Final Overall Survival Analysis Research Articles

Final survival analysis of topotecan and paclitaxel for first-line treatment of advanced cervical cancer: An NRG oncology randomized study

ObjectiveTo determine whether a non‑platinum chemotherapy doublet improves overall survival (OS) among patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical carcinoma. MethodsGynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240 is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, clinical trial that studied the efficacy of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1–3 (n = 223) vs cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 or 175 mg/m2 (n = 229), in 452 patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Each chemotherapy doublet was also studied with and without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. The primary endpoints were OS and the frequency and severity of adverse effects. We report the final analysis of OS. ResultsAt the protocol-specified final analysis, median OS was 16.3 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) and 13.8 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91–1.38; p = 0.28). Median OS for cisplatin-paclitaxel and topotecan-paclitaxel was 15 vs 12 months, respectively (HR 1.10; 95% CI,0.82–1.48; p = 0.52), and for cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab was 17.5 vs 16.2 months, respectively (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86–1.56; p = 0.34). Among the 75% of patients in the study population previously exposed to platinum, median OS was 14.6 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 12.9 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone), respectively (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86–1.38;p = 0.48). Post-progression survival was 7.9 (cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone) vs 8.1 months (topotecan-paclitaxel backbone) (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75–1.19). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was similar between chemotherapy backbones. ConclusionsTopotecan plus paclitaxel does not confer a survival benefit to women with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, even among platinum-exposed patients. Topotecan-paclitaxel should not be routinely recommended in this population. NCT00803062.

Abstract PD13-11: PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

Abstract Background Abemaciclib is approved for patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) with progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). The MONARCH 2 trial showed a statistically significantly benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.553; 95% CI: 0.449-0.681; p < 0.001), overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.606-0.945; p = 0.01) and a manageable safety profile for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone. Here we report the pre-specified final overall survival (OS) analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial (NCT02107703). Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib or placebo, plus fulvestrant for treatment of pre-, peri- or postmenopausal women with CDK 4 & 6 inhibitor naïve HR+, HER2- ABC that progressed during ET. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg twice daily, plus fulvestrant. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary versus secondary). OS and safety were key secondary endpoints, and chemotherapy-free survival was an exploratory endpoint defined as the time from randomization to initiation of chemotherapy or death, whichever occurs the earliest. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to analyze time-to-event variables. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate treatment effect hazard ratio (HR). The prespecified final analysis was planned to occur based on approximately 441 OS events. Data cutoff was March 18, 2022. Results 669 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (n = 446) or placebo (n = 223), plus fulvestrant. Baseline characteristics have been previously reported (Sledge et. al., Jama Oncol 2020). The median follow-up time was approximately 80 months and at the time of the data cutoff, 11% of pts were still receiving study drug in the abemaciclib arm versus 2% in the placebo arm. 440 OS events were observed in the ITT population (abemaciclib arm: 283 events; placebo arm: 157 events). The median OS was 45.8 months in the abemaciclib arm and 37.2 months in the placebo arm (HR: 0.784; 95% CI: 0.644-0.955). The maintained separation of the KM curves beyond the medians is illustrated by the differences in the estimated 5- and 6-year OS rates between arms (5-year: 41.2% versus 29.2%; 6-year: 34.7% versus 23.7%; abemaciclib versus placebo respectively). While OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, a more pronounced benefit is noted in subgroups associated with a poorer prognosis such as visceral disease (HR: 0.643; 95% CI: 0.499-0.829), primary resistance to ET (HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.436-0.922) or negative progesterone receptor status (HR: 0.623; 95% CI: 0.405-0.959). Moreover, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant deferred the initiation of chemotherapy (HR: 0.674; 95% CI: 0.562-0.809), with substantial difference in yearly chemotherapy-free survival rates (3 year: 42% vs 29.3%; 4 year: 37% vs 18.6%; 5 year: 32.4% vs 14.7%). Notably with longer exposure to abemaciclib, no new additional safety risks or cumulative toxicities were identified. Conclusions At the prespecified final OS analysis of the MONARCH 2 trial, with a median follow-up of 6.5 years, the statistically significant benefit previously demonstrated was confirmed and maintained. OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, with numerically greater effect size observed among patients with poorer prognosis. Importantly, the survival benefit came with a substantial extension of the chemotherapy-free survival time, which is an important consideration for pts with ABC. The results also provide assurance of the safety of abemaciclib with longer-term use. Citation Format: Antonio Llombart-Cussac, George Sledge, Masakazu Toi, Patrick Neven, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Kenichi Inoue, Xavier Pivot, Meena Okera, Norikazu Masuda, Peter A. Kaufman, Han Koh, Eva-Maria Grischke, PierFranco Conte, Valerie Andre, Yuanyuan Bian, Ashwin Shahir, Gertjan van Hal. PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-11.

Abstract PD8-04: The role of Yoga as a complementary therapy in women undergoing treatment for breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background: Yoga has been tested in multiple small-randomized studies for its impact on quality of life (QOL) on breast cancer (BC). We conducted a randomized controlled trial, to study the effect of yoga on disease free survival as the primary endpoint in women with operable breast cancer. (NCT02161900). Methods: Women with non-metastatic BC during and after standard treatment, were randomized to yoga and conventional exercise(YCE) versus conventional exercise only(CE). The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS) with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and QOL, which was assessed using the EORTC QLQC30, BR23, Brief fatigue inventory (BFI), Visual pain scores (VPS) and a spirituality questionnaire (SQ). EORTC QLQ was assessed at baseline (BL), 6-9 months (mo), 18-21 mo. BFI and VPS at BL, 6-8 mo and 12-15 mo and SQ at BL and 12-15 mo. We report the final analysis of DFS, OS and QOL in 850 women randomized to the study. The groups were balanced for clinic-pathologic factors in both arms. Results: Of the 850 women randomized on the study, 426 were on YCE arm and 424 on CE arm. The median age was 47 versus (vs) 48 years, median pT size was 3 vs 2.85cm, grade 3 tumors were 82.7 vs 82.1%, hormone receptor positive was in 69% vs 69.4% and HER2neu positive was in 14.4 vs13.7% in YCE and CE arms respectively. At a median follow-up of 80 months the disease fee survival was 80% vs 76.7% (HR= 0.85, 95% CI= 0.64 – 1.14, p=0.28), and overall survival was 85.4% vs 83.1% (HR= 0.86, 95%CI = 0.61 – 1.21, p=0.38) in YCE and CE respectively. Physical(p=0.043) and emotional function (0.017), fatigue (p=0.002), pain (p=0.031), appetite loss (< 0.001) arm symptoms (0.035) and systemic therapy side effects (0.036) reduced at 6-9mo in YCE, with sustained improvements in physical (p=0.036) and emotional function (p=0.008) at 54mo. The median score of fatigue after adjuvant therapy measured by QLQ C30 was lower in YCE compared to CE (11.11vs 22.22, p = 0.002). Similarly, in BFI the baseline median scores of severity of fatigue were 5 in YCE and 6 in CE which reduced to 3 at one year in both groups. A further reduction to 0 was observed in the YCE arm at 2 years and then sustained till 4 years compared to the median score of fatigue in CE which stayed at 3. (p=0.04, 0.03 2 and 4 years respectively). In VPS the number of patients experiencing severe pain in YCE group were less than CE group with specific reduction noted in pain over the breast/chest wall (p=0.018 at 24mo). Lastly SQ assessed spirituality and showed no difference, but less deterioration compared to baseline scores were noted in YCE. Fifty-three percent women on YCE showed an improvement in QOL from baseline compared to 47% in CE, however the global score of QOL did not differ significantly between the two arms. This cohort had overall compliance of 61% to yoga and physiotherapy in YCE with 91.75% compliance among those who did yoga for 6-9mo and 85% to physiotherapy alone in CE. Conclusions: Yoga resulted in a 15% relative improvement in DFS and 14% in OS, that did not reach statistical significance in this trial. Yoga is a low-risk, low-cost therapy that improves day-to-day activity, including pain, fatigue and quality of life in women with breast cancer.This is the first study where the long term benefits in quality of life have been noted with the addition of yoga for women undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Citation Format: Nita S. Nair, Nishu S. Goel, Vani Parmar, Ashwini Dewade, Shabina Siddique, Aarti Pandey, Rohini Hawaldar, Rajendra Badwe. The role of Yoga as a complementary therapy in women undergoing treatment for breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD8-04.

Final overall survival (OS) analysis of atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy vs chemotherapy (chemo) in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) from the Phase 3 IMvigor130 study.

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]

Overall survival with neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundExteNET showed that neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given for 1 year after trastuzumab-based therapy significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. We report the final analysis of overall survival in ExteNET. MethodsIn this international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, women aged 18 years or older with stage 1–3c (amended to stage 2–3c) HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to oral neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 1 year. Randomisation was stratified according to hormone receptor (HR) status (HR-positive vs. HR-negative), nodal status (0, 1–3 or 4+), and trastuzumab regimen (sequentially vs. concurrently with chemotherapy). Overall survival was analysed by intention to treat. ExteNET is registered (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00878709) and is complete. ResultsBetween July 9, 2009, and October 24, 2011, 2840 women received neratinib (n = 1420) or placebo (n = 1420). After a median follow-up of 8.1 (IQR, 7.0–8.8) years, 127 patients (8.9%) in the neratinib group and 137 patients (9.6%) in the placebo group in the intention-to-treat population had died. Eight-year overall survival rates were 90.1% (95% CI 88.3–91.6) with neratinib and 90.2% (95% CI 88.4–91.7) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.75–1.21; p = 0.6914). ConclusionsOverall survival in the extended adjuvant setting was comparable for neratinib and placebo after a median follow-up of 8.1 years in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.

176O Final overall survival (OS) results from the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib (ola) plus bevacizumab (bev) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC)

In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) primary analysis, adding ola to maintenance bev after first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) + bev led to a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in AOC (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.72; P<0.001), particularly in pts with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+; BRCA1/2 mutation [BRCAm] and/or genomic instability; Ray-Coquard et al NEJM 2019). Here, we report the prespecified final OS analysis.

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy.

Simple SummaryWe report the final outomes of the addition of ixazomib to the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the routine clinical practice. With prolonged follow-up, the overall response rate was similar in both cohorts, but the addition of ixazomib induced more deeper responses. Median progression free survival was significantly better in patients receiving ixazomib and translated into better overal survival. Inferior results were seen in patients who were pretreated with lenalidomide in previous regimens. We conclude that the treatment using IRD regimen in routine practice is easy, well tolerated, and with very good therapeutic outcomes, comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial.Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

529MO Phase II study of olaparib plus durvalumab with or without bevacizumab (MEDIOLA): Final analysis of overall survival in patients with non-germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer

The MEDIOLA (NCT02734004) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olaparib+durvalumab (O+D doublet cohort) and O+D+bevacizumab (O+D+B triplet cohort) in patients (pts) with non-germline BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC). Previous efficacy data showed median progression-free survival (PFS) (95% CI) of 5.5 (3.6–7.5) and 14.7 (10.0–18.1) months (mo) with O+D and O+D+B, respectively (Drew et al, ESMO 2020). We now present the final analysis of overall survival (OS) and disease control rate (DCR) at 56 weeks (wks) in the O+D and O+D+B cohorts.

931MO Final overall survival analysis of phase III study of pemetrexed/cisplatin versus vinorelbine/cisplatin for completely resected non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: The JIPANG Study

The JIPANG study has demonstrated pemetrexed/cisplatin (Pem/Cis) had a similar efficacy on recurrence-free survival (RFS) to vinorelbine/cisplatin (Vnr/Cis) with a better tolerability as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with completely resected non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Ns-NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) is one of secondary endpoints in this trial. The final analysis of OS in the JIPANG study is presented here. An interaction between treatment regimen and EGFR mutation status for OS is also reported.

517O Overall survival (OS) at 7-year (y) follow-up (f/u) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (OC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm) who received maintenance olaparib in the SOLO1/GOG-3004 trial

In the Phase III SOLO1/GOG-3004 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided sustained benefit beyond the end of treatment in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm. At 5-y f/u, median progression-free survival was 56.0 months [m] with olaparib vs 13.8m with placebo (pbo) (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.25–0.43); 48% vs 21% of pts, respectively, were progression-free (KM estimates) (Banerjee et al. Lancet Oncol 2021). Given that most OC deaths occur 5‒10y after diagnosis, we report OS in SOLO1 at 7-y f/u, a clinically relevant timepoint. Pts who were in response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg bid or pbo for up to 2y or until progression. A descriptive analysis of OS, a secondary endpoint, was performed 7y after the last pt was randomized; prespecified final analysis of OS is planned at 60% data maturity. 260 pts were randomized to olaparib and 131 to pbo (median treatment duration 24.6 vs 13.9m, respectively). At OS data maturity of 38.1% (data cut-off 7 Mar 2022), median OS was not reached in olaparib pts vs 75.2m in pbo pts, with an OS HR of 0.55 (95% CI 0.40–0.76; unadjusted for crossover; 44.3% of pbo pts received a PARP inhibitor in a subsequent line of therapy) (Table). At 7y, 45.3% of olaparib pts vs 20.6% of pbo pts were alive and had still not received a first subsequent treatment (KM estimates). The incidence of MDS/AML remained low and new primary malignancies remained balanced between arms (Table).Table: 517OOlaparibPboOSN=260N=131Median f/u, m88.987.4Events, n (%)84 (32.3)65 (49.6)Median OS, mNR75.2HR (95% CI)0.55 (0.40–0.76)P value0.0004*7-y OS rate,† %67.046.5AEs of special interest, n (%)N=260N=130‡MDS/AML4 (1.5)1 (0.8)New primary malignancies14 (5.4)8 (6.2)Pneumonitis5 (1.9)0*P<0.0001 required for statistical significance; †KM estimates; ‡1 pt randomized to pbo did not receive treatment. AE, adverse event; AML, acute myeloid leukaemia; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; KM, Kaplan–Meier; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; NR, not reached. Open table in a new tab *P<0.0001 required for statistical significance; †KM estimates; ‡1 pt randomized to pbo did not receive treatment. AE, adverse event; AML, acute myeloid leukaemia; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; KM, Kaplan–Meier; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; NR, not reached. 2y of maintenance olaparib provided a clinically meaningful improvement in OS over pbo in pts with newly diagnosed advanced OC and a BRCAm. At 7y, 67.0% of olaparib pts vs 46.5% of pbo pts were alive; no new safety signals were detected. These data provide the longest f/u for any PARP inhibitor in this setting and support use of maintenance olaparib to achieve long-term remission and enhance the potential for cure.

LBA29 Final overall survival (OS) results from the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib (ola) plus bevacizumab (bev) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC)

In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) primary analysis, adding ola to maintenance bev after first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) + bev led to a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in AOC (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.72; P<0.001), particularly in pts with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+; BRCA1/2 mutation [BRCAm] and/or genomic instability; Ray-Coquard et al NEJM 2019). Here, we report the prespecified final OS analysis.

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

BackgroundIn an interim analysis of this phase 3 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS; the number of PD-L1–staining tumor cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages, divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100) of 10 or more. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine–carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary end points were progression-free survival (reported previously) and overall survival among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more (the CPS-10 subgroup), among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 1 or more (the CPS-1 subgroup), and in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed.ResultsA total of 847 patients underwent randomization: 566 were assigned to the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group, and 281 to the placebo–chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 44.1 months. In the CPS-10 subgroup, the median overall survival was 23.0 months in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and 16.1 months in the placebo–chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.95; two-sided P=0.0185 [criterion for significance met]); in the CPS-1 subgroup, the median overall survival was 17.6 and 16.0 months in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; two-sided P=0.1125 [not significant]); and in the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was 17.2 and 15.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05 [significance not tested]). Adverse events of grade 3, 4, or 5 that were related to the trial regimen occurred in 68.1% of the patients in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and in 66.9% in the placebo–chemotherapy group, including death in 0.4% of the patients in the pembrolizumab–chemotherapy group and in no patients in the placebo–chemotherapy group.ConclusionsAmong patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-355 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02819518.)

Overall survival (OS) with first-line palbociclib plus letrozole (PAL+LET) versus placebo plus letrozole (PBO+LET) in women with estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer (ER+/HER2− ABC): Analyses from PALOMA-2.

LBA1003 Background: PAL was the first cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor approved for ER+/HER2– ABC based on the randomized, phase 2 PALOMA-1 study. PALOMA-2 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in first-line ER+/HER2– ABC that confirmed a clinically and statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with PAL+LET versus PBO+LET (median PFS, 27.6 vs 14.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.46–0.69]; P&lt;0.0001). At the time of the final PFS analysis, OS data were not mature. Herein, we report OS results. Methods: 666 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2– ABC who had not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/d orally, 3/1 week schedule) plus LET (2.5 mg/d orally, continuously) or PBO+LET. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS and a key secondary endpoint was OS. Per study design, 390 OS events are required to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio &lt;0.74 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided) using a stratified log-rank test. The planned final OS analysis was conducted when the number of events required for the analysis was observed. Results: At data cut-off (November 15, 2021), with a median follow-up of 90 months, 43 patients (pts; 10%) remained on PAL+LET and 5 pts (2%) on PBO+LET. With 405 deaths, median OS (95% CI) was 53.9 months (49.8–60.8) in the PAL+LET arm and 51.2 months (43.7 –58.9) in the PBO+LET arm (hazard ratio, 0.956 [95% CI, 0.777–1.177]; stratified 1-sided P=0.3378). In this OS analysis, a proportion of pts were not available for follow-up (withdrew consent or lost to follow-up) and were censored: 21% in the PBO+LET arm versus 13% in the PAL+LET arm. A posthoc sensitivity analysis excluding these pts resulted in a median OS (95% CI) of 51.6 months (46.9–57.1) with PAL+LET and 44.6 months (37.0–52.3) with PBO+LET (hazard ratio, 0.869 [95% CI, 0.706–1.069]). Of the pts who discontinued study treatment, 81% in the PAL+LET arm and 88% in the PBO+LET arm received post-study systemic therapy; 12% and 27% of pts who discontinued received CDK4/6 inhibitor, respectively. In pts with disease-free interval (DFI) &gt;12 months, median OS (95% CI) was 66.3 months (52.1–79.7) in the PAL+LET arm (n=179) and 47.4 months (37.7–57.0) in the PBO+LET arm (n=93); hazard ratio, 0.728 (95% CI, 0.528-1.005). No new safety findings were observed. Conclusions: PALOMA-2 met its primary endpoint of improving PFS but not the secondary endpoint of OS. Pts receiving PAL+LET had numerically longer OS compared to PBO+LET, but the results were not statistically significant. Funding: Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427) Clinical trial information: NCT01740427.

Maintenance olaparib in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) by somatic (s) or germline (g) BRCA and other homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutation status: Overall survival (OS) results from the ORZORA study.

5519 Background: In the SOLO2 (NCT01874353) trial, maintenance olaparib provided clinically meaningful improvement in OS for PSROC pts with a gBRCA mutation (m) compared with placebo (median 51.7 vs 38.8 months [mo], respectively). The ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) assessed efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in PSROC pts with a BRCAm (s or g) or a non-BRCA HRRm. Median progression-free survival (18.0 mo, BRCAm; 16.4, non-BRCA HRRm) was reported at primary data cutoff (DCO). We report final OS analyses. Methods: We conducted an open-label, single-arm, multicenter study of PSROC pts in response to platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) after ≥2 prior lines of PBC. Pts underwent prospective central screening for tumor BRCAm status (myChoice CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.), then central gBRCAm testing (BRACAnalysis CDx, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.) to determine s or g status. An exploratory cohort comprised of pts with predefined non-BRCA HRRm (FoundationOne CDx, Foundation Medicine, Inc.). Pts received maintenance olaparib (400 mg bid; capsules) until progression. OS and time to second progression (PFS2) were secondary endpoints. Results: 181 pts were enrolled (BRCAm n = 145 [s, n = 55; g, n = 87; s/g status unknown, n = 3]; non-BRCA HRRm, n = 33; unassigned, n = 3). At DCO (June 25, 2021), median OS follow-up in censored pts was 42.6 mo in BRCAm and 39.3 mo in non-BRCA HRRm pts. OS and PFS2 are reported in the Table. PBC was received as a subsequent therapy by 33.1% BRCAm, 32.7% sBRCAm, 33.3% gBRCAm, and 45.5% non-BRCA HRRm pts. 177 pts received ≥1 dose of olaparib and were included in safety analyses; 6.2% of pts discontinued because of adverse events (AEs). 37.9% of pts reported grade ≥3 AEs, the most common being anemia (16.4%). Since primary DCO, one new primary malignancy and four myelodysplastic syndrome events occurred. Conclusions: In final OS analyses, maintenance olaparib capsules showed consistent clinical activity in BRCAm and sBRCAm PSROC pts. Exploratory analyses suggest similar activity in non-BRCA HRRm pts. No new safety signals were observed. Findings highlight that PSROC pts, beyond those with a gBRCAm, can benefit from maintenance olaparib. Clinical trial information: NCT02476968. [Table: see text]

Improved Survival With Enzalutamide in Patients With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.In primary analysis, enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC); however, overall survival data were immature. In the phase III, double-blind, global ARCHES trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896), 1,150 patients with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. Here, we report the final prespecified analysis of overall survival (key secondary end point) and an update on rPFS, other secondary end points, and safety. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) progression-free patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT crossed over to open-label enzalutamide plus ADT. As of May 28, 2021 (median follow-up, 44.6 months), 154 of 574 patients randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus ADT and 202 of 576 patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT had died. Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced risk of death by 34% versus placebo plus ADT (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). Enzalutamide plus ADT continued to improve rPFS and other secondary end points. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous reports of long-term enzalutamide use. In conclusion, enzalutamide plus ADT significantly prolongs survival versus placebo plus ADT in patients with mHSPC.

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer

BackgroundIn a previous analysis of this phase 3 trial, first-line ribociclib plus letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than letrozole alone among postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer. Whether overall survival would also be longer with ribociclib was not known.MethodsHere we report the results of the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival, a key secondary end point. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in combination with letrozole. Overall survival was assessed with the use of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan–Meier methods after 400 deaths had occurred. A hierarchical testing strategy was used for the analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival to ensure the validity of the findings.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 6.6 years, 181 deaths had occurred among 334 patients (54.2%) in the ribociclib group and 219 among 334 (65.6%) in the placebo group. Ribociclib plus letrozole showed a significant overall survival benefit as compared with placebo plus letrozole. Median overall survival was 63.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.4 to 71.0) with ribociclib plus letrozole and 51.4 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 59.7) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio for death, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; two-sided P=0.008). No new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsFirst-line therapy with ribociclib plus letrozole showed a significant overall survival benefit as compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Median overall survival was more than 12 months longer with ribociclib than with placebo. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021.)

FDA Approval Summary: Ivosidenib for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic, Chemotherapy Refractory Cholangiocarcinoma with an IDH1 Mutation.

On August 25, 2021, the FDA approved ivosidenib for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) as detected by an FDA-approved test with disease progression after 1 to 2 prior lines of systemic therapy for advanced disease. The approval was based on data from Study AG120-C-005 (ClarIDHy), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial that randomly allocated (2:1) patients to receive either ivosidenib or placebo. Independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. With a median follow-up of 6.9 months, the HR for PFS was 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001). Overall survival (OS) was the key secondary endpoint. At the final analysis of OS, with 70.5% of patients in the placebo arm receiving ivosidenib post disease progression, a non-statistically significant improvement in the ivosidenib arm with an HR = 0.79 (95% CI, 0.56-1.12) and median OS of 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4) and 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1) in the ivosidenib and placebo arms, respectively, were reported. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving ivosidenib were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, ascites, vomiting, cough, and decreased appetite. Adverse reactions occurring in >20% of patients receiving placebo were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, abdominal pain, and vomiting. This is the first approval for the subset of patients with CCA harboring an IDH1 mutation.

Final overall survival analysis and organ-specific target lesion assessments with two-year follow-up in CheckMate 9ER: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

350 Background: First-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) demonstrated superiority over sunitinib (SUN) in the primary disclosure of the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177; 10.6 months minimum follow-up; Choueiri TK et al. N Engl J Med 2021) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Here, we report the preplanned final overall survival (OS) analysis with updated efficacy and safety in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts, and an exploratory assessment of target lesions by organ site after extended follow-up. Methods: Pts with aRCC (clear cell component) were randomized to N 240 mg every 2 weeks + C 40 mg once daily vs SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks of 6-week cycles). The primary endpoint was RECIST v1.1–defined progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in ITT pts; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate (ORR) by BICR, and safety. The preplanned final OS analysis was set to occur after observing 254 events. Maximal reduction of target lung, lymph node, kidney, and liver lesions were evaluated per BICR via post hoc exploratory analyses. Results: After 25.4 months minimum follow-up (median, 32.9 months) for OS in ITT pts, a total of 271 OS events occurred, and N+C continued to demonstrate OS improvement vs SUN (N = 323 vs 328; median 37.7 vs 34.3 months; HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.55–0.90]). PFS (median 16.6 vs 8.3 months; HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.46–0.68]) and ORR (55.7% [95% CI 50.1–61.2] vs 28.4% [95% CI 23.5–33.6]) benefits were maintained with N+C vs SUN, and 12.4% (N+C) vs 5.2% (SUN) of pts had a complete response. Median duration of response was 23.1 months with N+C vs 15.1 months with SUN. A higher percentage of pts experienced any reduction and ≥30% reduction from baseline with N+C vs SUN in target lesions at all organ sites assessed (Table). Among all treated pts, 97.2% (N+C; N = 320) vs 93.1% (SUN; N = 320) had a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) of any grade (65.0% vs 54.1% had a grade ≥ 3 TRAE). Conclusions: N+C continued to provide survival improvement vs SUN among ITT pts in the final OS analysis, additionally PFS and ORR benefits with N+C were sustained with minimum 2-year follow-up. A higher proportion of pts experienced tumor shrinkage benefit with N+C vs SUN across all 4 organ sites assessed. No new safety signals emerged with extended follow-up in either arm. These results highlight N+C as a first-line treatment for pts with aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; DS-8201) in patients with HER2–positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma: Final overall survival (OS) results from a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study (DESTINY-Gastric01).

242 Background: T-DXd is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising an anti-HER2 antibody, a cleavable tetrapeptide-based linker, and a topoisomerase I inhibitor. DESTINY-Gastric01 (DS8201-A-J202; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03329690) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 trial of T-DXd in patients with HER2–positive advanced gastric cancer (GC) or GEJ adenocarcinoma. In the primary analysis (101 OS events; median survival follow-up, 12.3 mo), T-DXd showed statistically significant benefit vs standard chemotherapy in objective response rate (ORR) and OS (Shitara K, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2419-2430); here, we present the final OS analysis as well as updated efficacy and safety. Methods: Patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic, centrally confirmed HER2–positive (IHC3+ or IHC2+/ISH+ on archival tissue) GC or GEJ cancer that had progressed after ≥2 previous lines of therapy including trastuzumab were randomly assigned 2:1 (T-DXd 6.4 mg/kg Q3W or physician’s choice [PC] of irinotecan [I] or paclitaxel [P]). Pts were stratified by country, ECOG performance status (0, 1), and HER2 status. Primary endpoint was ORR by independent central review. Key secondary endpoints were OS, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), confirmed ORR, and safety. Final OS analysis was performed at 133 OS events. Results: 187 pts received T-DXd (n = 125) or PC (n = 62 [55 I; 7 P]); 79.7% of pts were Japanese and 20.3% were Korean. Pts had a median of 2 prior lines of therapy, and 44.4% had ≥3. At data cutoff (June 3, 2020), 8% of T-DXd and 0% of PC pts remained on treatment (median survival follow-up, 18.5 mo). OS was improved with T-DXd vs PC (median OS, 12.5 vs 8.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42-0.86]); 12-month OS, 52.2% vs 29.7%. ORR was 51.3% (61/119; 11 CR; 50 PR) with T-DXd vs 14.3% (8/56; all PR) with PC ( P&lt; 0.0001); confirmed ORR, 42.0% (50/119; 10 CR; 40 PR) vs 12.5% (7/56; all PR) ( P= 0.0001); DCR, 85.7% vs 62.5% ( P= 0.0005); confirmed median DOR, 12.5 vs 3.9 mo; median PFS, 5.6 vs 3.5 mo (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.71]; P= 0.0003). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 85.6% of T-DXd pts vs 56.5% with PC; the most common were neutrophil count decreased (51.2%, 24.2%), anemia (38.4%, 22.6%), and white blood cell count decreased (20.8%, 11.3%). 16 pts (12.8%) had T-DXd–related interstitial lung disease (ILD; 13 grade 1/2, 2 grade 3, 1 grade 4, no grade 5) vs 0 with PC. As reported in the primary analysis, there was 1 T-DXd–related death from pneumonia (non-ILD). Conclusions: With additional follow-up after the primary analysis, T-DXd continued to demonstrate OS benefit and clinically relevant improvement in ORR compared with standard chemotherapy, and a manageable safety profile, in HER2–positive advanced GC or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03329690.

177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high‑dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

The primary analysis of the phase 3 NETTER-1 trial showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone in patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumours. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of overall survival and long-term safety results. This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial enrolled patients from 41 sites in eight countries across Europe and the USA. Patients were 18 years and older with locally advanced or metastatic, well differentiated, somatostatin receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumours (Karnofsky performance status score ≥60) and disease progression on fixed-dose long-acting octreotide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web-based response system to intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks (four cycles) plus intramuscular long-acting octreotide 30 mg (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose long-acting octreotide 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been previously reported; here, we report the key secondary endpoint of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Final overall survival analysis was prespecified to occur either after 158 deaths or 5 years after the last patient was randomised, whichever occurred first. During long-term follow-up, adverse events of special interest were reported in the 177Lu-Dotatate group only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01578239. From Sept 6, 2012, to Jan 14, 2016, 231 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned for treatment. The prespecified final analysis occurred 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned (when 142 deaths had occurred); median follow-up was 76·3 months (range 0·4-95·0) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 76·5 months (0·1-92·3) in the control group. The secondary endpoint of overall survival was not met: median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 37·4-55·2) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 36·3 months (25·9-51·7) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·60-1·17]; two-sided p=0·30). During long-term follow-up, treatment-related serious adverse events of grade 3 or worse were recorded in three (3%) of 111 patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group, but no new treatment-related serious adverse events were reported after the safety analysis cutoff. Two (2%) of 111 patients given 177Lu-Dotatate developed myelodysplastic syndrome, one of whom died 33 months after randomisation (this person was the only the only reported 177Lu-Dotatate treatment-related death). No new cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported during long-term follow-up. 177Lu-Dotatate treatment did not significantly improve median overall survival versus high-dose long-acting octreotide. Despite final overall survival not reaching statistical significance, the 11·7 month difference in median overall survival with 177Lu-Dotatate treatment versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone might be considered clinically relevant. No new safety signals were reported during long-term follow-up. Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis company.