Hazard Ratio For Disease Progression Research Articles

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan after Endocrine Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer worsen after one or more lines of endocrine-based therapy. Trastuzumab deruxtecan has shown efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) after previous chemotherapy. We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial involving patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer with low HER2 expression (a score of 1+ or 2+ on immunohistochemical [IHC] analysis and negative results on in situ hybridization) or ultralow HER2 expression (IHC 0 with membrane staining) who had received one or more lines of endocrine-based therapy and no previous chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or the physician's choice of chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (according to blinded independent central review) among the patients with HER2-low disease. Secondary end points included progression-free survival among all the patients who had undergone randomization, overall survival, and safety. Of the 866 patients who underwent randomization, 713 had HER2-low disease, and 153 had HER2-ultralow disease. Among the patients with HER2-low disease, the median progression-free survival was 13.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 15.2) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.0) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.74; P<0.001); the results were consistent in the exploratory HER2-ultralow population. Data for overall survival were immature. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 52.8% of the patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and in 44.4% of those in the chemotherapy group. Adjudicated interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 49 patients (11.3%; three events were grade 5 in severity) and in 1 patient (0.2%; grade 2), respectively. Among patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer who had received one or more lines of endocrine-based therapy, treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan resulted in longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo; DESTINY-Breast06 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04494425.).

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Observation in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma is an aggressive disease with high rates of relapse. Whether pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy would be effective in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is unknown. In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks for 1 year or to undergo observation. Randomization was stratified according to pathological stage, centrally tested programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, and previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The coprimary end points were disease-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We considered the trial to be successful if either disease-free survival or overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with observation. A total of 702 patients underwent randomization; 354 were assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 348 were assigned to observation. As of July 5, 2024, the median duration of follow-up for disease-free survival was 44.8 months. The median disease-free survival was 29.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.0 to 40.7) with pembrolizumab and 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.0 to 20.2) with observation (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; two-sided P = 0.003). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of attribution) occurred in 50.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 31.6% of the patients in the observation group. Among patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery, disease-free survival was significantly longer with adjuvant pembrolizumab than with observation. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and others; Alliance A031501 AMBASSADOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03244384.).

Amivantamab plus Lazertinib in Previously Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

Isatuximab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Multiple Myeloma

BackgroundTriplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse.MethodsIn this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed.ResultsA total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group.ConclusionsAmong lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-004354-21.)

Osimertinib after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III EGFR-Mutated NSCLC

BackgroundOsimertinib is a recommended treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and as adjuvant treatment for resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown preliminary efficacy in unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC.MethodsIn this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable EGFR-mutated stage III NSCLC without progression during or after chemoradiotherapy to receive osimertinib or placebo until disease progression occurred (as assessed by blinded independent central review) or the regimen was discontinued. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review.ResultsA total of 216 patients who had undergone chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib (143 patients) or placebo (73 patients). Osimertinib resulted in a significant progression-free survival benefit as compared with placebo: the median progression-free survival was 39.1 months with osimertinib versus 5.6 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio for disease progression or death of 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.24; P<0.001). The percentage of patients who were alive and progression free at 12 months was 74% (95% CI, 65 to 80) with osimertinib and 22% (95% CI, 13 to 32) with placebo. Interim overall survival data (maturity, 20%) showed 36-month overall survival among 84% of patients with osimertinib (95% CI, 75 to 89) and 74% with placebo (95% CI, 57 to 85), with a hazard ratio for death of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.56; P=0.53). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 35% in the osimertinib group and 12% in the placebo group; radiation pneumonitis (majority grade, 1 to 2) was reported in 48% and 38%, respectively. No new safety concerns emerged.ConclusionsTreatment with osimertinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than placebo in patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; LAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03521154.)

Belantamab Mafodotin, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma

BackgroundBelantamab mafodotin had single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, a finding that supports further evaluation of the agent in combination with standard-care therapies.MethodsIn this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd), as compared with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), in patients who had progression of multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response duration, and minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status.ResultsIn total, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (243 patients) or DVd (251 patients). At a median follow-up of 28.2 months (range, 0.1 to 40.0), median progression-free survival was 36.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4 to not reached) in the BVd group and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.1 to 17.5) in the DVd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53; P<0.001). Overall survival at 18 months was 84% in the BVd group and 73% in the DVd group. An analysis of the restricted mean response duration favored BVd over DVd (P<0.001). A complete response or better plus MRD-negative status occurred in 25% of the patients in the BVd group and 10% of those in the DVd group. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 95% of the patients in the BVd group and 78% of those in the DVd group. Ocular events were more common in the BVd group than in the DVd group (79% vs. 29%); such events were managed with dose modifications, and events of worsening visual acuity mostly resolved.ConclusionsAs compared with DVd therapy, BVd therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among patients who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. Most patients had grade 3 or higher adverse events. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04246047; EudraCT number, 2018-003993-29.)

Chemotherapy with or without surgery for locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A retrospective multicenter international study.

e16352 Background: Current clinical guidelines recommend surgery for patients with locally advanced (LA)/borderline resectable (BR) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who achieve disease control after induction therapy. However, the additional survival benefit of surgery in these patients is unknown. Methods: In this multicenter international retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients with BR/LA PDAC who achieved disease control after three to six months of induction therapy (combination chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) between January 2014 and July 2021 were retrospectively identified at 8 centers in Germany and Italy. Resectability status was determined by consensus in a multidisciplinary tumor board based on imaging findings, serum CA19-9, performance status and clinical response. Patient characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was used to compare survival data. Results: A total of 138 patients who achieved disease control with induction therapy were analyzed. The median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range 45-82) and 43% of patients were female. 73 patients underwent surgery and 65 patients did not (median age 64 and 69 years, respectively, p = 0.02). Median OS was 20.0 months (95%CI 16.1-23.8) in the surgery group and 18.0 months (95%CI 13.6-22.4) in the nonsurgery group (hazard ratio for death, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.63 to 1.29, p = 0.57). Median PFS was 14.0 months (95%CI 8.9-19.1) in the surgery group and 15.0 months (95%CI 11.7-18.3) in the nonsurgery group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 1.04; 95%CI, 73 to 1,47, p = 0.83). The 2-year survival rates in the surgery and nonsurgery groups were 32.9% and 40.0%, respectively, with an overall odds ratio of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.37-1.47). Conclusions: In our multicenter international retrospective analysis, additional surgery did not confer a survival advantage to patients with BR/LA PDAC who achieved disease control with induction therapy.

Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer

BackgroundStandard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes.MethodsIn this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety.ResultsAt this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group.ConclusionsPerioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.)

Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer

BackgroundNo treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival.ResultsA total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group.ConclusionsTreatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.)

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma

BackgroundDaratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P=0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group.ConclusionsThe addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.)

Osimertinib with or without Chemotherapy in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC

BackgroundOsimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for EGFR-TKI–sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. Evidence suggests that the addition of chemotherapy may extend the benefits of EGFR-TKI therapy.MethodsIn this phase 3, international, open-label trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation) advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received treatment for advanced disease to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) with chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg per square meter of body-surface area] plus either cisplatin [75 mg per square meter] or carboplatin [pharmacologically guided dose]) or to receive osimertinib monotherapy (80 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Response and safety were also assessed.ResultsA total of 557 patients underwent randomization. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group than in the osimertinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 24 months, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) of the patients in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group and 41% (95% CI, 35 to 47) of those in the osimertinib group were alive and progression-free. Progression-free survival as assessed according to blinded independent central review was consistent with the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.80). An objective (complete or partial) response was observed in 83% of the patients in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group and in 76% of those in the osimertinib group; the median response duration was 24.0 months (95% CI, 20.9 to 27.8) and 15.3 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 19.4), respectively. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events from any cause was higher with the combination than with monotherapy — a finding driven by known chemotherapy-related adverse events. The safety profile of osimertinib plus pemetrexed and a platinum-based agent was consistent with the established profiles of the individual agents.ConclusionsFirst-line treatment with osimertinib–chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than osimertinib monotherapy among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04035486.)

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study

Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial. A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion. All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy. Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

Perioperative Durvalumab for Resectable Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundNeoadjuvant or adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes in patients with resectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative regimens may combine benefits of both to improve long-term outcomes.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC (stage II to IIIB [N2 node stage] according to the eighth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual) to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus durvalumab or placebo administered intravenously every 3 weeks for 4 cycles before surgery, followed by adjuvant durvalumab or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 12 cycles. Randomization was stratified according to disease stage (II or III) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥1% or <1%). Primary end points were event-free survival (defined as the time to the earliest occurrence of progressive disease that precluded surgery or prevented completion of surgery, disease recurrence [assessed in a blinded fashion by independent central review], or death from any cause) and pathological complete response (evaluated centrally).ResultsA total of 802 patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients). The duration of event-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo; the stratified hazard ratio for disease progression, recurrence, or death was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.88; P=0.004) at the first interim analysis. At the 12-month landmark analysis, event-free survival was observed in 73.4% of the patients who received durvalumab (95% CI, 67.9 to 78.1), as compared with 64.5% of the patients who received placebo (95% CI, 58.8 to 69.6). The incidence of pathological complete response was significantly greater with durvalumab than with placebo (17.2% vs. 4.3% at the final analysis; difference, 13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.7 to 17.6; P<0.001 at interim analysis of data from 402 patients). Event-free survival and pathological complete response benefit were observed regardless of stage and PD-L1 expression. Adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 occurred in 42.4% of patients with durvalumab and in 43.2% with placebo. Data from 62 patients with documented EGFR or ALK alterations were excluded from the efficacy analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population.ConclusionsIn patients with resectable NSCLC, perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly greater event-free survival and pathological complete response than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, with a safety profile that was consistent with the individual agents. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AEGEAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03800134.)

Sotorasib plus Panitumumab in Refractory Colorectal Cancer with Mutated KRAS G12C

BackgroundKRAS G12C is a mutation that occurs in approximately 3 to 4% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Monotherapy with KRAS G12C inhibitors has yielded only modest efficacy. Combining the KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib with panitumumab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, may be an effective strategy.MethodsIn this phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial, we assigned patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer with mutated KRAS G12C who had not received previous treatment with a KRAS G12C inhibitor to receive sotorasib at a dose of 960 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), sotorasib at a dose of 240 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), or the investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib (standard care; 54 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Key secondary end points were overall survival and objective response.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 7.8 months (range, 0.1 to 13.9), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 6.3) and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.8) in the 960-mg sotorasib–panitumumab and 240-mg sotorasib–panitumumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9) in the standard-care group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the 960-mg sotorasib–panitumumab group as compared with the standard-care group was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.80; P=0.006), and the hazard ratio in the 240-mg sotorasib–panitumumab group was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P=0.03). Overall survival data are maturing. The objective response was 26.4% (95% CI, 15.3 to 40.3), 5.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 15.7), and 0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 6.6) in the 960-mg sotorasib–panitumumab, 240-mg sotorasib–panitumumab, and standard-care groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 35.8%, 30.2%, and 43.1% of patients, respectively. Skin-related toxic effects and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events observed with sotorasib–panitumumab.ConclusionsIn this phase 3 trial of a KRAS G12C inhibitor plus an EGFR inhibitor in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer, both doses of sotorasib in combination with panitumumab resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard treatment. Toxic effects were as expected for either agent alone and resulted in few discontinuations of treatment. (Funded by Amgen; CodeBreaK 300 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05198934.)

Phase 3 Trial of Selpercatinib in Advanced RET-Mutant Medullary Thyroid Cancer

BackgroundSelpercatinib, a highly selective, potent RET inhibitor, has shown efficacy in advanced RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer in a phase 1–2 trial, but its efficacy as compared with approved multikinase inhibitors is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, randomized trial comparing selpercatinib as first-line therapy with the physician’s choice of cabozantinib or vandetanib (control group). Eligible patients had progressive disease documented within 14 months before enrollment. The primary end point in the protocol-specified interim efficacy analysis was progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review. Crossover to selpercatinib was permitted among patients in the control group after disease progression. Treatment failure–free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was a secondary, alpha-controlled end point that was to be tested only if progression-free survival was significant. Among the other secondary end points were overall response and safety.ResultsA total of 291 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 12 months, median progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review was not reached in the selpercatinib group and was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.2 to 25.1) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.48; P<0.001). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 86.8% (95% CI, 79.8 to 91.6) in the selpercatinib group and 65.7% (95% CI, 51.9 to 76.4) in the control group. Median treatment failure–free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review was not reached in the selpercatinib group and was 13.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events, or death, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.42; P<0.001). Treatment failure–free survival at 12 months was 86.2% (95% CI, 79.1 to 91.0) in the selpercatinib group and 62.1% (95% CI, 48.9 to 72.8) in the control group. The overall response was 69.4% (95% CI, 62.4 to 75.8) in the selpercatinib group and 38.8% (95% CI, 29.1 to 49.2) in the control group. Adverse events led to a dose reduction in 38.9% of the patients in the selpercatinib group, as compared with 77.3% in the control group, and to treatment discontinuation in 4.7% and 26.8%, respectively.ConclusionsSelpercatinib treatment resulted in superior progression-free survival and treatment failure–free survival as compared with cabozantinib or vandetanib in patients with RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer. (Funded by Loxo Oncology, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly; LIBRETTO-531 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04211337.)

Amivantamab plus Chemotherapy in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertions

BackgroundAmivantamab has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions who have had disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Phase 1 data showed the safety and antitumor activity of amivantamab plus carboplatin–pemetrexed (chemotherapy). Additional data on this combination therapy are needed.MethodsIn this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab–chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy.ResultsA total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab–chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab–chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab–chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab–chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P=0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab–chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions.ConclusionsThe use of amivantamab–chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.)

A Multicentered, Randomized Phase III Study of Definitive vs. Palliative Radiotherapy to Primary Tumor for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Less than Three Metastatic Organs: CSWOG China

To investigate the local-regional progression-free survival (LPFS), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local control rate of primary tumor (LCRP), and toxicity of definitive radiotherapy (concurrent chemoradiotherapy of 63 Gy) compared with palliative radiotherapy (concurrent chemoradiotherapy of 45 Gy) to primary tumor in newly diagnosed stage Ⅳ non-small cell lung cancer with less than three metastatic organs. A randomized, multicentered phase Ⅲ study (ChicTR-TRC-13003749), in a 1:1 ratio, included patients with newly diagnosed stage Ⅳ NSCLC with less than three metastatic organs. The EGFR mutation was wide type or unknown mainly. The patients were divided into 63 Gy of definitive radiotherapy (D63) and 45 Gy of palliative radiotherapy (P45). The primary endpoints were LPFS, OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS, LCRP, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Three hundred forty-four patients were enrolled in 14 cancer centers. The median LPFS for group D63 was 18 months (95% CI, 13.02 to 22.98) better than 13 months for group P45 (95% CI, 10.13 to 15.87). LPFS for 1, 2, and 5 years were 62.9% vs. 50.4%, 36.9% vs. 24%, 20.5% vs. 5.5%, respectively (χ2 = 9.997, P = 0.002). The 36.1% reduction in the hazard ratio for local-regional progression or death for D63. The MST for group D63 was 19 months (95% CI, 14.59 to 23.41) better than 15 months for group P45 (95% CI, 10.72 to 19.28), and the 1-, 2-, and 5-years OS were 70.2% vs. 52.2%, 41.3% vs. 30.7%, 16.2% vs. 11.3%, respectively (χ2 = 3.874, P = 0.049). PFS was 37% reduction in the hazard ratio for disease progression or death for D63 (χ2 = 12.49, P = 0.000). The 1, 2, 5-year LCRP of group D63 is better than group P45 (χ2 = 8.747, P = 0.003). The incidences of RE and grade Ⅲ-Ⅳ RP in group D63 were higher than in group P45 (P<0.05). Phase Ⅲ clinical trials achieved satisfactory results. LPFS, OS and PFS was longer with definitive than palliative radiotherapy of primary tumor for stage Ⅳ NSCLC with less than three metastatic organs. Significantly prolonged. The toxicity was accepted.

Characteristics of cabozantinib treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

AbstractBackground and AimCabozantinib is a molecular targeted agent (MTA) used for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although its superiority over placebo has been proven, its effectiveness and risk factors in real‐world practice are needed to be elucidated.MethodsThis study retrospectively enrolled 54 advanced HCC patients, who were treated with cabozantinib. The effectiveness of cabozantinib, adverse events (AE) and risk factors for survival was analysed.ResultsMajority of the patients (88.9%) were treated with two or more MTAs before starting cabozantinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was the most prevalent MTA used (59.3%). The median overall survival and progression‐free survival (PFS) were 6.9 and 4.4 months, respectively. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 3.7% and 40.7%, respectively. Grade 3/4 AE occurred in 37.0% of the patients; however, unpredictable AE was not observed. Multivariate analysis revealed that high neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR, &gt;4) was a risk factor for survival (hazard ratio for death, 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41–4.82; p = 0.020). Moreover, the occurrence of Grade 3/4 AE was a negative risk factor for both survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.83; p = 0.016) and PFS (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15–0.73; p = 0.006). Neither preceding therapy with atezolizumab/bevacizumab nor a reduced starting dose correlated with patient survival.ConclusionsCabozantinib can be used safely in real‐world practice. The study identified high NLR as a positive risk factor and the occurrence of Grade 3/4 AE as a negative risk factor for survival.

Perioperative Nivolumab and Chemotherapy in Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundApproximately 20% of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive a diagnosis of stage III disease. There is no current consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment for these patients.MethodsIn this open-label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (experimental group) or chemotherapy alone (control group), followed by surgery. Patients in the experimental group who had R0 resections received adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for 6 months. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival at 24 months and safety.ResultsA total of 86 patients underwent randomization; 57 were assigned to the experimental group and 29 were assigned to the control group. A pathological complete response occurred in 37% of the patients in the experimental group and in 7% in the control group (relative risk, 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 21.23; P=0.02). Surgery was performed in 93% of the patients in the experimental group and in 69% in the control group (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.74). Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 24 months were 67.2% in the experimental group and 40.9% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival at 24 months were 85.0% in the experimental group and 63.6% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the experimental group (19%; some patients had events of both grades) and 3 patients in the control group (10%).ConclusionsIn patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, perioperative treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response and longer survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADIM II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03838159; EudraCT number, 2018-004515-45.)