than bladder UC and typically responds poorly to standard chemotherapy. Analysis of 220 biomarker-evaluable atezo-treated patients (pts) in phase II/III ...trials suggested worse outcomes in UT vs lower tract UC Galsky, ESMO 2018. We explored clinical outcomes in pts with UTUC (renal pelvis or ureter) treated with atezo in the SAUL study. Methods: The single-arm SAUL study (NCT02928406) Sternberg, Eur Urol 2019 enrolled a broader pt population, including pts with poor clinical characteristics and/or immune-mediated conditions, more representative of real-world practice than typically enrolled in randomized phase III immunotherapy trials. Pts with urinary tract carcinoma received atezo 1200 mg q3w until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Baseline characteristics, safety and efficacy were analyzed in subgroups of pts with UTUC (subdivided into renal pelvis or ureter UC) vs bladder UC. Results: Baseline characteristics in the 4 subgroups were generally similar, except for a numerically lower proportion of pts with 0 prior lines of therapy for metastatic disease in the UTUC vs bladder UC subgroup (30% vs 41%). Treatment exposure, safety and efficacy are shown below. Conclusions: These exploratory analyses of SAUL showed very similar efficacy and safety in UT vs bladder UC. This provides reassurance that atezo is active and has an acceptable safety profile in pts with UTUC, who are generally expected to have worse outcomes than bladder UC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02928406 . Table: see text
Abstract only
4519
Background: Atezo, a monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, is an approved therapy for locally advanced/metastatic UC based on IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 phase II and III trials. The ...single-arm SAUL study (NCT02928406) with a broader patient (pt) population demonstrated median overall survival (OS) of 8.7 months and a safety profile consistent with previous atezo trials. Methods: Pts with locally advanced/metastatic UC or non-UC of the urinary tract received atezo 1200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Populations excluded from IMvigor211 (renal impairment, ECOG PS 2, treated asymptomatic CNS metastases, stable controlled autoimmune disease, concomitant steroids, HIV positive, non-UC) were eligible. The primary endpoint was safety; OS and overall response rate (ORR) were secondary endpoints. Predefined subgroup analyses included outcomes according to PD-L1 status (VENTANA SP142) and age in the overall population (and the IMvigor211-like subgroup for PD-L1). Results: Between Nov 2016 and Mar 2018, 1004 pts were enrolled; 997 received atezo. Efficacy is summarized below. Incidences of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were similar irrespective of PD-L1 status (overall IC 0/1 vs 2/3: 11% vs 16%; IMvigor211-like IC 0/1 vs 2/3: 11% vs 15%) or age (≥65 y: 13%; ≥75 y: 12%; ≥80 y: 10%). Conclusions: OS and ORR appear more favorable in IC 2/3 vs IC 0/1 subgroups (overall and in the IMvigor211-like population). Atezo was effective and well tolerated across subgroups including elderly pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02928406. Table: see text
PDF
