Lung Cancer

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Foregoing chemotherapy in favor of cancer immunotherapy (CIT) alone for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression did not impact survival outcomes in a retrospective cohort of U.S. patients – except in a subgroup of nonsmokers.

Median overall survival was similar at 21.0 months and 22.1 months in 169 patients who received cancer immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 351 who received cancer immunotherapy monotherapy, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03). Median real-world progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar in the two groups (10.8 vs. 11.5 months; aHR, 1.04), Solange Peters, MD, reported at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17 (abstract VP2_2021).

However, in a small subgroup of 50 never-smokers, CIT plus chemotherapy showed significant and meaningful improvement in both overall survival and real-world progression-free survival, compared with CIT monotherapy, said Dr. Peters, ESMO president and professor and chair of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, were 0.50 and 0.40 in this subgroup, Dr. Peters said.

She and her colleagues reviewed data from the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record–derived deidentified database for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score at least 50% expression who initiated first-line CIT monotherapy or CIT plus chemotherapy between Oct. 24, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019.

Median follow-up was 23.5 and 19.9 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively.

The findings are notable because “this is a very important scientific question, which by the way, is a daily question we have,” Dr. Peters said during a plenary debate session at the conference.

“One in four patients [with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC has] this high PDL expression,” she explained, noting that both treatment approaches are commonly used in the first-line setting in this patient population.

The findings highlight the value of “well-conducted real-world evidence trials” in the absence of randomized trial results, she said.

Invited discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, also acknowledged the importance of the findings, noting the “multiple possibilities” for treatment selection in the metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC patient population.

Although patients with PD-L1 expression below 50% derive clear benefit from combination versus single-agent therapy, treatment selection for those with high PD-L1 expression is “very tricky and debatable,” she said.

For those with high PD-L1 expression, the choice is less clear and wrought with uncertainties – particularly for certain subgroups like never-smokers and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, she said.

The findings reinforce those seen in prior meta-analyses and other clinical trials, particularly with respect to the role of smoking history when making treatment decisions.

“After these results and previous subgroup analyses, in my opinion, in [patients with] PD-L1 expression over 50%, we should consider the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy,” she said.

Conversely, findings from this study showing no difference in outcomes between the treatment approaches in patients with brain or liver metastases are based on small numbers and lack power for drawing any conclusions, she said. It also remains unclear whether there is a differential effect for women and those with PD-L1 expression over 90%, high tumor mutation burden, performance score greater than 2, and age over 75 years.

Both Dr. Garassino and Dr. Peters said they are looking to the INSIGNA trial, which is currently recruiting patients in the United States to evaluate the timing of pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy as first-line treatment and maintenance in NSCLC, to provide more clarification regarding the best treatment approaches.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garassino each disclosed personal and/or institutional financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Combination bevacizumab and osimertinib provided no progression-free survival benefit over osimertinib alone for the first-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients in an open-label, phase 2 study.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.2 months in 61 patients in the osimertinib monotherapy arm and 22.1 months in 61 patients in the combination treatment arm (hazard ratio, 0.862), Hirotsugu Kenmotsu, MD, PhD, reported at the 2021 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology Sept. 18 (abstract LBA44).

“The study did not meet the primary endpoint,” said Dr. Kenmotsu of Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi, Japan. “One-year progression-free survival was 63.7% and 73.8%, respectively.

However, subgroup analyses showed a trend toward improved PFS with combination bevacizumab and osimertinib in ever-smokers (HR, 0.481) and patients with Del19 mutations (HR, 0.622), he said.

Bevacizumab was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonitis, an interstitial lung disease (ILD): Pneumonitis occurred in 18.3% of patients in the combination therapy arm, compared with 3.3% in the osimertinib monotherapy arm.

Study participants were untreated patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation – either Del19 or L858R – without symptomatic brain metastases. They were enrolled between January 2018 and September 2018 and randomized to receive 80 mg of osimertinib daily, either alone or with 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.

The objective response rate was 82% in the combination therapy arm and 86% in osimertinib monotherapy arm, Dr. Kenmotsu said, adding that overall survival data are not yet mature.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34 patients (56%) in the combination therapy arm and in 29 patients (48%) in the osimertinib monotherapy arm, he noted.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been a standard first-line treatment for NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations, he explained, noting that prior studies have shown promise for improved PFS with the addition of antivascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to first-generation EGFR TKIs in this population.

Although the current study failed to show efficacy of the combination therapy versus osimertinib monotherapy for improving PFS in nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation, ever-smokers and patients with exon 19 deletions might benefit from the combination therapy as first-line treatment, and the combination might also reduce the risk of osimertinib-related pneumonitis, Dr. Kenmotsu said.

The study is among those that address “really important questions in lung cancer today,” said invited discussant Natasha B. Leighl, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

“I certainly agree with the authors that this study is a negative trial and bevacizumab does not improve PFS over the standard of osimertinib alone,” she said, acknowledging that the study is the first randomized comparison of the two treatment approaches in the first-line setting. She also agreed with the authors that the subgroup findings are intriguing.

“But ... what is the biomarker?” she asked, referring to the “very interesting” finding of a possible bevacizumab benefit among ever-smokers. “I’m looking forward to more correlative studies to help define this further.”

The novel finding of a significantly reduced risk of pneumonitis with the addition of bevacizumab, on the other hand, is “extremely exciting,” she said, explaining that the combination therapy approach could “perhaps [be used] as a potential therapy for patients with TKI-induced ILD and no other options, or those at very high risk of ILD, for example, perhaps, post immunotherapy or in high-risk populations.”

This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kenmotsu and Dr. Leigh each disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

sworcester@mdedge.com

In heavily pretreated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and actionable genomic alterations (AGAs), the antitumor activity of datopotamab deruxtecan in the phase 1 TROPION-PanTumor01 study is encouraging, according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).

Limited benefit from existing treatments

Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.

TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
 

Subgroup with AGAs

The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”

The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
 

Further evaluation ongoing

Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.

Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”

Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

In heavily pretreated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and actionable genomic alterations (AGAs), the antitumor activity of datopotamab deruxtecan in the phase 1 TROPION-PanTumor01 study is encouraging, according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).

Limited benefit from existing treatments

Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.

TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
 

Subgroup with AGAs

The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”

The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
 

Further evaluation ongoing

Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.

Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”

Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

In heavily pretreated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and actionable genomic alterations (AGAs), the antitumor activity of datopotamab deruxtecan in the phase 1 TROPION-PanTumor01 study is encouraging, according to Edward B. Garon, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Prior results from TROPION-PanTumor01, have demonstrated similarly encouraging activity and a manageable safety profile for Dato-DXd, Dr. Garon said in a 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress virtual oral presentation on Sept. 19 (abstract LBA49).

Limited benefit from existing treatments

Once tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy have failed, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC with AGAs (e.g., EGFR or ALK mutations) derive limited benefit from existing treatments, Dr. Garon observed. Datopotamab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized anti-TROP2 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a stable tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. TROP2 is highly expressed in NSCLC, regardless of genomic mutation status and has been associated with poor prognosis. Patients in TROPION-PanTumor01 were not selected based on TROP2 expression or AGA status, Dr. Garon noted.

TROPION-PanTumor01 (NCT03401385), an ongoing multicenter, open-label, dose-expansion study evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in solid tumors, including NSCLC in 210 patients, is assessing safety, pharmacokinetics, antitumor activity, and biomarkers. All included patients (n = 180; median age, 62 years; 56% female) had progressed after standard treatment or had measurable disease and had no standard treatment available. Stable/treated brain metastases were permitted.
 

Subgroup with AGAs

The current report includes outcomes from the subgroup of 34 patients with AGAs, who were treated with 4 (n = 8), 6 (n = 10), and 8 mg/kg (n = 16) of datopotamab deruxtecan. AGAs were EGFR in 29 patients, ALK in 3, and ROS1 and RET in 1 each. Most patients (82%) had received three or more prior regimens; 85% had prior TKI, and among EGFR mutation patients, 69% had received osimertinib. Prior systemic treatment consisted of immunotherapy in 41%, platinum-based chemotherapy in 91%, and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 85%. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary outcome.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in all patients, with grade 3 or higher events in 53%. Most common were grade 1-2 nausea, stomatitis, fatigue, and alopecia. Drug-attributed events in 88% were grade 3 or higher in 38%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 15%, dose interruption in 27% and dose reductions in 15%. One case of grade 5 interstitial lung disease, in the 8-mg group, was adjudicated as drug related. “The safety profile of Dato-DXd was manageable and consistent with that observed in the overall NSCLC population in TROPION-PanTumor01,” Dr. Garon said, “and were primarily nonhematologic.”

The objective response rate was 35%, all partial responses. The stable disease rate was 41%; the progressive disease rate was 6%. Median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 3.3-NE). Dr. Garon noted that clinical activity was observed in EGFR (Ex 19del, L858R) including after osimertinib and across other AGAs.
 

Further evaluation ongoing

Further evaluation of datopotamab deruxtecan is ongoing in the TROPION-Lung05 study among NSCLC patients with AGAs after targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy options have been exhausted. Eligible AGAs include EGFR (including exon 20 insertions), ALK, ROS1, RET, BRAF, NTRK and MET exon 14 skipping.

Session moderator David Gandara, MD, University of California Davis Health, questioned the rationale for targeting oncogene driven cancers with this particular drug: “Is this just because this is felt to be an unmet need, or is there higher expression or some other biologic rationale?”

Dr. Garon responded, “Why are we looking at these driver mutation–positive patients? I think it has less to do with mechanism and more to do with the differences in treatment between these driver mutation positive patients and the rest of the population. This is a group of patients which has TROP2, but TROP2 expression is seen really across non–small cell lung cancer. But, in fact, one of the reasons it has been postulated that TROP2 is not a good biomarker for this class of drugs to date, is that its expression is so ubiquitous in the disease.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Garon disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.

This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.

The immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) offers a durable, long-term survival benefit over chemotherapy for patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), confirms a 3-year updated analysis of the CheckMate 743 trial.

After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.

She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.

Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.

The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.

Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.

In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.

The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.

This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.

There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.

Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
 

Study details

Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.

A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.

The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.

However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.

Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.

An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.

In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.

At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.

Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.

Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.

This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.

The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.

However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.

Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.

Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.

Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) offers a durable, long-term survival benefit over chemotherapy for patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), confirms a 3-year updated analysis of the CheckMate 743 trial.

After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.

She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.

Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.

The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.

Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.

In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.

The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.

This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.

There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.

Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
 

Study details

Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.

A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.

The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.

However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.

Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.

An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.

In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.

At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.

Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.

Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.

This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.

The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.

However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.

Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.

Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.

Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) offers a durable, long-term survival benefit over chemotherapy for patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), confirms a 3-year updated analysis of the CheckMate 743 trial.

After 3 years, 23% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, in comparison with 15% of patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Combination immunotherapy continued to provide a “durable and long-term benefit” compared with chemotherapy, commented Solange Peters, MD, from the Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The new data from the additional 12 months of follow-up “confirm nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a standard of care for unresectable MPM, regardless of histology,” she commented.

She presented the update on September 17 at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). She is the current president of the organization.

Previously, 2-year data from this study showed that the combination yielded a median overall survival of 18.1 months, compared to 14.1 months with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

As reported by this news organization, this translated into a 26% improvement in overall survival; 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive at 2 years, versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

On the basis of these data, the combination was subsequently approved in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable MPM.

The new data come from a 3-year update, as well as an exploratory biomarker analysis. The new data show significantly improved overall survival with the combination immunotherapy. Among those who responded to immunotherapy, response was ongoing for 28% of patients at 3 years.

Benefit was seen even for patients who discontinued the treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, indicating that discontinuance does not appear to have a negative impact on the long-term benefits, Dr. Peters commented.

In addition, the new analysis suggested that patients with a high score on a four-gene inflammatory signature did particularly well with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, whereas chemotherapy patients did worse if they had nonepithelioid disease, a finding not seen with immunotherapy.

The discussant for this abstract, Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, said that despite the impressive findings, there is a “critical need” to establish predictive biomarkers in MPM.

This is particularly pressing in cases involving early progression, inasmuch as median progression-free survival (PFS) in CheckMate 743 was similar overall, and chemotherapy performed better than immunotherapy in the first 8 months.

There is also a need to be able to identify patients who will have an ongoing response at 3 years, as well as to clarify the impact of toxicity, given that the median duration of response was 20 months following discontinuation of treatment after just 4 months.

Dr. Garrido cautioned that the exploratory analyses were of “limited value,” because RNA data for the gene signature analysis were available for only 54% of patients, and the study was not powered to detect differences on the basis of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression.

Summarizing, Dr. Garrido said that although the current results showed that combination immunotherapy “continued to provide” a survival benefit in “a subgroup of patients,” the “better characterization of predictive biomarkers” will be “crucial” to improving these results.
 

Study details

Dr. Peters reminded the audience that the CheckMate 743 trial involved patients with unresectable MPM who had not previously received any systemic therapy and who had a good performance status.

A total of 605 patients were enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin.

The median age of the patients was 69 years, and 77% were men. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups; 75% to 76% had epithelioid disease, and for 74% to 80% of patients, baseline PD-L1 expression was greater than or equal to 1%.

Subgroup analysis indicated that combination immunotherapy was beneficial regardless of patient age, sex, performance status, and smoking status.

However, the new analysis suggested that the improvement in overall survival depended on PD-L1 expression, at a hazard ratio for combination immunotherapy versus chemotherapy of 0.71 in patients with expression of greater than or equal to 1%, compared with 0.99 for patients with expression of less than 1%.

Dr. Peters explained that the performance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was identical in both PD-L1 expression groups, but it was the chemotherapy arm that performed markedly better for patients with expression of less than 1%.

An inverse finding was observed when patients were stratified by tumor histology.

In those with epithelioid disease, the median overall survival with combination immunotherapy was 18.2 months, versus 16.7 with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.85.

At 36 months, 24% of immunotherapy patients were still alive, as were 19% of those given standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Among patients with nonepithelioid disease, however, median overall survival was 18.1 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 8.8 months with chemotherapy, at a hazard ratio of 0.48. At 3 years, 22% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still alive, compared with 4% of those who received chemotherapy.

Other results showed that PFS was only slightly longer with combination immunotherapy, at 6.8 months versus 7.2 months, for a hazard ratio of 0.92.

Yet at 36 months, 14% of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had not experienced disease progression, versus just 1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

This difference was even more pronounced when the researchers assessed objective response rates: 28% of patients who received combination immunotherapy were still responding at 36 months, versus 0% among patients given chemotherapy.

This translated into a median duration of response of 11.6 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy.

The safety assessment showed that rates of treatment-related adverse events of any grade and of grade 3-4 were similar between the combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms.

However, rates of treatment-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of all components of the regimen were higher with immunotherapy, at 17% for events of any grade and 13% for events of grade 3-4, compared with 8% and 5%, respectively, with chemotherapy.

Serious treatment-related adverse events were more common with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Events of grade 3-4 occurred in 13% of patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus 5% with chemotherapy.

Dr. Peters showed that this did not severely affect overall survival, however. Among patients who discontinued combination immunotherapy, the median duration of response was 20.0 months.

Median overall survival in these patients was 25.4 months, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 37%.

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Peters and Dr. Garrido reported relationships with numerous sources in industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com