Hazard Ratio For Disease Progression Research Articles

Ibrutinib Regimens versus Chemoimmunotherapy in Older Patients with Untreated CLL

BackgroundIbrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy.MethodsPatients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met.ResultsA total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P<0.001) and with ibrutinib plus rituximab (88%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group and the ibrutinib group with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.62; P=0.49). With a median follow-up of 38 months, there was no significant difference among the three treatment groups with regard to overall survival. The rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 hematologic adverse events was higher with bendamustine plus rituximab (61%) than with ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus rituximab (41% and 39%, respectively), whereas the rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 nonhematologic adverse events was lower with bendamustine plus rituximab (63%) than with the ibrutinib-containing regimens (74% with each regimen).ConclusionsAmong older patients with untreated CLL, treatment with ibrutinib was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. There was no significant difference between ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01886872.)

Profiling Preexisting Antibodies in Patients Treated With Anti–PD-1 Therapy for Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Administration of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) is now standard therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, immune checkpoint inhibitors, including anti-PD-1, have not been assessed in patients with subclinical disease with advanced NSCLC, and no useful clinical biomarkers have been associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among these patients treated with anti-PD-1. To assess the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 treatment in patients with subclinical disease with advanced NSCLC and with or without preexisting autoimmune markers, including rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody, antithyroglobulin, and antithyroid peroxidase; and to assess potential clinical biomarkers that may be meaningfully and conveniently associated with clinical benefit or with irAEs following anti-PD-1 treatment. This medical records analysis retrospectively evaluated 137 patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy at Sendai Kousei Hospital in Japan between January 2016 and January 2018. Treatment efficacy and irAEs were evaluated along with candidate factors that may be associated with irAEs. Absence or presence of specific autoimmune markers and antibodies before treatment. Preexisting antibodies and autoimmune markers, progression-free survival (PFS), and irAEs. Of 137 patients with advanced NSCLC, 105 were men, the median age was 68 (range, 36-88) years, 99 underwent nivolumab monotherapy, 38 underwent pembrolizumab monotherapy, and 134 had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median PFS was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4-12.9) months among patients with examined preexisting antibodies and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.4-4.1) months among patients without, suggesting significantly better prognosis in the former. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the presence of the examined preexisting antibodies was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.36-0.79; P = .002). The PFS was significantly longer among patients with any preexisting antibodies than among those without. The examined preexisting antibodies (48 patients [73%]) and rheumatoid factor (26 patients [39%]) were more common among patients who developed irAEs. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of the examined preexisting antibodies was independently associated with irAEs (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.59-6.65; P = .001). Skin reactions were more frequent among patients with preexisting rheumatoid factor (47% vs 24%, P = .02), whereas thyroid dysfunction was more frequent among patients with preexisting antithyroid antibodies (20% vs 1%, P < .001). The presence of the examined preexisting antibodies was associated with clinical benefit and with the development of irAEs in patients with NSCLC treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Thus, the presence of these autoimmune markers may help determine the risk-benefit ratio for individual patients with NSCLC, maximizing therapeutic benefits while minimizing irAEs.

Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer

BackgroundMost women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain.MethodsWe conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both (BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival.ResultsOf the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan–Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib.ConclusionsThe use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986.)

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC

BackgroundAn earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety.ResultsOf the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events.ConclusionsDurvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461.)

First-Line Atezolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundEnhancing tumor-specific T-cell immunity by inhibiting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling has shown promise in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Combining checkpoint inhibition with cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect and improve efficacy.MethodsWe conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who had not previously received treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carboplatin and etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for four 21-day cycles (induction phase), followed by a maintenance phase during which they received either atezolizumab or placebo (according to the previous random assignment) until they had unacceptable toxic effects, disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or no additional clinical benefit. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 201 patients were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group, and 202 patients to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median overall survival was 12.3 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.3 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.91; P=0.007). The median progression-free survival was 5.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of the individual agents, with no new findings observed.ConclusionsThe addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech; IMpower133 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02763579.)

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy for Squamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundStandard first-line therapy for metastatic, squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab (for patients with programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] expression on ≥50% of tumor cells). More recently, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was shown to significantly prolong overall survival among patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 559 patients with untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles; all the patients also received carboplatin and either paclitaxel or nanoparticle albumin-bound [nab]–paclitaxel for the first 4 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 7.8 months, the median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.8) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent regardless of the level of PD-L1 expression. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI, 6.2 to 8.3) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 5.7) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 69.8% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 68.2% of the patients in the placebo-combination group. Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was more frequent in the pembrolizumab-combination group than in the placebo-combination group (13.3% vs. 6.4%).ConclusionsIn patients with previously untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-407 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02775435.)

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundBrigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear.MethodsIn an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred.ResultsA total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted.ConclusionsAmong patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501.)

Elotuzumab plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma

BackgroundThe immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide plus dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.MethodsPatients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.ResultsA total of 117 patients were randomly assigned to the elotuzumab group (60 patients) or the control group (57 patients). After a minimum follow-up period of 9.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the elotuzumab group and 4.7 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the elotuzumab group as compared with the control group was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.86; P=0.008). The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab group as compared with 26% in the control group (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.49 to 7.11). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (13% in the elotuzumab group vs. 27% in the control group), anemia (10% vs. 20%), and hyperglycemia (8% vs. 7%). A total of 65% of the patients in each group had infections. Infusion reactions occurred in 3 patients (5%) in the elotuzumab group.ConclusionsAmong patients with multiple myeloma in whom treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had failed, the risk of progression or death was significantly lower among those who received elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received pomalidomide plus dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02654132.)

Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation

BackgroundThe poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) inhibitor talazoparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2).MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive talazoparib (1 mg once daily) or standard single-agent therapy of the physician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine in continuous 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review.ResultsOf the 431 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were assigned to receive talazoparib and 144 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (8.6 months vs. 5.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). The interim median hazard ratio for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06; P=0.11 [57% of projected events]). The objective response rate was higher in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (62.6% vs. 27.2%; odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 8.8; P<0.001). Hematologic grade 3–4 adverse events (primarily anemia) occurred in 55% of the patients who received talazoparib and in 38% of the patients who received standard therapy; nonhematologic grade 3 adverse events occurred in 32% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib; significant overall improvements and significant delays in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration according to both the global health status–quality-of-life and breast symptoms scales were observed.ConclusionsAmong patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775.)

Cabozantinib in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BackgroundCabozantinib inhibits tyrosine kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, MET, and AXL, which are implicated in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma and the development of resistance to sorafenib, the standard initial treatment for advanced disease. This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluated cabozantinib as compared with placebo in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.MethodsA total of 707 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients had received previous treatment with sorafenib, had disease progression after at least one systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, and may have received up to two previous systemic regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate.ResultsAt the second planned interim analysis, the trial showed significantly longer overall survival with cabozantinib than with placebo. Median overall survival was 10.2 months with cabozantinib and 8.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.92; P=0.005). Median progression-free survival was 5.2 months with cabozantinib and 1.9 months with placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.52; P<0.001), and the objective response rates were 4% and less than 1%, respectively (P=0.009). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 68% of patients in the cabozantinib group and in 36% in the placebo group. The most common high-grade events were palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (17% with cabozantinib vs. 0% with placebo), hypertension (16% vs. 2%), increased aspartate aminotransferase level (12% vs. 7%), fatigue (10% vs. 4%), and diarrhea (10% vs. 2%).ConclusionsAmong patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment with cabozantinib resulted in longer overall survival and progression-free survival than placebo. The rate of high-grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was approximately twice that observed in the placebo group. (Funded by Exelixis; CELESTIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01908426.)

Ineffective anti PD-1 therapy after BRAF inhibitor failure in advanced melanoma

BackgroundAnti-PD-1 and BRAF-inhibitors (BRAFi) have been approved as first-line treatments in advanced melanoma. To date, no prospective data are available to give the best sequence of treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate in real-life the efficacy of anti-PD-1 after BRAFi, ipilimumab, or chemotherapy failure.MethodsThis was a single institution cohort analysis in patients treated with anti-PD-1 right after BRAFi, ipilimumab, or chemotherapy failure. Melanoma evolution after anti-PD-1 initiation was analyzed in BRAF-mutated and BRAF wild-type patients. The efficacy of treatment was evaluated by Objective Response Rate (ORR), Disease Control Rate (DCR), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), and Overall Survival (OS).ResultsSeventy-four patients were included: 33 wild-type and 41 BRAF-mutated melanoma. ORR to anti-PD-1 was significantly lower in BRAF-mutated patients (12.2% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.002). After anti-PD-1 initiation, the median PFS and OS was significantly shorter in the BRAF mutated group (2 vs. 5 months and 7 vs. 20 months, p = 0.001). The hazard ratio for disease progression was of 2.3 (95%CI:1.3–3.9; p = 0.003) and 2.5 (95%CI:1.3–4.5; p = 0.005) for death. Thirty-nine percent of BRAF-mutated-patients died within 3 months after anti-PD-1 initiation. Rapid death (≤3 months) was significantly higher in BRAF-mutated patients (55.2% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.014).DiscussionThis is the largest series of unselected patients treated in real-life with anti-PD-1 as second-or-higher line of treatment. Anti-PD-1 was less effective in BRAF-mutated cases as a majority of patients presented aggressive tumor evolution after BRAFi discontinuation. These data are consistent with previous studies suggesting a negative impact of BRAFi prior to immunotherapy.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC

BackgroundThe cancer-cell–killing property of atezolizumab may be enhanced by the blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor–mediated immunosuppression with bevacizumab. This open-label, phase 3 study evaluated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received chemotherapy.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients to receive atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP), bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP), or atezolizumab plus BCP (ABCP) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab, bevacizumab, or both. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival both among patients in the intention-to-treat population who had a wild-type genotype (WT population; patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were excluded) and among patients in the WT population who had high expression of an effector T-cell (Teff) gene signature in the tumor (Teff-high WT population) and overall survival in the WT population. The ABCP group was compared with the BCP group before the ACP group was compared with the BCP group.ResultsIn the WT population, 356 patients were assigned to the ABCP group, and 336 to the BCP group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (8.3 months vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001); the corresponding values in the Teff-high WT population were 11.3 months and 6.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68]; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group in the entire intention-to-treat population (including those with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations) and among patients with low or negative programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, those with low Teff gene-signature expression, and those with liver metastases. Median overall survival among the patients in the WT population was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of ABCP was consistent with previously reported safety risks of the individual medicines.ConclusionsThe addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression and EGFR or ALK genetic alteration status. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech; IMpower150 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02366143.)

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundFirst-line therapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that lacks targetable mutations is platinum-based chemotherapy. Among patients with a tumor proportion score for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 50% or greater, pembrolizumab has replaced cytotoxic chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of choice. The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly higher rates of response and longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone in a phase 2 trial.MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) 616 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK mutations who had received no previous treatment for metastatic disease to receive pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug plus either 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy. Crossover to pembrolizumab monotherapy was permitted among the patients in the placebo-combination group who had verified disease progression. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as assessed by blinded, independent central radiologic review.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 10.5 months, the estimated rate of overall survival at 12 months was 69.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1 to 73.8) in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1 to 56.2) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001). Improvement in overall survival was seen across all PD-L1 categories that were evaluated. Median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 5.5) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 67.2% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 65.8% of those in the placebo-combination group.ConclusionsIn patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy of pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-189 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02578680.)

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden

BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase).MethodsWe enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay.ResultsProgression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy.ConclusionsProgression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.)

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.MethodsWe randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.ResultsA total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.ConclusionsOverall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749.)

Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma

BackgroundThe combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard-of-care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The overall response rate was 90.9% in the daratumumab group, as compared with 73.9% in the control group (P<0.001), and the rate of complete response or better (including stringent complete response) was 42.6%, versus 24.4% (P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.3% of the patients were negative for minimal residual disease (at a threshold of 1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 6.2% of those in the control group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hematologic: neutropenia (in 39.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group and in 38.7% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 34.4% and 37.6%, respectively), and anemia (in 15.9% and 19.8%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 infections was 23.1% in the daratumumab group and 14.7% in the control group; the rate of treatment discontinuation due to infections was 0.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 27.7% of the patients.ConclusionsAmong patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, daratumumab combined with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than the same regimen without daratumumab. The daratumumab-containing regimen was associated with more grade 3 or 4 infections. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ALCYONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02195479.)

Quality of life study in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine in combination with nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone:ax-panc-sy001: A phase II randomized study.

346 Background: Although clinical efficacy of gemcitabine in combination with nabpaclitaxel has been shown to be superior to single agent gemcitabine in a randomize phase 3 trial, data are lacking on the quality of life of this combination regimen as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: We randomly assigned 125 patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 to receive gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 plus nabpaclitaxel 125 mg/m2 or gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was 3-months deterioration-free rate (percentage of patients free from definitive deterioration) and quality of life of patients. Results: The median overall survival was 9.92 months in the gemcitabine plus nabpaclitaxel group as compared with 5.95 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.642, 95% confidence interval, 0.422 to 0.866; p &lt; 0.038). Median progression-free survival was 6.28 months in the combination group and 3.22 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.582; 95% CI, 0.391 to 0.866; p &lt; 0.008). The objective response rate was 37.1% in the combination group versus 23.7% in the gemcitabine group (p &lt; 0.009). Median time to deterioration was 3.68 months in the gemcitabine arm versus 5.36 months in the combination arm. More data on quality of life will be presented. Conclusions: As compared with gemcitabine, gemcitabine plus nabpaclitaxel was associated with an overall and progressive free survival advantage, with increased response rate, without increasing toxicity and deterioration of quality of life. Gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel combination regimen with this form is a preferable option for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer Clinical trial information: EudraCT: 2013-004180-32.

Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundOsimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI–sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation–positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation–positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).ConclusionsOsimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation–positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125.)

Posterior atrophy predicts time to dementia in patients with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment

BackgroundIn patients with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment (MCI), neurodegenerative biomarkers such as medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) are useful to predict disease progression to dementia. Although posterior atrophy (PA) is a well-known neurodegenerative biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease, little is known about PA as a predictor in patients with amyloid-positive MCI.MethodsWe included 258 patients with amyloid-positive MCI with at least one follow-up visit, and who had low cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) β-amyloid1–42 concentration. Data were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study. We assessed PA and MTA on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using visual rating scales and retrospectively determined progression to dementia during the follow-up period of up to 3 years (median 24 months). The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze hazard ratios (HRs) of PA and MTA for disease progression. Additionally, subjects were divided into four groups according to brain atrophy pattern (no atrophy, MTA only, PA only, both MTA and PA), and HRs for disease progression were compared with the no atrophy reference group. Analyses were conducted with and without adjustment for CSF phosphorylated tau181p (p-tau) and baseline demographics.ResultsA total of 123 patients (47.7%) showed MTA and 174 patients (67.4%) showed PA. Of the total cohort, 139 cases (53.9%) progressed to dementia. PA and MTA were associated with an increased risk for progression to dementia (HR 2.244, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.497–3.364, and HR 1.682, 95% CI 1.203–2.352, respectively). In the analysis according to atrophy pattern, HR (95% CI) for progression was 2.998 (1.443–6.227) in the MTA only group, 3.126 (1.666–5.864) in the PA only group, and 3.814 (2.045–7.110) in both MTA and PA group. These results remained significant after adjustment.ConclusionsIn patients with amyloid-positive MCI, PA could predict progression to dementia independently of MTA.

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundMost patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti–programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety.ResultsOf 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events.ConclusionsProgression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461.)