Independent Review Facility Research Articles

SKYSCRAPER-08: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of first-line (1L) tiragolumab (tira) + atezolizumab (atezo) and chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

245 Background: Inhibition of TIGIT, a novel checkpoint inhibitor, may further amplify immune responses by complementing the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway. Anti-tumor activity has been demonstrated with cancer immunotherapy in ESCC. SKYSCRAPER-08 (NCT04540211) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of tira (anti-TIGIT) + atezo (anti-PD-L1) in combination with CT compared with placebo + CT as 1L treatment (tx) in an Asian population with unresectable locally advanced (LA), unresectable recurrent, or metastatic (R/M) ESCC. Methods: Eligible pts (confirmed LA or R/M ESCC; ECOG PS 0–1; no prior systemic tx) were randomized 1:1 to receive tira 600mg + atezo 1200mg + CT (paclitaxel 175mg/m2 + cisplatin 60–80mg/m2, local standard of care) or placebo + CT on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (cycles 1–6); followed by tira + atezo or placebo maintenance until loss of clinical benefit/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints: independent review facility (IRF)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints: investigator (INV)-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Results: Overall, 461 pts were randomized (tira + atezo + CT, n= 229; placebo + CT, n=232). Pt characteristics were generally balanced between arms. As of 15 June 2022 (minimum survival follow-up 6.5 months [mo]; PFS primary analysis), median IRF-assessed PFS was 6.2 mo for tira + atezo + CT vs 5.4 mo for placebo + CT (HR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.70; P<0.0001). As of 13 Feb 2023 (minimum survival follow-up 14.5 mo; OS final analysis), median OS was 15.7 mo for tira + atezo + CT vs 11.1 mo for placebo + CT (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.88; P= 0.0024). INV-assessed PFS, IRF-assessed ORR and DoR are presented in Table. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 98.2% of pts (both arms); Grade 3/4 TRAEs in 59.6% (tira + atezo + CT) and 56.4% (placebo + CT) of pts; Grade 5 TRAEs in 2.6% (tira + atezo + CT) and 0.9% (placebo + CT) of pts. Conclusions: The study met both primary endpoints of IRF-assessed PFS and OS, demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PFS and OS for tira + atezo + CT over placebo + CT. Generally consistent benefit was observed across subgroups, including PD-L1 status. The safety profile was consistent with the known risks of the individual tx. Clinical trial information: NCT04540211 . [Table: see text]

PET4 Response As an Independent Predictor of Long-Term Outcomes in ECHELON2 (A+CHP Vs. CHOP) in CD30+PTCL

Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are uncommon, heterogeneous, and often aggressive subtypes of lymphoma characterized by a high risk of progression even after combination chemotherapy. The phase III, ECHELON-2 trial showed that the combination of brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy (A+CHP) in patients (pts) with CD30-positive PTCLs improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to CHOP. In PTCL, positron emission tomography (PET) is a valuable way to assess disease burden and stage at the time of diagnosis and evaluate treatment response. Prior retrospective studies have shown that interim and end of treatment PET may predict outcomes; however, there are no prospective studies confirming their predictive value. In the ECHELON-2 study, PET4 outcomes were prospectively collected, and the objective of this exploratory analysis is to investigate the potential for interim PET scans to predict treatment response and long-term outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the role of interim 18F-FDG PET imaging (PET4) in predicting end of treatment (EOT) response, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in pts (pts) with CD30+PTCL treated with A+CHP or CHOP in the ECHELON-2 trial. Methods: The ECHELON-2 trial included prospective 18F-FDG PET scans and assessment of treatment response including long-term PFS per investigator and OS. PET4 status was based on Deauville score by Independent Review Facility (IRF) assessment using scans at the cycle 4 response assessment. Deauville scores 1-3 are considered negative (PET4neg) and 4-5 positive (PET4pos). EOT response is the best response after completion of study treatment and prior to long term follow up per Cheson 2007 by IRF assessment. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate PFS and OS; p-values are based on stratified log-rank tests. All analyses are exploratory, and p-values are descriptive. Results: In this study, 452 pts were included, with 226 randomized to the A+CHP treatment arm and 226 to the CHOP treatment arm; median follow up was 66.8 months (range 0-90). Of randomized pts, 32 pts in the A+CHP arm and 41 pts in the CHOP arm were not evaluable for PET4. The overall results showed that the PET4neg evaluable subgroup had a higher proportion of pts achieving complete responses (CR) than PET4pos (80% vs. 9%) at EOT (Table 1). In pts assessed for PET4, pts who were PET4neg had improved PFS and OS in both the A+CHP and CHOP treatment arms (Figure 1). For A+CHP pts, those who achieved PET4neg had an improved PFS [HR 0.36, CI-95 (0.19-0.66), p=0.0006] and OS [HR 0.38, CI-95 (0.18-0.78), p=0.0060] compared to those who were PET4pos. Similarly, pts in the CHOP arm who achieved PET4neg had an improved PFS [HR 0.26, CI-95 (0.17-0.41), p<0.0001] and OS [HR 0.24, CI-95 (0.14-0.41), p< 0.0001] compared to those who were PET4pos. Among pts with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL) (n=316), 19 pts in the A+CHP arm and 32 in the CHOP arm were not evaluable for PET4. The results in this subgroup show that 128/143 (90%) A+CHP pts who had PET4 assessments achieved PET4neg. These pts experienced improved PFS [HR 0.28, CI-95 (0.14-0.60), p=0.0004] and OS [HR 0.38, CI-95 (0.16-0.94), p 0.0292] compared to PET4pos pts. For CHOP pts who had PET4 assessments 98/122 (80%), achieved PET4neg; these pts experienced improved PFS [HR 0.31, CI-95 (0.12-0.55), p<0.0001] and improved OS [HR 0.25, CI-95 (0.12-0.25), p= 0.0002] compared to PET4pos pts. Conclusion: In an exploratory analysis of interim PET imaging as part of the ECHELON-2 study, PET4neg by Deauville was associated with improved PFS and OS in both the A+CHP and CHOP arms. Our findings support the use of PET4 response in PTCL as a predictor of outcomes in both the A+CHP and CHOP pts. These findings emphasize the potential of PET scans to enhance risk stratification, individualize therapy decisions, and improve pt outcomes in the management of PTCLs. Further analysis will be presented at the meeting.

Impact of Bevacizumab Being Skipped due to Adverse Events of Special Interest for Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase III IMbrave150 Study

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as the global standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis examined the impact of bevacizumab interruption due to bevacizumab adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Methods: Patients in IMbrave150 who were randomized to atezolizumab + bevacizumab and received treatment for ≥6 months (to reduce immortal time bias) were included in group A-1 if bevacizumab had ever been skipped due to bevacizumab AESIs or to group A-2 otherwise. Efficacy analyses included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by whether bevacizumab was skipped (group A-1 vs. A-2). PFS was evaluated per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and HCC-modified RECIST (IRF-HCC mRECIST). Safety was also evaluated. Results: Of the 210 patients who received ≥6 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, 69 were assigned to group A-1 and 141 to A-2. At data cutoff (August 20, 2020), hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.69) for group A-1 versus A-2. HR for PFS was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55) per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1 and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59; 15.5 vs. 9.7 months) per IRF-HCC mRECIST for group A-1 versus A-2. Safety profiles for atezolizumab and bevacizumab were largely similar between groups. More group A-1 patients had grade 3/4 adverse events. A separate analysis investigating the impact of immortal time bias in patients who received ≥3 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab supported the appropriateness of the ≥6-month landmark analysis. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy was similar between patients who skipped bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs and those who did not. Although this comparison was nonrandomized and exploratory, results suggest that skipping bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs did not considerably impact the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with resected or ablated high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave050): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after curative-intent resection or ablation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma. In the global, open-label, phase 3 IMbrave050 study, adult patients with high-risk surgically resected or ablated hepatocellular carcinoma were recruited from 134 hospitals and medical centres in 26 countries in four WHO regions (European region, region of the Americas, South-East Asia region, and Western Pacific region). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-web response system using permuted blocks, using a block size of 4, to receive intravenous 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (12 months) or to active surveillance. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by independent review facility assessment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04102098. The intention-to-treat population included 668 patients randomly assigned between Dec 31, 2019, and Nov 25, 2021, to either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=334) or to active surveillance (n=334). At the prespecified interim analysis (Oct 21, 2022), median duration of follow-up was 17·4 months (IQR 13·9-22·1). Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival (median, not evaluable [NE]; [95% CI 22·1-NE]) compared with active surveillance (median, NE [21·4-NE]; hazard ratio, 0·72 [adjusted 95% CI 0·53-0·98]; p=0·012). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 136 (41%) of 332 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 44 (13%) of 330 patients in the active surveillance group. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in six patients (2%, two of which were treatment related) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, and one patient (<1%) in the active surveillance group. Both atezolizumab and bevacizumab were discontinued because of adverse events in 29 patients (9%) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Among patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following curative-intent resection or ablation, recurrence-free survival was improved in those who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance. To our knowledge, IMbrave050 is the first phase 3 study of adjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma to report positive results. However, longer follow-up for both recurrence-free and overall survival is needed to assess the benefit-risk profile more fully. F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Mosunetuzumab monotherapy is active and tolerable in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

As part of a phase 1 or 2 study, this single-arm expansion cohort established the efficacy and safety of mosunetuzumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (received ≥2 previous lines of therapy). Intravenous mosunetuzumab was administered with cycle (C) 1 step-up dosing for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) mitigation: C1day (D) 1: 1mg; C1D8 2mg; C1D15 and C2D1: 60mg; C3+ D1: 30mg. Hospitalization was not mandatory. Patients with complete response (CR) completed treatment after C8; those with partial response or stable disease continued treatment for a total of 17 cycles. The primary end point was CR rate (best response), assessed against a historical control CR rate (20%) by independent review facility. Eighty-eight patients (73.9% de novo DLBCL; 26.1% transformed follicular lymphoma) were enrolled; all had received previous anthracycline and anti-CD20 therapy. Overall response and CR rates were 42.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6-53.1) and 23.9% (95%CI, 15.4-34.1), respectively; CR rate did not reach statistical significance vs the historical control (P= .36). Median time to first response was 1.4months. Median progression-free survival was 3.2months (95%CI, 2.2-5.3). The CR rate in 26 patients who received previous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was 12%. CRS was one of the most common adverse events (26.1% of patients); predominantly grade 1 to 2 and primarily in C1. Four patients (4.5%) discontinued mosunetuzumab owing to adverse events. Mosunetuzumab demonstrated notable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with R/R DLBCL, including those previously treated with CAR-Ts. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02500407.

SUNMO: A phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of mosunetuzumab in combination with polatuzumab vedotin vs rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

TPS7586 Background: Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (aNHL) are a diverse group of neoplasms, of which diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype (Thandra, 2021). Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL after one prior therapy who are unable to receive, or relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy have a poor prognosis (Salles, 2019; Di Blasi, 2022). Mosunetuzumab (Mosun) is an off-the-shelf CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody that redirects T cells to eliminate malignant B cells (Sun, 2015), with promising efficacy and safety as a single agent, as shown in a Phase I trial in pts with B-cell NHL, including aNHL (Budde, 2022). Mosun has also shown promising safety and efficacy in combination with polatuzumab vedotin (Pola), a CD79b targeted antibody-drug conjugate that delivers the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E directly to B cells (Dornan, 2009), in a Phase Ib/II trial in pts with R/R aNHL (Budde, ASH 2021). Methods: SUNMO (NCT05171647) is a randomized, open-label, global Phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous Mosun + intravenous (IV) Pola (M-Pola) vs IV rituximab + gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) in pts with R/R aNHL. Eligible pts have CD20-positive R/R aNHL (DLBCL not otherwise specified [NOS], high-grade B-cell lymphoma double/triple hit or NOS, transformed follicular lymphoma [trFL], or Grade 3B FL), ECOG performance status 0–2, and ≥1 prior systemic therapy (if only one prior line of therapy, pts must be ineligible for ASCT). Exclusion criteria include prior treatment with CD20-directed bispecific antibodies, R-GemOx, or GemOx; prior allogeneic stem cell transplant; and any central nervous system involvement of lymphoma. Pts will be randomized 2:1, stratified by the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs &gt; 1) and response to last therapy (relapsed vs refractory) to receive M-Pola or R-GemOx IV for a fixed duration of up to 8 cycles (6 cycles for Pola; M-Pola, 21-day cycles; R-GemOx, 14-day cycles). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) determined by an independent review facility (IRF). Secondary endpoints include overall survival; IRF- and investigator (INV)-assessed complete response (CR) rate, objective response rate, and duration of response/CR; INV-assessed PFS; patient-reported outcomes; and safety. Biomarker analyses include pre-specified prognostic subsets from baseline biopsies and circulating tumor DNA at baseline and during treatment. Enrollment is ongoing, and an estimated 75 sites globally will enroll approximately 222 pts (M-Pola, 148 pts; R-GemOx, 74 pts). Clinical trial information: NCT05171647 .

Efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase III IMbrave050 trial of adjuvant atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs active surveillance in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of disease recurrence following resection or ablation.

4002 Background: In IMbrave050, adjuvant atezo + bev demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) vs active surveillance in patients (pts) at high risk of HCC recurrence following resection or ablation with curative intent. Further, the safety of atezo + bev was generally manageable. Here, we additionally report PRO data from IMbrave050. Methods: IMbrave050 (NCT04102098) enrolled HCC pts at high risk of recurrence following resection or ablation. Pts were randomized to Arm A (atezo + bev) or Arm B (active surveillance). Pts in Arm A received atezo 1200 mg + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w for a period of one year (17 cycles). Pts in Arm B underwent active surveillance for one year and were eligible to crossover to atezo + bev following independent review facility (IRF) confirmation of recurrence. The primary endpoint was IRF-assessed RFS. Pre-specified exploratory analyses included change from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, and social functioning. Clinically meaningful deterioration was defined as a ≥ 10-point decrease. Pts completed the IL42–EORTC QLQ-C30 (reduced) questionnaire at baseline and then at every odd treatment/surveillance visit through Cycle 17. Results: The ITT population included 334 pts in both Arms A and B. With a median follow-up time of 17.4 mo (clinical cutoff date: 21 Oct 2022), IRF-RFS HR was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.93; P = 0.0120). In the safety population, Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 41% of 332 Arm A pts and 13% of 330 Arm B pts. In ITT pts, IL42 completion rates remained ≥ 93% in both arms from baseline through treatment/surveillance Cycle 17. Mean scores at baseline in both arms were high and similar, as measured by the GHS/QoL and physical, role, emotional and social functioning scales. Mean changes from baseline were not considerable through Cycle 17 and were similar between arms as evidenced by overlapping 95% CIs. Pts’ GHS/QoL and functioning was maintained through Cycle 17, with no clinically meaningful deterioration observed at any time. Conclusions: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS was seen in pts receiving atezo + bev vs active surveillance. Atezo + bev safety was generally manageable, and consistent with the established safety profiles of each therapeutic agent and with the underlying disease. PRO outcome analyses revealed similar overall health-related QoL (HRQoL) and functioning between atezo + bev and active surveillance, and that treating high-risk pts with HCC with adjuvant atezo + bev following procedures with curative intent did not result in a clinically meaningful deterioration in HRQoL or function. Clinical trial information: NCT04102098 .

Abstract CT003: IMbrave050: Phase 3 study of adjuvant atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of disease recurrence following resection or ablation

Abstract Background: The risk of HCC recurrence after liver resection or ablation with curative intent is 70-80% within 5 years, indicating an unmet need for effective adjuvant therapies. Atezolizumab (atezo) with bevacizumab (bev) is the standard of care for unresectable HCC based on the IMbrave150 study, which demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and objective response rate versus sorafenib (Finn NEJM 2020, Cheng J Hepatol 2022). On the basis of the antitumor activity of atezo + bev and its capacity to positively modulate the tumor microenvironment, IMbrave050 was designed to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant atezo + bev in delaying or preventing recurrence in patients (pts) with high-risk HCC. Methods: IMbrave050 (NCT04102098) enrolled pts with HCC at high risk of recurrence following resection or ablation. High-risk criteria were based on tumor burden (tumor size and number), vascular invasion, and tumor differentiation. Pts were randomized to Arm A (atezo + bev) or Arm B (active surveillance). Stratification factors included geographic region (Asia-Pacific excluding Japan vs rest of world) and a composite factor encompassing the number of high-risk features, curative procedure, and use of optional adjuvant TACE (allowed for one cycle following resection). Pts in Arm A received atezo 1200 mg + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w for a period of one year or 17 cycles. Pts in Arm B underwent active surveillance for one year and were eligible to crossover to atezo + bev following independent review facility (IRF) confirmation of recurrence. The primary endpoint was IRF-assessed recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary efficacy endpoints included OS; investigator-assessed (INV) RFS; RFS and OS according to PD-L1 status; and time to extrahepatic spread and/or macrovascular invasion. Results: The ITT population included 334 pts each in Arms A and B. Baseline demographics were well balanced between arms. At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 17.4 mo (cut off date: Oct 21, 2022), the primary endpoint was met with an IRF-RFS HR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56, 0.93; P=0.0120), and results were generally consistent across clinical subgroups. INV-RFS was similar (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54, 0.91). The safety of atezo + bev was generally manageable and consistent with the well-established safety profile of each therapeutic agent and with the underlying disease. Conclusions: Atezo + bev is the first adjuvant regimen to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS vs active surveillance in pts at high risk of disease recurrence following resection or ablation. The benefit:risk profile of atezo + bev favors the use of this regimen as an adjuvant therapy and has potential to set a new standard of care in adjuvant HCC. Citation Format: Pierce Chow, Minshan Chen, Ann-Lii Cheng, Ahmed O. Kaseb, Masatoshi Kudo, Han Chu Lee, Adam Yopp, Jian Zhou, Lu Wang, Xiaoyu Wen, Jeong Heo, Won Young Tak, Shinichiro Nakamura, Kazushi Numata, Thomas Uguen, David Hsiehchen, Edward Cha, Stephen P. Hack, Qinshu Lian, Jessica Spahn, Chun Wu, Shukui Qin. IMbrave050: Phase 3 study of adjuvant atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at high risk of disease recurrence following resection or ablation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT003.

IMbrave150: Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase III Study

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis reports efficacy and safety results in patients with baseline Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B disease. Methods: Patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC and Child-Pugh class A liver function were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg of atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab or 400 mg of sorafenib. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 in the BCLC stage B subgroup. Patients in this analysis had BCLC stage B disease at baseline per electronic case report form. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) and change in the sum of longest diameters (SLD) of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for HCC. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 74 (15%) had BCLC stage B disease at baseline (atezolizumab + bevacizumab, n = 49; sorafenib, n = 24). For this group, median follow-up was 19.7 months. A trend toward improved OS and PFS per IRF RECIST 1.1 was observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib (OS: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 1.34; PFS: HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12). ORRs per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST were 43% and 50% with atezolizumab + bevacizumab and 26% and 30% with sorafenib, respectively. Percentage change in SLD of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST showed durable responses with atezolizumab + bevacizumab treatment. Safety data were consistent with known profiles of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as seen in the overall study population. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy benefits were observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab in patients with baseline BCLC stage B disease, consistent with the intention-to-treat population.

Efficacy/safety of entrectinib in patients (pts) with ROS1-positive (ROS1+) advanced/metastatic NSCLC from the Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST).

LBA9023 Background: Tissue-based biomarker testing remains challenging as tumor biopsies are often inadequate for comprehensive biomarker testing and repeat biopsies can be risky in pts with advanced/metastatic NSCLC. These challenges could be overcome by using blood-based testing to identify the most appropriate targeted therapy. BFAST (NCT03178552) is a global open-label, multicohort trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of selected therapies in pts with advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring actionable genetic alterations, as identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) in cell-free DNA (liquid biopsies). We present data from the ROS1+ cohort: this is the first evaluation of entrectinib efficacy in pts identified by prospective blood-based NGS. Methods: In this single-arm analysis, adults (≥18 years) with treatment-naïve measurable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, identified as ROS1+ by the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx CTA blood-based NGS test, received oral entrectinib 600 mg/day until disease progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal or death. Pts with asymptomatic brain metastases at screening were eligible. Tumor scans were performed at baseline and every 8 weeks thereafter for all disease involvement areas (brain imaging not mandated in pts without baseline CNS disease). Primary endpoint: investigator (INV)-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints: INV-assessed duration of response (DoR) and progression-free survival (PFS); independent review facility (IRF)-assessed ORR, DoR, PFS; overall survival (OS); time to CNS PD; safety. Results: 55 pts with ROS1+ NSCLC identified by blood-based NGS were enrolled and treated with entrectinib. Median age was 56 yrs; 58% of pts were female and 75% had no history of tobacco use. Non-squamous adenocarcinoma was the most common histology (n = 48/55; 87%); 4 pts (7.3%) had baseline CNS disease. Median follow-up: 18.3 months. At data cut-off (26 Nov 2021, n = 54 pts with measurable disease), confirmed ORR was 81.5% (n = 44/54; 95% CI 68.6–90.8) by INV (2 complete responses [CR], 42 partial responses [PR]) and IRF (3 CR, 41 PR). Median DoR was 13.0 months (95% CI 6.3–18.4) by INV and 16.7 months (95% CI 5.6–24.0) by IRF. Median PFS was 12.9 months (95% CI 8.7–18.5) by INV, and 14.8 months (95% CI 7.2–24.0) by IRF. OS data were immature with 20 events (36.4%) recorded. Median time to CNS PD was not reached (INV: 9 events; IRF: 6 events). Most treatment-related adverse events were non-serious with no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: These data support the clinical value of blood-based NGS as another method to inform clinical decision-making in ROS1+ NSCLC. Pts with ROS1+ NSCLC (by blood-based NGS) treated with entrectinib showed deep and durable responses, consistent with results from entrectinib trials that used tissue-based testing. No new safety signals were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT03178552.

Updated safety and efficacy data from an open-label, phase 1/2 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) in pediatric patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

10000 Background: A+AVD is approved for treatment of adult patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Here we present updated results from a phase 1/2 open-label study of frontline A+AVD in treatment-naïve pediatric patients with advanced stage cHL. Methods: Patients aged 5 to &lt; 18 years with CD30+, stage III or IV, newly diagnosed cHL received A+AVD on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. In phase 1, eight patients were treated with 48 mg/m2 of brentuximab vedotin combined with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was evaluated from day 1 of cycle 1 to day 56. In phase 2, a further 51 patients were treated with the same regimen. Results presented here refer to phases 1 and 2 combined. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from first dose to disease progression; event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from first dose to treatment failure, events included disease progression, treatment withdrawal or death. Data cutoff was September 24 2021, when all patients had been on study for at least 2 years. Results: In phase 1, no DLT occurred in the 6 DLT-evaluable patients. The maximum tolerated dose of brentuximab vedotin was not reached and 48 mg/m2 was determined to be the recommended dose. All 59 patients in phase 1 and 2 completed 6 cycles of A+AVD and all experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common any-grade TEAEs were vomiting (85%), nausea (75%), and neutropenia (58%). In total, 14/59 patients (24%) developed treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN); 10 patients had PN resolved by end of treatment (EOT); by last contact, 13 patients had resolved PN and one patient had grade 1 paraesthesia. No patients died on study. The PET-negative rate (Deauville 1, 2, or 3) after cycle 2 was 90%. Objective response rate ([ORR], defined as complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] per independent review facility [IRF] at EOT) was 88%, and 76% of patients achieved a CR. Median duration of response and duration of CR were not estimable. Median PFS and EFS had not been reached, suggesting encouraging efficacy of the combination in this pediatric patient population. Additional PFS, EFS and overall survival data will be presented during the meeting. Conclusions: Brentuximab vedotin given at 48 mg/m2 every two weeks in combination with AVD had an acceptable safety profile and was associated with an efficacy benefit in CD30+, treatment-naïve pediatric patients with advanced cHL, supporting A+AVD as a frontline treatment option for this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT02979522.

Abstract P5-13-08: Identification of PD-L1+ status as a candidate predictive biomarker of response to talazoparib (TALA) in the phase 3 EMBRACA study

Abstract Background: Loss-of-function mutations in genes encoding components of the homologous recombination DNA damage response (DDR) machinery, notably BRCA1/2, are associated with tumor sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). In EMBRACA, the PARPi TALA improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR [95% CI] 0.54 [0.41-0.71], P&amp;lt;0.001) vs chemotherapy (CT) in germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) HER2− advanced breast cancer. BRCA1/2 deficiency is associated with elevated PD-L1 expression in ovarian cancers, and PARP inhibition has been associated with PD-L1 upregulation in nonclinical models (Stewart et al, Cancer Res 2018;78:6717-25). Little is known about the potential for PD-L1 expression to modulate sensitivity to PARPi monotherapy in the clinic. Recently, a neoadjuvant study of olaparib in unselected, primary triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), demonstrated a significant correlation between PD-L1 expression (using the 22C3 antibody) and response to olaparib (Eikesdal et al, Ann Oncol 2021;32:240-9). In contrast, this EMBRACA analysis assessed the contribution of PD-L1 status to TALA sensitivity in a uniformly gBRCAm patient (pt) population. Methods: Available baseline tumor tissue blocks from 120 of 431 EMBRACA pts (28% of intent-to-treat) were sectioned and slides immunostained using SP142/Ventana anti-PD-L1 at HistoGeneX (Naperville, Illinois). PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) status was assessed as the proportion of tumor area occupied by PD-L1 stained immune cells (IC) of any intensity, with ≥1% defined as PD-L1+. The overall response rate (ORR), defined as unconfirmed complete or partial response (CR/PR), was assessed by investigators. PFS was assessed by an Independent Review Facility. Results: 92/120 (77%) tumors were evaluable for PD-L1 IHC status. Of these 92 evaluable tumors, 9/36 (25%) TNBC and 15/56 (27%) hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors were PD-L1+ (24/92, 26% combined TNBC and HR+). In the TALA arm, the ORR was similar for PD-L1+ and PD-L1− tumors for TNBC pts: 2/5 (40%) and 6/19 (32%), respectively. In contrast, the ORR was higher for PD-L1+ vs PD-L1− tumors for HR+ pts: 11/12 (92%) vs 12/31 (39%), exact P value=0.002 (for combined TNBC and HR+, 13/17 [76%] vs 18/50 [36%], P=0.005). For the CT arm, the limited numbers evaluable for both PD-L1 and response (n=25 total), with only one response, precluded similar analysis. Based on the imbalanced results in ORR according to PD-L1 status in pts with HR+ disease, Cox regression analysis was used to explore potential associations of PD-L1 status with PFS. In the TALA arm, median PFS was similar for TNBC independent of PD-L1 status (6.3 mo and 7.0 mo, respectively; HR [95% CI] 1.207 [0.371-3.929]). Median PFS was numerically longer for PD-L1+ vs PD-L1− for HR+ tumors; this difference was not significant (20.2 mo vs 9.2 mo; HR [95% CI] 1.154 [0.395-3.367]). In the CT arm, PD-L1 status was not associated with PFS, although the PD-L1 subgroups were small (For HR+: PD-L1+, n=3; PD-L1−, n=10). Conclusions: Based on these exploratory, retrospective subgroup analyses, PD-L1 positivity by SP142/Ventana was lower in EMBRACA than previously reported in TNBC using the same scoring algorithm: 24/92 (26%) vs 369/902 (41%) in IMpassion130 (Schmid et al, Lancet Oncol 2020;21:44-59). PD-L1+ status was associated with higher ORR in HR+ EMBRACA pts receiving TALA. Interestingly, the enhanced responsiveness for PD-L1+ was not associated with improved PFS, although this assessment is complicated by low pt numbers. Further research is warranted to explore the relationship between baseline tumor PD-L1 status and sensitivity to PARPi, particularly in light of ongoing clinical studies evaluating combinations of immunotherapy and PARPi. Citation Format: Hope S. Rugo, Joanne L. Blum, A. Douglas Laird, Sara A. Hurvitz, Johannes Ettl, Lida A. Mina, Kyung-Hun Lee, Anthony Gonçalves, Rinat Yerushalmi, Young-Hyuck Im, Miguel Martin, Louis Fehrenbacher, Henri H. Roché, Ying Chen, Silvana Lanzalone, Jijumon Chelliserry, Wolfgang Eiermann, Jennifer K. Litton. Identification of PD-L1+ status as a candidate predictive biomarker of response to talazoparib (TALA) in the phase 3 EMBRACA study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-08.

Mosunetuzumab Monotherapy Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment Option for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Who Have Received ≥2 Prior Lines of Therapy: Pivotal Results from a Phase I/II Study

Mosunetuzumab Monotherapy Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment Option for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Who Have Received ≥2 Prior Lines of Therapy: Pivotal Results from a Phase I/II Study

Randomized phase 3 ALCANZA study of brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: final data

AbstractThe primary analysis of the phase 3 ALCANZA trial showed significantly improved objective responses lasting ≥4 months (ORR4; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS) with brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice (methotrexate or bexarotene) in CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (C-ALCL). Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas often cause pruritus and pain; brentuximab vedotin improved skin symptom burden with no negative effects on quality of life. We report final data from ALCANZA (median follow-up, 45.9 months). Adults with previously treated CD30-expressing MF/C-ALCL were randomly assigned to brentuximab vedotin (n = 64) or physician's choice (n = 64). Final data demonstrated improved responses per independent review facility with brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice: ORR4; 54.7% vs 12.5% (P < .001); complete response, 17.2% vs 1.6% (P = .002). Median PFS with brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice was 16.7 months vs 3.5 months (P < .001). Median time to the next treatment was significantly longer with brentuximab vedotin than with physician's choice (14.2 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.42; P < .001). Of 44 patients in the brentuximab vedotin arm who experienced any-grade peripheral neuropathy, (grade 3, n = 6; grade 4, n = 0), 86% (38 of 44) had complete resolution (26 of 44) or improvement to grades 1 and 2 (12 of 44). Peripheral neuropathy was ongoing in 18 patients (all grades 1-2). These final analyses confirm improved, clinically meaningful, durable responses and longer PFS with brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice in CD30-expressing MF or C-ALCL. This trial was registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01578499.

Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST) in Treatment-Naive Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Initial Results of the Phase 2 ALK-Positive Cohort

IntroductionThe Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort. MethodsPatients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response. ResultsIn total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6–18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5–93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1–96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6–88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9–98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1–87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib. ConclusionsThese results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC.

Abstract CT009: IMbrave150: Updated efficacy and safety by risk status in patients (pts) receiving atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs sorafenib (sor) as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Abstract Background: Based on the Ph III IMbrave150 trial, atezo + bev has been approved globally and is the standard of care for pts with unresectable HCC who have not received prior systemic therapy. With an additional 12 mo of follow-up from the primary analysis (median, 15.6 mo), atezo + bev showed consistent clinically meaningful treatment benefit and safety (Finn ASCO GI 2021). Here, we report results of updated analyses considering high-risk factors. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive atezo 1200 mg IV q3w + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w or sor 400 mg PO BID until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. High-risk pts were defined as those who had tumor invasion of the main trunk of the portal vein and/or the portal vein branch contralateral to the primarily involved lobe (Vp4), and/or bile duct invasion and/or tumor occupancy of ≥ 50% of liver. Results: In the ITT population, 64 (19%) pts randomized to atezo + bev and 37 (22%) pts randomized to sor were defined as high risk. 10 pts had bile duct invasion, 73 had Vp4 portal vein invasion and 31 had liver tumor occupancy of ≥ 50%. 9 pts in the atezo + bev arm and 4 pts in the sor arm had 2 high-risk factors. OS, PFS and ORR all favored atezo + bev over sor, in both non-high-risk and high-risk patients. See table for efficacy results. In safety-evaluable pts, Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 122 (45%) of 269 non-high-risk and 21 (35%) of 60 high-risk atezo + bev pts. Grade 5 TRAEs occurred in 5 (2%) non-high-risk and 1 (2%) high-risk atezo + bev pt. Conclusions: Efficacy benefit was seen with atezo + bev vs sor regardless of the presence of high-risk features. HRs remained similar despite the numerical differences in median OS between non-high-risk and high-risk pts. Further, the overall safety data in the atezo + bev arm were comparable between non-high-risk and high-risk pts and in line with the known safety profile of each drug. Non-High RiskHigh RiskITTAtezo + BevSorAtezo + BevSorAtezo + BevSorEvaluable for OS/PFS, n2721286437336165Median OS (95% CI), mo22.8 (19.1, 24.9)15.7 (13.2, 19.0)7.6 (6.6, 12.8)5.5 (4.1, 6.7)19.2 (17.0, 23.7)13.4 (11.4, 16.9)HR (95% CI)0.68 (0.51, 0.91)0.62 (0.39, 1.00)0.66 (0.52, 0.85)Median PFS (95% CI), moa7.2 (6.5, 9.6)4.4 (4.0, 5.8)5.4 (4.0, 6.9)2.8 (2.5, 5.3)6.9 (5.7, 8.6)4.3 (4.0, 5.6)HR (95% CI)0.61 (0.48, 0.78)0.74 (0.47, 1.17)0.65 (0.53, 0.81)Evaluable for ORR, n2631246335326159Confirmed ORR, n (%)a,b81 (31)13 (10)16 (25)5 (14)97 (30)18 (11)Complete response, n (%)a20 (8)05 (8)1 (3)25 (8)1 (1)Median DOR (95% CI), moa,c19.0 (14.6, NE)12.6 (4.9, 17.0)16.3 (13.5, NE)16.5 (3.9, NE)18.1 (14.6, NE)14.9 (4.9, 17.0)NCT03434379.Clinical cutoff date: Aug 31, 2020.DOR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; IRF, independent review facility; NE, not estimable; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.aAssessed by an IRF per RECIST 1.1.bORR IRF RECIST 1.1-evaluable population was based on patients who presented with measurable disease at baseline.cDOR analysis was based on all confirmed responders. Citation Format: Richard S. Finn, Shukui Qin, Masafumi Ikeda, Peter R. Galle, Michel Ducreux, Tae-You Kim, Masatoshi Kudo, Ho Yeong Lim, Valeriy Breder, Philippe Merle, Ahmed Kaseb, Daneng Li, Yin-Hsun Feng, Wendy Verret, Alan Nicholas, Lindong Li, Ning Ma, Andrew X. Zhu, Ann-Lii Cheng. IMbrave150: Updated efficacy and safety by risk status in patients (pts) receiving atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs sorafenib (sor) as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT009.

Abstract CT185: Assessment of the impact of anti-drug antibodies on PK and clinical outcomes with atezolizumab + bevacizumab in HCC

Abstract Background: Atezo + bev is the standard of care for pts with unresectable HCC and no prior systemic therapy. We report on post hoc exploratory analyses of the immune response to atezo and the impact assessment of ADAs on PK and clinical outcomes in the Ph 3 study IMbrave150. Methods: ADAs were assessed using an industry-standard validated test and sampling frequencies. We report tx-emergent ADA incidence and adjusted efficacy by ADA status at landmark Wk 6, adjusted for imbalances in BL health and disease characteristics using IPW. PK and safety by ADA status were also evaluated. Results: An assessment of BL characteristics in ADA+ (n=94) vs ADA− (n=224) pts showed a higher rate of negative HCC prognostic factors, including CPS A6, BCLC Stage C and MVI in ADA+ pts. ADA− pts had a higher rate of EHS. There was considerable overlap in exposure distributions across ADA+ and ADA− pts. Despite the trend for a 38.4% lower Cycle 1 Cmin in ADA+ vs ADA− pts, at any time during tx, 93% of ADA+ and 99% of ADA− pts had Cmin ≥6 μg/mL (target exposure). Per OS adjustment modeling analyses: HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.62-1.48) for ADA+ (n=61.7) and HR=0.55 (95% CI 0.41-0.74) for ADA− pts (n=242.3) with atezo + bev vs sor. Adjusted PFS and ORR results were similar between ADA subgroups (table). Among ADA+ (n=88) and ADA− pts (n=227), G3-4 AEs occurred in 64% and 53% of pts, G5 AEs in 8% and 3% of pts and SAEs in 52% and 32% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Most pts achieved atezo target exposure regardless of ADAs. ADA+ pts had a similar OS while ADA− pts had improved OS with atezo + bev vs sor. PFS and ORR benefits vs sor were clinically meaningful and similar between ADA subgroups. While there were some numerical differences in AE rates between ADA+ and ADA− pts, ADAs did not have a clinically significant effect on the incidence or severity of AEs. In ITT pts, a statistically significant OS benefit and overall favorable benefit-risk balance with atezo + bev have been established in HCC, and the combination has been approved in over 60 countries. PFS- and ORR-adjusted analyses at landmark Wk 6ADA+ADA−IRF PFS per RECIST 1.1n51223HR (95% CI) for atezo + bev vs sor0.59 (0.39-0.91)0.60 (0.47-0.77)IRF ORR per RECIST 1.1n61.7232.3ORR difference for atezo + bev vs sor (95% CI), %19 (6-32)19 (10-28)318 pts were evaluable post BL and therefore were included in these analyses. Efficacy data cutoff: Aug 31, 2020. Safety data cutoff: Aug 29, 2019. Methods and results from IMbrave150 (Ph 3; NCT03434379) have been published (Finn et al NEJM 2020). ADA, anti-drug antibody; AE, adverse event; atezo, atezolizumab; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; bev, bevacizumab; BL, baseline; Cmin, minimum blood plasma concentration; CPS, Child-Pugh score; EHS, extrahepatic spread; G, grade; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IPW, inverse probability weighting; IRF, independent review facility; ITT, intent to treat; MVI, macrovascular invasion; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; Ph, Phase; PK, pharmacokinetic; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; SAE, serious adverse event; sor, sorafenib; tx, treatment. Citation Format: Peter R. Galle, Richard S. Finn, Ann-Lii Cheng, Coen Bernaards, Colby S. Shemesh, Alexandr Vilimovskij, Wendy J. Verret, Sven F. Stanzel, Ning Ma, Michel Ducreux, Andrew X. Zhu. Assessment of the impact of anti-drug antibodies on PK and clinical outcomes with atezolizumab + bevacizumab in HCC [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT185.

Brentuximab Vedotin Plus Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Dacarbazine (A+AVD) As Frontline Therapy Demonstrates Superior Modified Progression-Free Survival Versus ABVD in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage III or IV Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL): The Phase 3 Echelon-1 Study

Brentuximab Vedotin Plus Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Dacarbazine (A+AVD) As Frontline Therapy Demonstrates Superior Modified Progression-Free Survival Versus ABVD in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage III or IV Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL): The Phase 3 Echelon-1 Study

Updated Analyses of the International, Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 3 Alcanza Study: Longer-Term Evidence for Superiority of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Methotrexate or Bexarotene for CD30-Positive Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)

Updated Analyses of the International, Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 3 Alcanza Study: Longer-Term Evidence for Superiority of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Methotrexate or Bexarotene for CD30-Positive Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)

Older patients (aged ≥60 years) with previously untreated advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a detailed analysis from the phase III ECHELON-1 study.

Effective and tolerable treatments are needed for older patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. We report results for older patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated in the large phase III ECHELON-1 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). Modified progression-free survival per independent review facility for older versus younger patients (aged ≥60 vs. <60 years) was a pre-specified subgroup analysis; as the ECHELON- 1 study was not powered for these analyses, reported P-values are descriptive. Of 1,334 enrolled patients, 186 (14%) were aged ≥60 years (A+AVD: n=84, ABVD: n=102); results below refer to this age group. Modified progression-free survival per independent review facility was similar in the two arms at 24 months (A+AVD: 70.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 58.4–79.4], ABVD: 71.4% [95% CI: 60.5–79.8], hazard ratio (HR)=1.00 [95% CI: 0.58–1.72], P=0.993). After a median follow-up of 60.9 months, 5-year progression-free survival per investigator was 67.1% with A+AVD versus 61.6% with ABVD (HR=0.820 [95% CI: 0.494–1.362], P=0.443). Comparing A+AVD versus ABVD, grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18% versus 3%; any-grade febrile neutropenia in 37% versus 17%; and any-grade pulmonary toxicity in 2% versus 13%, respectively, with three (3%) pulmonary toxicity-related deaths in patients receiving ABVD (none in those receiving A+AVD). Altogether, A+AVD showed overall similar efficacy to ABVD with survival rates in both arms comparing favorably to those of prior series in older patients with advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Compared to ABVD, A+AVD was associated with higher rates of neuropathy and neutropenia, but lower rates of pulmonary-related toxicity. Trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01712490; EudraCT number: 2011-005450-60.