User login
Case report: Lung cancer shrinks in patient using CBD oil
A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.
The patient was an 80-year-old woman.
At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.
The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.
After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.
It was taken orally about two to three times a day.
Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.
“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.
“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.
The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.
Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.
“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”
He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”
Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.
“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.
Patient declined recommended treatment
The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.
After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.
A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.
The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.
The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.
Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.
“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.
The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.
“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”
The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.
“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.
The patient was an 80-year-old woman.
At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.
The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.
After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.
It was taken orally about two to three times a day.
Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.
“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.
“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.
The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.
Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.
“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”
He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”
Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.
“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.
Patient declined recommended treatment
The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.
After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.
A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.
The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.
The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.
Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.
“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.
The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.
“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”
The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.
“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.
The patient was an 80-year-old woman.
At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.
The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.
After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.
It was taken orally about two to three times a day.
Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.
“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.
“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.
The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.
Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.
“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”
He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”
Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.
“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.
Patient declined recommended treatment
The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.
After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.
A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.
The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.
The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.
Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.
“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.
The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.
“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”
The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.
“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-Stage NSCLC Highlights From ESMO 2021
Benjamin Cooper, MD, director of Proton Therapy services at NYU Langone Health, shares key findings from early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials presented at the 2021 ESMO Congress.
Dr Cooper begins with the LungART trial, which evaluated whether postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) would benefit patients with completely resected NSCLC and mediastinal N2 involvement. Use of PORT reduced the risk of mediastinal relapse but did not show significant impact on disease-free survival (DFS).
Next, he turns to findings from the COAST trial, which compared durvalumab monotherapy, durvalumab plus oleclumab, and durvalumab plus monalizumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. Both combination regimens increased the objective response rate and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs durvalumab alone.
Dr Cooper also reviews sites of disease relapse and post-relapse treatment from IMpower010, which evaluated atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Similar patterns of relapse were seen across study arms, but patients with PD-L1 levels of 50% or higher experienced greatest DFS benefits.
Lastly, Dr Cooper highlights GEMSTONE-301, which tested the novel anti-PD-L1 drug sugemalimab in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC who did not progress after concurrent or sequential radiotherapy. There was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS improvement in patients receiving sugemalimab compared to placebo.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Benjamin Cooper, MD, director of Proton Therapy services at NYU Langone Health, shares key findings from early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials presented at the 2021 ESMO Congress.
Dr Cooper begins with the LungART trial, which evaluated whether postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) would benefit patients with completely resected NSCLC and mediastinal N2 involvement. Use of PORT reduced the risk of mediastinal relapse but did not show significant impact on disease-free survival (DFS).
Next, he turns to findings from the COAST trial, which compared durvalumab monotherapy, durvalumab plus oleclumab, and durvalumab plus monalizumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. Both combination regimens increased the objective response rate and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs durvalumab alone.
Dr Cooper also reviews sites of disease relapse and post-relapse treatment from IMpower010, which evaluated atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Similar patterns of relapse were seen across study arms, but patients with PD-L1 levels of 50% or higher experienced greatest DFS benefits.
Lastly, Dr Cooper highlights GEMSTONE-301, which tested the novel anti-PD-L1 drug sugemalimab in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC who did not progress after concurrent or sequential radiotherapy. There was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS improvement in patients receiving sugemalimab compared to placebo.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Benjamin Cooper, MD, director of Proton Therapy services at NYU Langone Health, shares key findings from early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials presented at the 2021 ESMO Congress.
Dr Cooper begins with the LungART trial, which evaluated whether postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) would benefit patients with completely resected NSCLC and mediastinal N2 involvement. Use of PORT reduced the risk of mediastinal relapse but did not show significant impact on disease-free survival (DFS).
Next, he turns to findings from the COAST trial, which compared durvalumab monotherapy, durvalumab plus oleclumab, and durvalumab plus monalizumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. Both combination regimens increased the objective response rate and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs durvalumab alone.
Dr Cooper also reviews sites of disease relapse and post-relapse treatment from IMpower010, which evaluated atezolizumab versus best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Similar patterns of relapse were seen across study arms, but patients with PD-L1 levels of 50% or higher experienced greatest DFS benefits.
Lastly, Dr Cooper highlights GEMSTONE-301, which tested the novel anti-PD-L1 drug sugemalimab in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC who did not progress after concurrent or sequential radiotherapy. There was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS improvement in patients receiving sugemalimab compared to placebo.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Many patients, doctors unaware of advancements in cancer care
This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.
When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.
Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.
“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.
After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”
Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.
Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.
He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.
“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.
That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.
For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
Findings from the patient survey
It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.
“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients
The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.
The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.
Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”
Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.
“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.
A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.
“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.
Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
Results of the doctor survey
The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.
Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).
Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.
Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.
Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.
However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.
“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.
When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.
Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.
“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.
After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”
Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.
Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.
He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.
“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.
That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.
For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
Findings from the patient survey
It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.
“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients
The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.
The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.
Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”
Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.
“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.
A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.
“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.
Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
Results of the doctor survey
The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.
Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).
Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.
Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.
Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.
However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.
“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.
When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.
Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.
“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.
After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”
Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.
Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.
He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.
“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.
That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.
For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
Findings from the patient survey
It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.
“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients
The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.
The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.
Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”
Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.
“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.
A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.
“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.
Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
Results of the doctor survey
The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.
Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).
Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.
Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.
Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.
However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.
“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Unprecedented’ 3-year sustained survival with lung cancer combo treatment
The durable overall survival (OS) benefit and the well-tolerated safety profile of the durvalumab with EP therapy further establishes the combination as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC, Luis Paz-Ares, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA61).
At 3 years, there is more than three times the survival in patients with durvalumab and EP versus EP, and at the same time, the adverse-event profile continues to be favorable,” said Dr. Paz-Ares of Universidad Complutense & Ciberonc, Madrid.
This is the longest follow-up reported to date for a phase 3 trial of a programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor and EP in this setting, he said.
The CASPIAN trial included 805 treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1,500 mg of durvalumab with EP every 3 weeks, 1,500 mg of durvalumab at 75 mg of tremelimumab and EP every 3 weeks, or EP alone. Patients in the durvalumab arms received four cycles of treatment followed by maintenance durvalumab, and those in the EP-only arm received up to six cycles of EP.
Primary outcomes data from the trial showed a significant overall survival benefit with durvalumab and EP versus EP alone (hazard ratio, 0.73), as did a subsequent analysis after a median follow-up of 25.1 mo (HR, 0.75).
Durvalumab with tremelimumab and EP numerically improved overall survival versus EP (HR, 0.82), but did not reach statistical significance.
At median follow up of 39.4 months, the durvalumab and EP combination showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus EP alone (HR, 0.71).
Median overall survival was 12.9 versus 10.5 months. OS was 22.9% versus 13.9% at 24 months, and 17.6% versus 5.8% at 36 months with durvalumab with EP versus EP, respectively, Dr. Paz-Ares said.
Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve overall survival, compared with EP alone (HR, 0.81); median OS in that arm was 10.4 months, and 15.3% of patients were alive at 36 months, he noted.
Serious adverse events occurred in 32.5%, 47.4%, and 36.5% of patients in the durvalumab with EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, and EP arms respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 5.3%, 10.9%, and 6.0%, respectively.
The findings are “really encouraging and unprecedented, frankly,” said session chair Alfredo Addeo, MD, of University Hospital, Geneva.
“They are setting the bar for competitors,” he said, referencing the IMpower 133 trial looking at atezolizumab with chemotherapy in ES-SCLC.
The CASPIAN study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.
The durable overall survival (OS) benefit and the well-tolerated safety profile of the durvalumab with EP therapy further establishes the combination as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC, Luis Paz-Ares, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA61).
At 3 years, there is more than three times the survival in patients with durvalumab and EP versus EP, and at the same time, the adverse-event profile continues to be favorable,” said Dr. Paz-Ares of Universidad Complutense & Ciberonc, Madrid.
This is the longest follow-up reported to date for a phase 3 trial of a programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor and EP in this setting, he said.
The CASPIAN trial included 805 treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1,500 mg of durvalumab with EP every 3 weeks, 1,500 mg of durvalumab at 75 mg of tremelimumab and EP every 3 weeks, or EP alone. Patients in the durvalumab arms received four cycles of treatment followed by maintenance durvalumab, and those in the EP-only arm received up to six cycles of EP.
Primary outcomes data from the trial showed a significant overall survival benefit with durvalumab and EP versus EP alone (hazard ratio, 0.73), as did a subsequent analysis after a median follow-up of 25.1 mo (HR, 0.75).
Durvalumab with tremelimumab and EP numerically improved overall survival versus EP (HR, 0.82), but did not reach statistical significance.
At median follow up of 39.4 months, the durvalumab and EP combination showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus EP alone (HR, 0.71).
Median overall survival was 12.9 versus 10.5 months. OS was 22.9% versus 13.9% at 24 months, and 17.6% versus 5.8% at 36 months with durvalumab with EP versus EP, respectively, Dr. Paz-Ares said.
Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve overall survival, compared with EP alone (HR, 0.81); median OS in that arm was 10.4 months, and 15.3% of patients were alive at 36 months, he noted.
Serious adverse events occurred in 32.5%, 47.4%, and 36.5% of patients in the durvalumab with EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, and EP arms respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 5.3%, 10.9%, and 6.0%, respectively.
The findings are “really encouraging and unprecedented, frankly,” said session chair Alfredo Addeo, MD, of University Hospital, Geneva.
“They are setting the bar for competitors,” he said, referencing the IMpower 133 trial looking at atezolizumab with chemotherapy in ES-SCLC.
The CASPIAN study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.
The durable overall survival (OS) benefit and the well-tolerated safety profile of the durvalumab with EP therapy further establishes the combination as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC, Luis Paz-Ares, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA61).
At 3 years, there is more than three times the survival in patients with durvalumab and EP versus EP, and at the same time, the adverse-event profile continues to be favorable,” said Dr. Paz-Ares of Universidad Complutense & Ciberonc, Madrid.
This is the longest follow-up reported to date for a phase 3 trial of a programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor and EP in this setting, he said.
The CASPIAN trial included 805 treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1,500 mg of durvalumab with EP every 3 weeks, 1,500 mg of durvalumab at 75 mg of tremelimumab and EP every 3 weeks, or EP alone. Patients in the durvalumab arms received four cycles of treatment followed by maintenance durvalumab, and those in the EP-only arm received up to six cycles of EP.
Primary outcomes data from the trial showed a significant overall survival benefit with durvalumab and EP versus EP alone (hazard ratio, 0.73), as did a subsequent analysis after a median follow-up of 25.1 mo (HR, 0.75).
Durvalumab with tremelimumab and EP numerically improved overall survival versus EP (HR, 0.82), but did not reach statistical significance.
At median follow up of 39.4 months, the durvalumab and EP combination showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus EP alone (HR, 0.71).
Median overall survival was 12.9 versus 10.5 months. OS was 22.9% versus 13.9% at 24 months, and 17.6% versus 5.8% at 36 months with durvalumab with EP versus EP, respectively, Dr. Paz-Ares said.
Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP continued to numerically improve overall survival, compared with EP alone (HR, 0.81); median OS in that arm was 10.4 months, and 15.3% of patients were alive at 36 months, he noted.
Serious adverse events occurred in 32.5%, 47.4%, and 36.5% of patients in the durvalumab with EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP, and EP arms respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in 5.3%, 10.9%, and 6.0%, respectively.
The findings are “really encouraging and unprecedented, frankly,” said session chair Alfredo Addeo, MD, of University Hospital, Geneva.
“They are setting the bar for competitors,” he said, referencing the IMpower 133 trial looking at atezolizumab with chemotherapy in ES-SCLC.
The CASPIAN study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ESMO 2021
Use of Biomarkers to Optimize Treatment of NSCLC
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Director of Proton Therapy at NYU Langone Health, discusses how physicians who treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can use genetic profiling results to select effective therapy. Although the current list of therapies is not applicable to all genetic mutations, there are approved treatments for several biomarkers and agents targeting other biomarkers are in clinical trials.
Dr. Cooper explains that biomarkers in NSCLC either boost the immune system’s capability to destroy oncogenes or they block driver and escape mutations that advance disease.
Immunotherapies that target either PD-1 or PD-L1 are now mainstays of NSCLC treatment. To gauge whether these therapies have potential effectiveness for a given patient, oncologists test for the presence of PD-L1 in the tumor. Higher expression of PD-L1 indicates stronger potential response to therapy.
Dr. Cooper then turns to a discussion of oncogenic driver mutations, focusing on EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, RET, MET, KRAS, and HER2. Although there are hundreds of oncogenic driver mutations, not all are currently actionable. Effective therapy options have been available for EGFR, ALK, and BRAF for more than a decade, and treatments for other drivers such as NTRK, MET, KRAS, and HER2 have shown promising results in recent trials.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD is an Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine,
New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Director of Proton Therapy at NYU Langone Health, discusses how physicians who treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can use genetic profiling results to select effective therapy. Although the current list of therapies is not applicable to all genetic mutations, there are approved treatments for several biomarkers and agents targeting other biomarkers are in clinical trials.
Dr. Cooper explains that biomarkers in NSCLC either boost the immune system’s capability to destroy oncogenes or they block driver and escape mutations that advance disease.
Immunotherapies that target either PD-1 or PD-L1 are now mainstays of NSCLC treatment. To gauge whether these therapies have potential effectiveness for a given patient, oncologists test for the presence of PD-L1 in the tumor. Higher expression of PD-L1 indicates stronger potential response to therapy.
Dr. Cooper then turns to a discussion of oncogenic driver mutations, focusing on EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, RET, MET, KRAS, and HER2. Although there are hundreds of oncogenic driver mutations, not all are currently actionable. Effective therapy options have been available for EGFR, ALK, and BRAF for more than a decade, and treatments for other drivers such as NTRK, MET, KRAS, and HER2 have shown promising results in recent trials.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD is an Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine,
New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Benjamin Cooper, MD, Director of Proton Therapy at NYU Langone Health, discusses how physicians who treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can use genetic profiling results to select effective therapy. Although the current list of therapies is not applicable to all genetic mutations, there are approved treatments for several biomarkers and agents targeting other biomarkers are in clinical trials.
Dr. Cooper explains that biomarkers in NSCLC either boost the immune system’s capability to destroy oncogenes or they block driver and escape mutations that advance disease.
Immunotherapies that target either PD-1 or PD-L1 are now mainstays of NSCLC treatment. To gauge whether these therapies have potential effectiveness for a given patient, oncologists test for the presence of PD-L1 in the tumor. Higher expression of PD-L1 indicates stronger potential response to therapy.
Dr. Cooper then turns to a discussion of oncogenic driver mutations, focusing on EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, RET, MET, KRAS, and HER2. Although there are hundreds of oncogenic driver mutations, not all are currently actionable. Effective therapy options have been available for EGFR, ALK, and BRAF for more than a decade, and treatments for other drivers such as NTRK, MET, KRAS, and HER2 have shown promising results in recent trials.
--
Benjamin Cooper, MD is an Assistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director, Proton Therapy Services, NYU Grossman School of Medicine,
New York, New York
Benjamin Cooper, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca.
Response to preop immunotherapy predicts survival in early NSCLC
Although major pathological response after neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been shown to predict survival in patients with early-stage NSCLC, this is the first time a similar association has been demonstrated with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition, Marie Wislez, MD, PhD, a researcher at Hopital Cochin, Paris, reported at the 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.
Primary outcomes of the multicenter trial showed 12- and 18-month OS of 89.1%, and 12- and 18-month DFS of 78.3% and 73.7%, respectively, in 46 patients treated with preoperative durvalumab. Median OS and DFS were not reached.
Major pathological response was observed in eight patients (18.6%), with three patients experiencing complete pathological response. No deaths or recurrences were observed in patients in this group. A significant association was observed between major pathological response and DFS. However, the study was stopped early because of excessive 90-day postoperative mortality, which the authors said were most likely related to comorbidities.
The current post hoc analysis of data from the study showed poorer overall survival and disease-free survival with increasing percentage of residual viable tumor (RVT) cells on multivariate prognostic analysis (hazard ratio, 1.05 and 1.06; P = .04 and .02, respectively), Dr. Wislez said in her presentation made on Sept. 18 (abstract 1151MO).
“For each 10% increase of RVT, you have an increased risk of death of 64% and increased risk of recurrence of 71%,” she said.
Study subjects, who were enrolled between April 2017 and August 2019, had a median age of 61 years, 67.4% were men, 98% were smokers or former smokes, and all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-1. The median percentage of RVT cells was 36.11.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, 46 were eligible for and received durvalumab and 43 underwent surgery. Those with stages IB and 4 cm or greater tumor size to stage IIIA non-N2 NSCLC received three cycles of durvalumab before surgery. Durvalumab was given intravenously at a dose of 750 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, and surgery was performed 2-14 days after the last infusion.
Tissue specimens from patients who underwent neoadjuvant durvalumab and complete surgical resection were retrospectively evaluated by two pathologists blinded to patient outcomes, Dr. Wislez noted.
Session chair Michael Thomas, MD, of Thoraxklinik-Heidelberg at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital, described the study as “hypotheses generating,” and noted that it suggests incremental step-wise assessment of pathological response could be an additional tool for subgrouping of patients in upcoming trials.
Indeed, this novel finding suggests that the extent of pathological response could be considered as a surrogate marker for neoadjuvant treatment trials, although the use of a continuous variable would be challenging in the trial setting, Dr. Wislez agreed.
“But it’s a demonstration that [with] immunotherapy monotherapy ... the extent of pathological response is associated with overall survival,” she said.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Wislez reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, and MSD.
Although major pathological response after neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been shown to predict survival in patients with early-stage NSCLC, this is the first time a similar association has been demonstrated with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition, Marie Wislez, MD, PhD, a researcher at Hopital Cochin, Paris, reported at the 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.
Primary outcomes of the multicenter trial showed 12- and 18-month OS of 89.1%, and 12- and 18-month DFS of 78.3% and 73.7%, respectively, in 46 patients treated with preoperative durvalumab. Median OS and DFS were not reached.
Major pathological response was observed in eight patients (18.6%), with three patients experiencing complete pathological response. No deaths or recurrences were observed in patients in this group. A significant association was observed between major pathological response and DFS. However, the study was stopped early because of excessive 90-day postoperative mortality, which the authors said were most likely related to comorbidities.
The current post hoc analysis of data from the study showed poorer overall survival and disease-free survival with increasing percentage of residual viable tumor (RVT) cells on multivariate prognostic analysis (hazard ratio, 1.05 and 1.06; P = .04 and .02, respectively), Dr. Wislez said in her presentation made on Sept. 18 (abstract 1151MO).
“For each 10% increase of RVT, you have an increased risk of death of 64% and increased risk of recurrence of 71%,” she said.
Study subjects, who were enrolled between April 2017 and August 2019, had a median age of 61 years, 67.4% were men, 98% were smokers or former smokes, and all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-1. The median percentage of RVT cells was 36.11.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, 46 were eligible for and received durvalumab and 43 underwent surgery. Those with stages IB and 4 cm or greater tumor size to stage IIIA non-N2 NSCLC received three cycles of durvalumab before surgery. Durvalumab was given intravenously at a dose of 750 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, and surgery was performed 2-14 days after the last infusion.
Tissue specimens from patients who underwent neoadjuvant durvalumab and complete surgical resection were retrospectively evaluated by two pathologists blinded to patient outcomes, Dr. Wislez noted.
Session chair Michael Thomas, MD, of Thoraxklinik-Heidelberg at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital, described the study as “hypotheses generating,” and noted that it suggests incremental step-wise assessment of pathological response could be an additional tool for subgrouping of patients in upcoming trials.
Indeed, this novel finding suggests that the extent of pathological response could be considered as a surrogate marker for neoadjuvant treatment trials, although the use of a continuous variable would be challenging in the trial setting, Dr. Wislez agreed.
“But it’s a demonstration that [with] immunotherapy monotherapy ... the extent of pathological response is associated with overall survival,” she said.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Wislez reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, and MSD.
Although major pathological response after neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy has been shown to predict survival in patients with early-stage NSCLC, this is the first time a similar association has been demonstrated with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition, Marie Wislez, MD, PhD, a researcher at Hopital Cochin, Paris, reported at the 2021 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress.
Primary outcomes of the multicenter trial showed 12- and 18-month OS of 89.1%, and 12- and 18-month DFS of 78.3% and 73.7%, respectively, in 46 patients treated with preoperative durvalumab. Median OS and DFS were not reached.
Major pathological response was observed in eight patients (18.6%), with three patients experiencing complete pathological response. No deaths or recurrences were observed in patients in this group. A significant association was observed between major pathological response and DFS. However, the study was stopped early because of excessive 90-day postoperative mortality, which the authors said were most likely related to comorbidities.
The current post hoc analysis of data from the study showed poorer overall survival and disease-free survival with increasing percentage of residual viable tumor (RVT) cells on multivariate prognostic analysis (hazard ratio, 1.05 and 1.06; P = .04 and .02, respectively), Dr. Wislez said in her presentation made on Sept. 18 (abstract 1151MO).
“For each 10% increase of RVT, you have an increased risk of death of 64% and increased risk of recurrence of 71%,” she said.
Study subjects, who were enrolled between April 2017 and August 2019, had a median age of 61 years, 67.4% were men, 98% were smokers or former smokes, and all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 0-1. The median percentage of RVT cells was 36.11.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, 46 were eligible for and received durvalumab and 43 underwent surgery. Those with stages IB and 4 cm or greater tumor size to stage IIIA non-N2 NSCLC received three cycles of durvalumab before surgery. Durvalumab was given intravenously at a dose of 750 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, and surgery was performed 2-14 days after the last infusion.
Tissue specimens from patients who underwent neoadjuvant durvalumab and complete surgical resection were retrospectively evaluated by two pathologists blinded to patient outcomes, Dr. Wislez noted.
Session chair Michael Thomas, MD, of Thoraxklinik-Heidelberg at Heidelberg (Germany) University Hospital, described the study as “hypotheses generating,” and noted that it suggests incremental step-wise assessment of pathological response could be an additional tool for subgrouping of patients in upcoming trials.
Indeed, this novel finding suggests that the extent of pathological response could be considered as a surrogate marker for neoadjuvant treatment trials, although the use of a continuous variable would be challenging in the trial setting, Dr. Wislez agreed.
“But it’s a demonstration that [with] immunotherapy monotherapy ... the extent of pathological response is associated with overall survival,” she said.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Wislez reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, Merck, and MSD.
FROM ESMO 2021
Studies confirm survival benefit with postchemoradiotherapy consolidation in NSCLC
Checkpoint inhibition for consolidation after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) showed promising survival benefit in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in two recent studies, including one looking at the investigational agent sugemalimab and one assessing durvalumab in a real-world setting.
Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed with sugemalimab versus placebo in the randomized, phase 3 GEMSTONE-301 study, and consolidation durvalumab showed effectiveness in a real-world cohort in the PACIFIC-R study.
Findings from both studies were presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
GEMSTONE-301
Median progression-free survival among 381 patients randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg of sugemalimab or placebo every 3 weeks after either concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy was 9.0 versus 5.8 months, in the treatment arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.64) (Abstract LBA43), reported Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Patients were recruited from 50 sites, and one-third had received sequential CRT. Progression-free survival was assessed at median follow up of 14 months.
“The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 45% vs. 26% and 39% vs. 23%, respectively,” Dr. Wu said.
Of note, the PFS benefit was observed both for patients who underwent sequential CRT (median PFS, 8.1 vs. 4.1 months with sugemalimab vs. placebo; hazard ratio, 0.59) and for those who received concurrent CRT (median PFS, 10.5 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 0.66).
Overall survival (OS) data were not mature at the time of the presentation, but a trend favoring sugemalimab was observed (HR, 0.44) he noted.
Sugemalimab, an investigational anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1 )monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated; grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24.3% of patients in the sugemalimab group and in 23.8% in the placebo group.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, but nearly half undergo sequential CRT because they can’t tolerate concurrent treatment, Dr. Wu explained, describing the rationale for the study – the first phase 3 trial looking at both concurrent and sequential CRT in this patient population.
The results provide evidence for sugemalimab as a consolidation treatment for those who did not progress following either approach to CRT, he concluded.
PACIFIC-R study
The large, international, observational PACIFIC-R study also looked at consolidation in a real-world setting, and confirmed a PFS benefit with durvalumab in stage III NSCLC patients who had completed concurrent or sequential platinum-based CRT within the previous 12 weeks without evidence of disease progression (Abstract 1171MO).
“The median real-world PFS in this cohort was 21.7 months, which is higher than that in the durvalumab arm in the PACIFIC trial, which was 16.9 months,” reported Nicolas Girard, MD, a professor at Institut Curie, Paris.
The PACIFIC trial set the standard for durvalumab-based consolidation after CRT, and ongoing survival benefit was confirmed by 5-year follow-up data, he noted.
The PACIFIC-R trial included 1,399 patients from 11 countries who were treated as part of an expanded-access program following the PACIFIC trial.
Median time to durvalumab initiation after the end of radiotherapy in the cohort was 56 days. Overall median durvalumab treatment duration was 11 months, and the median number of infusions was 22, Dr. Girard said.
Pneumonitis was the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation: 214 (18.5%) patients experienced any-grade pneumonitis and/or interstitial lung disease, and 9.5 discontinued the study as a result. Most cases were mild or moderate, he said.
Subgroup analyses showed that real-world PFS was higher among patients with stage IIIa disease and those with PD-L1–positive tumors, those with nonsquamous disease histology, and those who received concurrent CRT.
“For example, in those with stage IIIa disease, the median real-world PFS was 23.7 months versus 19.2 months in patients with stage IIIb and c disease,” he said.
“PACIFIC-R demonstrated the efficacy of durvalumab consolidation in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer after completion of chemoradiotherapy,” said Dr. Girard. “The effectiveness of durvalumab was consistent among key subgroups, as was safety, when comparing the data with that of PACIFIC.
“The future read-outs of OS will further provide insight into the effectiveness of this regimen.”
Session chair Lizza E. Hendriks, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, applauded the inclusion of patients undergoing sequential CRT in the GEMSTONE-301 and PACIFIC-R studies, noting that it is “very important to have data in sequential radiochemotherapy populations” given the substantial number of patients who require a sequential approach because of poor performance status, difficulty tolerating concurrent CRT, or logistical reasons, such as an inability to travel to receive concurrent CRT.
The GEMSTONE-301 study was funded by CStone Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wu reported having no disclosures. The PACIFIC-R study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Girard reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Hendriks reported financial relationships with numerous companies.
Checkpoint inhibition for consolidation after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) showed promising survival benefit in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in two recent studies, including one looking at the investigational agent sugemalimab and one assessing durvalumab in a real-world setting.
Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed with sugemalimab versus placebo in the randomized, phase 3 GEMSTONE-301 study, and consolidation durvalumab showed effectiveness in a real-world cohort in the PACIFIC-R study.
Findings from both studies were presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
GEMSTONE-301
Median progression-free survival among 381 patients randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg of sugemalimab or placebo every 3 weeks after either concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy was 9.0 versus 5.8 months, in the treatment arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.64) (Abstract LBA43), reported Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Patients were recruited from 50 sites, and one-third had received sequential CRT. Progression-free survival was assessed at median follow up of 14 months.
“The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 45% vs. 26% and 39% vs. 23%, respectively,” Dr. Wu said.
Of note, the PFS benefit was observed both for patients who underwent sequential CRT (median PFS, 8.1 vs. 4.1 months with sugemalimab vs. placebo; hazard ratio, 0.59) and for those who received concurrent CRT (median PFS, 10.5 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 0.66).
Overall survival (OS) data were not mature at the time of the presentation, but a trend favoring sugemalimab was observed (HR, 0.44) he noted.
Sugemalimab, an investigational anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1 )monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated; grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24.3% of patients in the sugemalimab group and in 23.8% in the placebo group.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, but nearly half undergo sequential CRT because they can’t tolerate concurrent treatment, Dr. Wu explained, describing the rationale for the study – the first phase 3 trial looking at both concurrent and sequential CRT in this patient population.
The results provide evidence for sugemalimab as a consolidation treatment for those who did not progress following either approach to CRT, he concluded.
PACIFIC-R study
The large, international, observational PACIFIC-R study also looked at consolidation in a real-world setting, and confirmed a PFS benefit with durvalumab in stage III NSCLC patients who had completed concurrent or sequential platinum-based CRT within the previous 12 weeks without evidence of disease progression (Abstract 1171MO).
“The median real-world PFS in this cohort was 21.7 months, which is higher than that in the durvalumab arm in the PACIFIC trial, which was 16.9 months,” reported Nicolas Girard, MD, a professor at Institut Curie, Paris.
The PACIFIC trial set the standard for durvalumab-based consolidation after CRT, and ongoing survival benefit was confirmed by 5-year follow-up data, he noted.
The PACIFIC-R trial included 1,399 patients from 11 countries who were treated as part of an expanded-access program following the PACIFIC trial.
Median time to durvalumab initiation after the end of radiotherapy in the cohort was 56 days. Overall median durvalumab treatment duration was 11 months, and the median number of infusions was 22, Dr. Girard said.
Pneumonitis was the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation: 214 (18.5%) patients experienced any-grade pneumonitis and/or interstitial lung disease, and 9.5 discontinued the study as a result. Most cases were mild or moderate, he said.
Subgroup analyses showed that real-world PFS was higher among patients with stage IIIa disease and those with PD-L1–positive tumors, those with nonsquamous disease histology, and those who received concurrent CRT.
“For example, in those with stage IIIa disease, the median real-world PFS was 23.7 months versus 19.2 months in patients with stage IIIb and c disease,” he said.
“PACIFIC-R demonstrated the efficacy of durvalumab consolidation in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer after completion of chemoradiotherapy,” said Dr. Girard. “The effectiveness of durvalumab was consistent among key subgroups, as was safety, when comparing the data with that of PACIFIC.
“The future read-outs of OS will further provide insight into the effectiveness of this regimen.”
Session chair Lizza E. Hendriks, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, applauded the inclusion of patients undergoing sequential CRT in the GEMSTONE-301 and PACIFIC-R studies, noting that it is “very important to have data in sequential radiochemotherapy populations” given the substantial number of patients who require a sequential approach because of poor performance status, difficulty tolerating concurrent CRT, or logistical reasons, such as an inability to travel to receive concurrent CRT.
The GEMSTONE-301 study was funded by CStone Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wu reported having no disclosures. The PACIFIC-R study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Girard reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Hendriks reported financial relationships with numerous companies.
Checkpoint inhibition for consolidation after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) showed promising survival benefit in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in two recent studies, including one looking at the investigational agent sugemalimab and one assessing durvalumab in a real-world setting.
Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed with sugemalimab versus placebo in the randomized, phase 3 GEMSTONE-301 study, and consolidation durvalumab showed effectiveness in a real-world cohort in the PACIFIC-R study.
Findings from both studies were presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
GEMSTONE-301
Median progression-free survival among 381 patients randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg of sugemalimab or placebo every 3 weeks after either concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy was 9.0 versus 5.8 months, in the treatment arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.64) (Abstract LBA43), reported Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Patients were recruited from 50 sites, and one-third had received sequential CRT. Progression-free survival was assessed at median follow up of 14 months.
“The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 45% vs. 26% and 39% vs. 23%, respectively,” Dr. Wu said.
Of note, the PFS benefit was observed both for patients who underwent sequential CRT (median PFS, 8.1 vs. 4.1 months with sugemalimab vs. placebo; hazard ratio, 0.59) and for those who received concurrent CRT (median PFS, 10.5 vs. 6.4 months; HR, 0.66).
Overall survival (OS) data were not mature at the time of the presentation, but a trend favoring sugemalimab was observed (HR, 0.44) he noted.
Sugemalimab, an investigational anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1 )monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated; grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24.3% of patients in the sugemalimab group and in 23.8% in the placebo group.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, but nearly half undergo sequential CRT because they can’t tolerate concurrent treatment, Dr. Wu explained, describing the rationale for the study – the first phase 3 trial looking at both concurrent and sequential CRT in this patient population.
The results provide evidence for sugemalimab as a consolidation treatment for those who did not progress following either approach to CRT, he concluded.
PACIFIC-R study
The large, international, observational PACIFIC-R study also looked at consolidation in a real-world setting, and confirmed a PFS benefit with durvalumab in stage III NSCLC patients who had completed concurrent or sequential platinum-based CRT within the previous 12 weeks without evidence of disease progression (Abstract 1171MO).
“The median real-world PFS in this cohort was 21.7 months, which is higher than that in the durvalumab arm in the PACIFIC trial, which was 16.9 months,” reported Nicolas Girard, MD, a professor at Institut Curie, Paris.
The PACIFIC trial set the standard for durvalumab-based consolidation after CRT, and ongoing survival benefit was confirmed by 5-year follow-up data, he noted.
The PACIFIC-R trial included 1,399 patients from 11 countries who were treated as part of an expanded-access program following the PACIFIC trial.
Median time to durvalumab initiation after the end of radiotherapy in the cohort was 56 days. Overall median durvalumab treatment duration was 11 months, and the median number of infusions was 22, Dr. Girard said.
Pneumonitis was the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation: 214 (18.5%) patients experienced any-grade pneumonitis and/or interstitial lung disease, and 9.5 discontinued the study as a result. Most cases were mild or moderate, he said.
Subgroup analyses showed that real-world PFS was higher among patients with stage IIIa disease and those with PD-L1–positive tumors, those with nonsquamous disease histology, and those who received concurrent CRT.
“For example, in those with stage IIIa disease, the median real-world PFS was 23.7 months versus 19.2 months in patients with stage IIIb and c disease,” he said.
“PACIFIC-R demonstrated the efficacy of durvalumab consolidation in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer after completion of chemoradiotherapy,” said Dr. Girard. “The effectiveness of durvalumab was consistent among key subgroups, as was safety, when comparing the data with that of PACIFIC.
“The future read-outs of OS will further provide insight into the effectiveness of this regimen.”
Session chair Lizza E. Hendriks, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, applauded the inclusion of patients undergoing sequential CRT in the GEMSTONE-301 and PACIFIC-R studies, noting that it is “very important to have data in sequential radiochemotherapy populations” given the substantial number of patients who require a sequential approach because of poor performance status, difficulty tolerating concurrent CRT, or logistical reasons, such as an inability to travel to receive concurrent CRT.
The GEMSTONE-301 study was funded by CStone Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wu reported having no disclosures. The PACIFIC-R study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Girard reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Hendriks reported financial relationships with numerous companies.
FROM ESMO 2021
Once daily poziotinib shows efficacy in non–small cell lung cancer
Tumor reductions, stated lead author Robin Cornelissen, PhD, MD, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, were seen in 88% of patients.
EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations are rare subsets accounting for about 10% each of all mutations and 2%-4% each in NSCLC. “There is no approved therapy for either treatment-naive or previously treated NSCLC with HER2 exon 20 mutations,” Dr. Cornelissen said in a virtual oral presentation (abstract LBA46) on Sept. 18. While chemotherapy agents with or without checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are currently utilized, none are specific to exon 20 mutations, and historical response rates from mostly small uncontrolled studies vary widely from about 6.9%-35%, with median progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 3 to 7 months. Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER TKI with activity in patients with EGFR or HER2 exon 20–mutated NSCLC.
Dr. Cornelissen presented preliminary safety and efficacy data from the phase 2 ZENITH20, a seven-cohort global clinical trial, specifically from cohort 4 (daily dosing) which included 48 HER2 exon 20 insertion NSCLC patients (median age, 60.5 years; female/male, 26/22) treated first-line with oral daily poziotinib (16 mg). The majority were White (75%), female (54%), and nonsmokers (69%) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (65%).The primary endpoint was objective response rate evaluated centrally by an independent image review committee using RECIST 1.1 criteria.
All patients have experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with 10% considered serious, and permanent discontinuation in 13%. About 83% of patients had dose interruptions and 76% had dose reductions. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (any grade, 83%; grade 3, 15%), rash (any grade, 69%; grade 3, 35%), stomatitis/mucosal inflammation (any grade, 81%; grade 3, 21%), and paronychia (any grade, 46%; grade 3 8%). Pneumonitis occurred in two patients (4%), with one grade 3 (2%). No grade 4/5 TRAEs were reported.
Discontinuations in 44 patients (92%), Dr. Cornelissen said, are attributed to death (5/10%), disease progression (30/63%), adverse events (1/2%), and other (8/17%), with treatment ongoing in 4 patients (8%).
The rate for the primary endpoint of ORR was 43.8% (n = 21) (95% confidence interval, 29.5%-58.8%).Tumor reductions have been observed in 42/48 patients (88%) with a median reduction of 35%. One complete response was reported (2.1%), with partial responses in 20 (41.7%), stable disease in 15 (31.3%), progressive disease in 7 (14.6%), and 5 (10.4%) not evaluable. The disease control rate was 75.0%.
Among secondary endpoints, median duration of response (DoR) was 5.4 months (range, 2.8 to >19.1), with 42% of patients having response duration greater than6 months and 24% greater than 12 months. Median PFS was 5.6 months (range, 0 to >20.2), with progression-free survival duration greater than6 months in 42% and duration greater than12 months in 26%.
Dr. Cornelissen concluded: “Poziotinib shows clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.” The toxicity profile, he added, is manageable and in line with previous poziotinib studies and other second-generation EGFR TKIs.
Noting that improved tolerability and antitumor activity have been observed in the cohort 5 (8 mg b.i.d.) interim analysis, Dr. Cornelissen said that cohort 4 is ongoing with patients enrolling at 8-mg b.i.d. dosing.
HER2 mutations represents 1.7%-2.2% of NSCLC, with high-sequence homology with EGFR mutation, observed ESMO-appointed discussant Daniel S.W. Tan, PhD, National Cancer Center in Singapore. He pointed out that, while HER2 antibody drug conjugates and TKIs have gained approval in other cancer types (e.g., breast, gastric), currently no HER2 therapies are approved in NSCLC. Reviewing ZENITH20 findings (risk ratio, 43.8%; DoR, 5.4 months; PFS, 5.6 months), Dr. Tan stated that poziotinib is an active agent in HER2 mutated NSCLC. “One concern that remains for me is the safety profile that will require further evaluation in order to determine optimal dosing,” he said.
Potential combinations, he added, need to be explored to improve the durability of response. “Until we can properly characterize this and other important aspects such as CNS activity, we need to be cautious about transitioning to a frontline setting. Also, we do need to give due consideration to strategies to improve HER2 testing rates in order to expand on clinical experience. This argues for the importance of broad upfront next generation sequencing testing in NSCLC.”
The study was funded by Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Other authors associated with the research disclosed full or part-time employment with Spectrum.
Tumor reductions, stated lead author Robin Cornelissen, PhD, MD, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, were seen in 88% of patients.
EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations are rare subsets accounting for about 10% each of all mutations and 2%-4% each in NSCLC. “There is no approved therapy for either treatment-naive or previously treated NSCLC with HER2 exon 20 mutations,” Dr. Cornelissen said in a virtual oral presentation (abstract LBA46) on Sept. 18. While chemotherapy agents with or without checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are currently utilized, none are specific to exon 20 mutations, and historical response rates from mostly small uncontrolled studies vary widely from about 6.9%-35%, with median progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 3 to 7 months. Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER TKI with activity in patients with EGFR or HER2 exon 20–mutated NSCLC.
Dr. Cornelissen presented preliminary safety and efficacy data from the phase 2 ZENITH20, a seven-cohort global clinical trial, specifically from cohort 4 (daily dosing) which included 48 HER2 exon 20 insertion NSCLC patients (median age, 60.5 years; female/male, 26/22) treated first-line with oral daily poziotinib (16 mg). The majority were White (75%), female (54%), and nonsmokers (69%) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (65%).The primary endpoint was objective response rate evaluated centrally by an independent image review committee using RECIST 1.1 criteria.
All patients have experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with 10% considered serious, and permanent discontinuation in 13%. About 83% of patients had dose interruptions and 76% had dose reductions. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (any grade, 83%; grade 3, 15%), rash (any grade, 69%; grade 3, 35%), stomatitis/mucosal inflammation (any grade, 81%; grade 3, 21%), and paronychia (any grade, 46%; grade 3 8%). Pneumonitis occurred in two patients (4%), with one grade 3 (2%). No grade 4/5 TRAEs were reported.
Discontinuations in 44 patients (92%), Dr. Cornelissen said, are attributed to death (5/10%), disease progression (30/63%), adverse events (1/2%), and other (8/17%), with treatment ongoing in 4 patients (8%).
The rate for the primary endpoint of ORR was 43.8% (n = 21) (95% confidence interval, 29.5%-58.8%).Tumor reductions have been observed in 42/48 patients (88%) with a median reduction of 35%. One complete response was reported (2.1%), with partial responses in 20 (41.7%), stable disease in 15 (31.3%), progressive disease in 7 (14.6%), and 5 (10.4%) not evaluable. The disease control rate was 75.0%.
Among secondary endpoints, median duration of response (DoR) was 5.4 months (range, 2.8 to >19.1), with 42% of patients having response duration greater than6 months and 24% greater than 12 months. Median PFS was 5.6 months (range, 0 to >20.2), with progression-free survival duration greater than6 months in 42% and duration greater than12 months in 26%.
Dr. Cornelissen concluded: “Poziotinib shows clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.” The toxicity profile, he added, is manageable and in line with previous poziotinib studies and other second-generation EGFR TKIs.
Noting that improved tolerability and antitumor activity have been observed in the cohort 5 (8 mg b.i.d.) interim analysis, Dr. Cornelissen said that cohort 4 is ongoing with patients enrolling at 8-mg b.i.d. dosing.
HER2 mutations represents 1.7%-2.2% of NSCLC, with high-sequence homology with EGFR mutation, observed ESMO-appointed discussant Daniel S.W. Tan, PhD, National Cancer Center in Singapore. He pointed out that, while HER2 antibody drug conjugates and TKIs have gained approval in other cancer types (e.g., breast, gastric), currently no HER2 therapies are approved in NSCLC. Reviewing ZENITH20 findings (risk ratio, 43.8%; DoR, 5.4 months; PFS, 5.6 months), Dr. Tan stated that poziotinib is an active agent in HER2 mutated NSCLC. “One concern that remains for me is the safety profile that will require further evaluation in order to determine optimal dosing,” he said.
Potential combinations, he added, need to be explored to improve the durability of response. “Until we can properly characterize this and other important aspects such as CNS activity, we need to be cautious about transitioning to a frontline setting. Also, we do need to give due consideration to strategies to improve HER2 testing rates in order to expand on clinical experience. This argues for the importance of broad upfront next generation sequencing testing in NSCLC.”
The study was funded by Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Other authors associated with the research disclosed full or part-time employment with Spectrum.
Tumor reductions, stated lead author Robin Cornelissen, PhD, MD, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, were seen in 88% of patients.
EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations are rare subsets accounting for about 10% each of all mutations and 2%-4% each in NSCLC. “There is no approved therapy for either treatment-naive or previously treated NSCLC with HER2 exon 20 mutations,” Dr. Cornelissen said in a virtual oral presentation (abstract LBA46) on Sept. 18. While chemotherapy agents with or without checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are currently utilized, none are specific to exon 20 mutations, and historical response rates from mostly small uncontrolled studies vary widely from about 6.9%-35%, with median progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 3 to 7 months. Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER TKI with activity in patients with EGFR or HER2 exon 20–mutated NSCLC.
Dr. Cornelissen presented preliminary safety and efficacy data from the phase 2 ZENITH20, a seven-cohort global clinical trial, specifically from cohort 4 (daily dosing) which included 48 HER2 exon 20 insertion NSCLC patients (median age, 60.5 years; female/male, 26/22) treated first-line with oral daily poziotinib (16 mg). The majority were White (75%), female (54%), and nonsmokers (69%) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (65%).The primary endpoint was objective response rate evaluated centrally by an independent image review committee using RECIST 1.1 criteria.
All patients have experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with 10% considered serious, and permanent discontinuation in 13%. About 83% of patients had dose interruptions and 76% had dose reductions. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (any grade, 83%; grade 3, 15%), rash (any grade, 69%; grade 3, 35%), stomatitis/mucosal inflammation (any grade, 81%; grade 3, 21%), and paronychia (any grade, 46%; grade 3 8%). Pneumonitis occurred in two patients (4%), with one grade 3 (2%). No grade 4/5 TRAEs were reported.
Discontinuations in 44 patients (92%), Dr. Cornelissen said, are attributed to death (5/10%), disease progression (30/63%), adverse events (1/2%), and other (8/17%), with treatment ongoing in 4 patients (8%).
The rate for the primary endpoint of ORR was 43.8% (n = 21) (95% confidence interval, 29.5%-58.8%).Tumor reductions have been observed in 42/48 patients (88%) with a median reduction of 35%. One complete response was reported (2.1%), with partial responses in 20 (41.7%), stable disease in 15 (31.3%), progressive disease in 7 (14.6%), and 5 (10.4%) not evaluable. The disease control rate was 75.0%.
Among secondary endpoints, median duration of response (DoR) was 5.4 months (range, 2.8 to >19.1), with 42% of patients having response duration greater than6 months and 24% greater than 12 months. Median PFS was 5.6 months (range, 0 to >20.2), with progression-free survival duration greater than6 months in 42% and duration greater than12 months in 26%.
Dr. Cornelissen concluded: “Poziotinib shows clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.” The toxicity profile, he added, is manageable and in line with previous poziotinib studies and other second-generation EGFR TKIs.
Noting that improved tolerability and antitumor activity have been observed in the cohort 5 (8 mg b.i.d.) interim analysis, Dr. Cornelissen said that cohort 4 is ongoing with patients enrolling at 8-mg b.i.d. dosing.
HER2 mutations represents 1.7%-2.2% of NSCLC, with high-sequence homology with EGFR mutation, observed ESMO-appointed discussant Daniel S.W. Tan, PhD, National Cancer Center in Singapore. He pointed out that, while HER2 antibody drug conjugates and TKIs have gained approval in other cancer types (e.g., breast, gastric), currently no HER2 therapies are approved in NSCLC. Reviewing ZENITH20 findings (risk ratio, 43.8%; DoR, 5.4 months; PFS, 5.6 months), Dr. Tan stated that poziotinib is an active agent in HER2 mutated NSCLC. “One concern that remains for me is the safety profile that will require further evaluation in order to determine optimal dosing,” he said.
Potential combinations, he added, need to be explored to improve the durability of response. “Until we can properly characterize this and other important aspects such as CNS activity, we need to be cautious about transitioning to a frontline setting. Also, we do need to give due consideration to strategies to improve HER2 testing rates in order to expand on clinical experience. This argues for the importance of broad upfront next generation sequencing testing in NSCLC.”
The study was funded by Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Other authors associated with the research disclosed full or part-time employment with Spectrum.
FROM ESMO 2021
Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy superior to best supportive care in early lung cancer
according to Enriqueta Felip, MD, the head of thoracic and head and neck cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Hospital, Barcelona.
IMpower010 is the first positive randomized phase 3 study to show significant disease-free survival (DFS) improvement with adjuvant cancer immunotherapy (atezolizumab, anti–programmed death–ligand 1, and platinum-based chemotherapy) in this population, Dr. Felip said in a presentation at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 20 (abstract LBA9).
High unmet need
Up to 60% of patients with stage I-III NSCLC still experience disease relapse despite having received treatment, Dr. Felip said. IMpower010 included 1,280 patients who received up to four cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin with pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine) after completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Patients were randomized to open label to atezolizumab (1,200 mg every 21 days for 16 cycles or best supportive care (BSC). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed DFS in the stage II-IIIA population (n = 1,005) was stratified according to three groups: PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% (stage II-IIIA), all-randomized (stage II-IIIA) and intention-to-treat (stage IB-IIIA).
Median disease-free survival in PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% was not estimated in the atezolizumab group and was 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 29.0 to NE). In the all-randomized group, median DFS was 42.3 months in the atezolizumab group (95% CI, 36.0 to NE) and 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 30.4-46.4) with a stratified hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.64-0.96; P = .02). In the intent-to-treat population, median DFS was not evaluable in the atezolizumab group and 37.2 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 31.6 to NE) with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P = .04).
DFS hazard ratio 0.43 in TC ≥50% group
Looking at DFS by PD-L1 status in the population with and without known EGFR/ALK+ disease, Dr. Felip said that the hazard ratio for the tumor cells of at least 50% group (n = 229) was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68), as compared with 0.87 (95% CI, 0.60-1.26) for the tumor cells 1%-49% group. With EGFR/ALK+ patients excluded, the respective HRs were similar (0.43/0.82). Considering DFS events including only disease recurrence, disease incidence was 29.4%/44.7% in the atezolizumab and BSC groups, respectively for those with PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1%. The same pattern of atezolizumab benefit persisted in the all-randomized and intent-to-treat groups.
An assessment according to regions of relapse (locoregional only, distant only, locoregional and distant, CNS only, second primary lung) revealed no differences in the three groups. Analysis of time from randomization to relapse revealed regional differences in the PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% group with a median time to any relapse of 17.6 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.9 months in the BSC group. Time from randomization to relapse was generally similar for atezolizumab and best supportive care in the all randomized and intent-to-treat groups (about 11-12 months).
“The greatest magnitude of disease-free survival benefit was observed in the PD-L1 tumor cell of at least 50% population with a hazard ratio of 0.43,” Dr. Felip said. In a post hoc analysis excluding patients with known EFGR/ALK with NSCLC, she said that hazard ratios were numerically improved in most PD-L1 subgroups. Postrelapse cancer immunotherapies were used at a higher rate in the BSC arm of the trial. “Longer-term follow-up is warranted and may reveal differences in relapse patterns and treatment options.
Playing with the immune system
Benjamin Besse, MD, director of oncology and chair of the EORTC Lung Group at Paris-Saclay University, acknowledged the disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab in IMpower010 and underscored that adjuvant immunotherapy has been changing treatment in resected cancers across tumor types (i.e., melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, NSCLC). He voiced some concerns, including the absence of benefit in PD-L1 less than 1%, pneumonectomy and EGFRmut/ALK+ patients, and generally the potential “when you play with the immune system for there to be a dark side too.” Dr. Besse said delayed side effects in 43.2% of patients , citing a recent report of chronic, mostly grade 1-2 immune-related adverse events following (>12 weeks after discontinuation) adjuvant anti–PD-1 therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. He mentioned, however, that the rate of second primary lung tumors in the atezolizumab group (1.4%) was lower than in the BSC group (2.6%), with generally similar rates between immuno- and nonimmunotherapies in melanoma and breast cancer trials.
“IMpower 010 is the first adjuvant study establishing immune checkpoint blockade as a new standard of care. We need to cure more, not to delay relapse,” he said. The optimal population for treatment is still yet to be defined, as is the best perioperative strategy, Dr. Besse added. “If approved I would prescribe adjuvant atezolizumab ... until I see the overall survival curves.”
IMpower010 was funded by–F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Felip disclosed numerous financial interests, including having received financial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Merck, among other pharmaceutical companies.
according to Enriqueta Felip, MD, the head of thoracic and head and neck cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Hospital, Barcelona.
IMpower010 is the first positive randomized phase 3 study to show significant disease-free survival (DFS) improvement with adjuvant cancer immunotherapy (atezolizumab, anti–programmed death–ligand 1, and platinum-based chemotherapy) in this population, Dr. Felip said in a presentation at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 20 (abstract LBA9).
High unmet need
Up to 60% of patients with stage I-III NSCLC still experience disease relapse despite having received treatment, Dr. Felip said. IMpower010 included 1,280 patients who received up to four cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin with pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine) after completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Patients were randomized to open label to atezolizumab (1,200 mg every 21 days for 16 cycles or best supportive care (BSC). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed DFS in the stage II-IIIA population (n = 1,005) was stratified according to three groups: PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% (stage II-IIIA), all-randomized (stage II-IIIA) and intention-to-treat (stage IB-IIIA).
Median disease-free survival in PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% was not estimated in the atezolizumab group and was 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 29.0 to NE). In the all-randomized group, median DFS was 42.3 months in the atezolizumab group (95% CI, 36.0 to NE) and 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 30.4-46.4) with a stratified hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.64-0.96; P = .02). In the intent-to-treat population, median DFS was not evaluable in the atezolizumab group and 37.2 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 31.6 to NE) with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P = .04).
DFS hazard ratio 0.43 in TC ≥50% group
Looking at DFS by PD-L1 status in the population with and without known EGFR/ALK+ disease, Dr. Felip said that the hazard ratio for the tumor cells of at least 50% group (n = 229) was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68), as compared with 0.87 (95% CI, 0.60-1.26) for the tumor cells 1%-49% group. With EGFR/ALK+ patients excluded, the respective HRs were similar (0.43/0.82). Considering DFS events including only disease recurrence, disease incidence was 29.4%/44.7% in the atezolizumab and BSC groups, respectively for those with PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1%. The same pattern of atezolizumab benefit persisted in the all-randomized and intent-to-treat groups.
An assessment according to regions of relapse (locoregional only, distant only, locoregional and distant, CNS only, second primary lung) revealed no differences in the three groups. Analysis of time from randomization to relapse revealed regional differences in the PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% group with a median time to any relapse of 17.6 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.9 months in the BSC group. Time from randomization to relapse was generally similar for atezolizumab and best supportive care in the all randomized and intent-to-treat groups (about 11-12 months).
“The greatest magnitude of disease-free survival benefit was observed in the PD-L1 tumor cell of at least 50% population with a hazard ratio of 0.43,” Dr. Felip said. In a post hoc analysis excluding patients with known EFGR/ALK with NSCLC, she said that hazard ratios were numerically improved in most PD-L1 subgroups. Postrelapse cancer immunotherapies were used at a higher rate in the BSC arm of the trial. “Longer-term follow-up is warranted and may reveal differences in relapse patterns and treatment options.
Playing with the immune system
Benjamin Besse, MD, director of oncology and chair of the EORTC Lung Group at Paris-Saclay University, acknowledged the disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab in IMpower010 and underscored that adjuvant immunotherapy has been changing treatment in resected cancers across tumor types (i.e., melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, NSCLC). He voiced some concerns, including the absence of benefit in PD-L1 less than 1%, pneumonectomy and EGFRmut/ALK+ patients, and generally the potential “when you play with the immune system for there to be a dark side too.” Dr. Besse said delayed side effects in 43.2% of patients , citing a recent report of chronic, mostly grade 1-2 immune-related adverse events following (>12 weeks after discontinuation) adjuvant anti–PD-1 therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. He mentioned, however, that the rate of second primary lung tumors in the atezolizumab group (1.4%) was lower than in the BSC group (2.6%), with generally similar rates between immuno- and nonimmunotherapies in melanoma and breast cancer trials.
“IMpower 010 is the first adjuvant study establishing immune checkpoint blockade as a new standard of care. We need to cure more, not to delay relapse,” he said. The optimal population for treatment is still yet to be defined, as is the best perioperative strategy, Dr. Besse added. “If approved I would prescribe adjuvant atezolizumab ... until I see the overall survival curves.”
IMpower010 was funded by–F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Felip disclosed numerous financial interests, including having received financial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Merck, among other pharmaceutical companies.
according to Enriqueta Felip, MD, the head of thoracic and head and neck cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Hospital, Barcelona.
IMpower010 is the first positive randomized phase 3 study to show significant disease-free survival (DFS) improvement with adjuvant cancer immunotherapy (atezolizumab, anti–programmed death–ligand 1, and platinum-based chemotherapy) in this population, Dr. Felip said in a presentation at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 20 (abstract LBA9).
High unmet need
Up to 60% of patients with stage I-III NSCLC still experience disease relapse despite having received treatment, Dr. Felip said. IMpower010 included 1,280 patients who received up to four cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin with pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine) after completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Patients were randomized to open label to atezolizumab (1,200 mg every 21 days for 16 cycles or best supportive care (BSC). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed DFS in the stage II-IIIA population (n = 1,005) was stratified according to three groups: PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% (stage II-IIIA), all-randomized (stage II-IIIA) and intention-to-treat (stage IB-IIIA).
Median disease-free survival in PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% was not estimated in the atezolizumab group and was 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 29.0 to NE). In the all-randomized group, median DFS was 42.3 months in the atezolizumab group (95% CI, 36.0 to NE) and 35.3 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 30.4-46.4) with a stratified hazard ratio of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.64-0.96; P = .02). In the intent-to-treat population, median DFS was not evaluable in the atezolizumab group and 37.2 months in the BSC group (95% CI, 31.6 to NE) with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P = .04).
DFS hazard ratio 0.43 in TC ≥50% group
Looking at DFS by PD-L1 status in the population with and without known EGFR/ALK+ disease, Dr. Felip said that the hazard ratio for the tumor cells of at least 50% group (n = 229) was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.68), as compared with 0.87 (95% CI, 0.60-1.26) for the tumor cells 1%-49% group. With EGFR/ALK+ patients excluded, the respective HRs were similar (0.43/0.82). Considering DFS events including only disease recurrence, disease incidence was 29.4%/44.7% in the atezolizumab and BSC groups, respectively for those with PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1%. The same pattern of atezolizumab benefit persisted in the all-randomized and intent-to-treat groups.
An assessment according to regions of relapse (locoregional only, distant only, locoregional and distant, CNS only, second primary lung) revealed no differences in the three groups. Analysis of time from randomization to relapse revealed regional differences in the PD-L1 tumor cells of at least 1% group with a median time to any relapse of 17.6 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.9 months in the BSC group. Time from randomization to relapse was generally similar for atezolizumab and best supportive care in the all randomized and intent-to-treat groups (about 11-12 months).
“The greatest magnitude of disease-free survival benefit was observed in the PD-L1 tumor cell of at least 50% population with a hazard ratio of 0.43,” Dr. Felip said. In a post hoc analysis excluding patients with known EFGR/ALK with NSCLC, she said that hazard ratios were numerically improved in most PD-L1 subgroups. Postrelapse cancer immunotherapies were used at a higher rate in the BSC arm of the trial. “Longer-term follow-up is warranted and may reveal differences in relapse patterns and treatment options.
Playing with the immune system
Benjamin Besse, MD, director of oncology and chair of the EORTC Lung Group at Paris-Saclay University, acknowledged the disease-free survival benefit with atezolizumab in IMpower010 and underscored that adjuvant immunotherapy has been changing treatment in resected cancers across tumor types (i.e., melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, NSCLC). He voiced some concerns, including the absence of benefit in PD-L1 less than 1%, pneumonectomy and EGFRmut/ALK+ patients, and generally the potential “when you play with the immune system for there to be a dark side too.” Dr. Besse said delayed side effects in 43.2% of patients , citing a recent report of chronic, mostly grade 1-2 immune-related adverse events following (>12 weeks after discontinuation) adjuvant anti–PD-1 therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. He mentioned, however, that the rate of second primary lung tumors in the atezolizumab group (1.4%) was lower than in the BSC group (2.6%), with generally similar rates between immuno- and nonimmunotherapies in melanoma and breast cancer trials.
“IMpower 010 is the first adjuvant study establishing immune checkpoint blockade as a new standard of care. We need to cure more, not to delay relapse,” he said. The optimal population for treatment is still yet to be defined, as is the best perioperative strategy, Dr. Besse added. “If approved I would prescribe adjuvant atezolizumab ... until I see the overall survival curves.”
IMpower010 was funded by–F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Felip disclosed numerous financial interests, including having received financial support from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Merck, among other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ESMO 2021