Found 2 Presentations For Request "garassino"
Session Type- Proffered Paper session
Filtered By
- Proffered Paper session
LBA2 - Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression in unresectable, stage III NSCLC (PACIFIC)
- M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
- M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
- L. Paz-Ares (Madrid, Spain)
- R. Hui (Westmead, NSW, Australia)
- C. Faivre-Finn (Manchester, United Kingdom)
- A. Spira (Fairfax, United States of America)
- D. Planchard (Villejuif, France)
- M. Ozguroglu (Istanbul, Turkey)
- D. Daniel (Chattanooga, United States of America)
- D. Vicente (Seville, Spain)
- S. Murakami (Chou-ku, Tokyo, Japan)
- A. Rydén (MÖLNDAL, Sweden)
- Y. Zhang (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
- C. O'Brien (Macclesfield, United Kingdom)
- P. Dennis (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
- S. Antonia (Tampa, FL, United States of America)
Abstract
Background
In the phase 3 PACIFIC study of unresectable, Stage III NSCLC pts without progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), the primary endpoints PFS and OS were significantly improved with durvalumab versus placebo with similar safety and no detrimental effect on PROs. We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumour PD-L1 expression on PROs to better understand the benefit/risk profile of durvalumab across all PD-L1 subgroups.
Background
In the ph 3 PACIFIC study of Stage III NSCLC pts without progression after cCRT, PFS and OS were significantly improved with durva vs. pbo, with no detrimental effect on PROs. We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumour PD-L1 expression on PROs.
Methods
After cCRT with ≥2 chemotherapy cycles, pts were randomised (2:1) to durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo IV q2w up to 12 months. If available, optional pre-cCRT tumour tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumour cell (TC) expression using the VENTANA SP263 immunohistochemistry assay and scored at pre-specified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cutoffs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13 with changes from baseline (BL) analysed by a mixed model for repeated measures, hazard ratios (HRs) for time to deterioration (TTD) by a Cox proportional-hazards model, and odd ratios (ORs) for improvement rates by logistic regression.
Methods
After ≥2 cCRT cycles, pts were randomised (2:1) to durva 10 mg/kg or pbo IV q2w up to 12 mo. If available, optional pre-cCRT tumour tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumour cell (TC) expression using the VENTANA SP263 immunohistochemistry assay and scored at pre-specified (25% or unknown) and post-hoc (1%) cutoffs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13 with changes from BL analysed by a mixed model for repeated measures, HRs for time to deterioration (TTD) by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, and ORs for improvement rates by logistic regression.
Results
Of 713 pts, 63% had known PD-L1 status. Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time from BL across the PD-L1 subgroups (TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, or unknown), with no clinically meaningful (CM) differences (≥10 points) for durvalumab compared to placebo. However, similar to the ITT population, CM improvements (decreases ≥10 points) from BL to Week 48 were observed for dysphagia and alopecia across most PD-L1 subgroups for both durvalumab (mean changes 8.1 [not CM]−20.9 and 15.5 − 26.9, respectively) and placebo (mean changes 10.4 − 19.4 and 15.8 − 31.3). Pre-specified and post hoc TTD analyses of PROs by PD-L1 subgroup were generally similar to those of the ITT population, with overlapping HR and 95% CIs. Similarly, PRO improvement rates by PD-L1 subgroup were generally similar to those of the ITT population, with overlapping OR and 95% CIs.
Results
Of 713 pts, 63% had known PD-L1 status. Compliance was high (>80% at Wk 48) across all five PD-L1 subgroups (TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, and unknown). Most PROs remained stable; however, similar to the ITT population, clinically relevant improvements from BL to Wk 48 were observed for dysphagia and alopecia across most subgroups (4/5 and 5/5, respectively) for durva (mean changes 10.1−20.9 and 15.5−26.9) and all for pbo (10.4−19.4 and 15.8−31.3); plus improvements with pbo for TC ≥25% (12.5 for chest pain and constipation) and TC <25% (10.0 for appetite loss and arm/shoulder pain). Across most subgroups, there were no TTD differences, except those favouring durva: for TC ≥25%, chest pain (HR=0.57), physical functioning (0.60), emotional functioning (0.47), pain (0.56), and haemoptysis (0.42); and, similar to ITT, for TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1% and <1%, ‘other pain’ (0.60, 0.57, 0.67 and 0.39, respectively). Improvement rates were also similar, except as follows, favouring durva: for TC ≥25%, role functioning (OR=2.84) and, similar to ITT, appetite loss (4.33); for TC ≥1%, diarrhoea (4.50) and haemoptysis (19.34); and, for TC<1%, ‘other pain’ (7.25); for TC<25%, the rate favoured pbo for cough (0.51).
Conclusions
There were no CM differences in PROs between treatment arms across various PD-L1 subgroups. Results were generally consistent with those in the ITT population, suggesting that PD-L1 expression did not influence PROs in this study.
Conclusions
Similar to the ITT population, there were minimal between-Tx differences in PROs based on PD-L1 expression, supporting use of the PACIFIC regimen (durvalumab after cCRT) in all comers.
Clinical trial identification
NCT02125461
Editorial acknowledgement
Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Hashem Dbouk, PhD, of Cirrus Communications, an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.
Editorial acknowledgement
Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Andrew Gannon of Cirrus Communications, an Ashfield company, and funded by AstraZeneca.
Legal entity responsible for the study
AstraZeneca.
Funding
AstraZeneca.
Disclosure
M.C. Garassino: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, MSD. L. Paz-Ares: Advisory fees: BMS, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the conduct of the study. C. Faivre-Finn: Research funding: AstraZeneca, MSD, outside the conduct of the study. A. Spira: Consultant fees, institutional research support: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. D. Planchard: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Celgene, outside the conduct of the study. M. Ozguroglu: Consultant fees: Astellas; Honoraria: Janssen, outside the conduct of the study. A. Rydén, P.A. Dennis: Employment, stock: AstraZeneca. Y. Zhang, C. O’Brien: Employment, stock: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
LBA4 - Effect of post-study immunotherapy (IO) on overall survival (OS) outcome in patients with metastatic (m) NSCLC treated with first-line durvalumab (D) vs chemotherapy (CT) in the phase III MYSTIC study
- N. Reinmuth (Gauting, Germany)
- N. Reinmuth (Gauting, Germany)
- B. Cho (Seoul, Korea, Republic of)
- K. Lee (Cheongju, Korea, Republic of)
- A. Luft (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation)
- M. Ahn (Seoul, Korea, Republic of)
- J. Schneider (Mineola, United States of America)
- F. Shepherd (Toronto, Canada)
- S. Geater (Hat Yai, Thailand)
- Z. Pápai-Székely (Székesfehérvár, Hungary)
- T. Van Ngoc (Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam)
- M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
- F. Liu (Gaithersburg, United States of America)
- D. Clemett (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
- P. Thiyagarajah (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
- M. Ouwens (London, United Kingdom)
- U. Scheuring (Melbourn, United Kingdom)
- S. Peters (Lausanne, Switzerland)
- N. Rizvi (New York, NY, United States of America)
Abstract
Background
In MYSTIC (NCT02453282), an open-label, Phase 3 study of first-line D (anti-PD-L1) ± tremelimumab vs platinum-based CT in mNSCLC, while not statistically significant, a clinically meaningful improvement in OS was seen with D vs CT in pts with tumour cell PD-L1 expression ≥25% (PD-L1 TC ≥25%; HR 0.76 [97.54% CI 0.56–1.02], p=0.036). Here we describe subsequent treatment patterns and explore the effect of subsequent IO on the OS outcome with D vs CT.
Methods
IO/CT-naïve mNSCLC pts were randomised to D (20 mg/kg i.v. q4w until disease progression) or CT (up to 6 cycles; pemetrexed maintenance permitted). In-study crossover from CT to D was not allowed. For D vs CT, the primary endpoint was OS in pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. Three statistical models were employed in exploratory analyses to evaluate the effect of subsequent (post-study) IO on the OS data: the rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method, the inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) method, and a 2-stage method.
Results
163 and 162 pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25% were randomised to D and CT, respectively. At data cut-off (04 Oct 2018), 44.8% of pts in the D arm and 58.6% of pts in the CT arm had received subsequent treatment (Table). Most pts started subsequent treatment within 2 mos of discontinuing study treatment. Among pts who received subsequent treatment, IO was administered to 10/73 (13.7%) pts in the D arm and 64/95 (67.4%) pts in the CT arm; most commonly nivolumab. Using the 2-stage method, which was the most appropriate for evaluating the effect of subsequent IO, OS was improved with D vs CT (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51, 0.86]). Denominators for percentages are the number of pts randomised. Excluding immunotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy.Durvalumab (n=163) Chemotherapy (n=162) Pts who received study treatment, n (%) 161 (98.8) 153 (94.4) →Pts who discontinued study treatment 136 (83.4) 152 (93.8) →Pts remaining on study treatment 25 (15.3) 1 (0.6) Pts who received any subsequent treatment, n (%) 73 (44.8) 95 (58.6) →Immunotherapy 10 (6.1) 64 (39.5) →→Nivolumab 3 (1.8) 50 (30.9) →→Pembrolizumab 4 (2.5) 11 (6.8) →→Atezolizumab 2 (1.2) 3 (1.9) →→Durvalumab 0 2 (1.2) →→Tremelimumab 0 1 (0.6) →→Other immunotherapy 1 (0.6) 2 (1.2) →Cytotoxic chemotherapy 70 (42.9) 58 (35.8) →Other systemic therapies 18 (11.0) 18 (11.1)
Conclusions
In the MYSTIC study, a markedly higher proportion of pts in the CT arm than in the D arm received subsequent IO, which may have confounded the primary OS outcome. An exploratory analysis showed increased OS benefit with first-line D vs CT after adjusting for the effect of subsequent IO.
Editorial acknowledgement
Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Samantha Holmes, PhD, of Cirrus Communications (Macclesfield, UK), an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.
Legal entity responsible for the study
AstraZeneca PLC.
Funding
AstraZeneca.
Disclosure
N. Reinmuth: Personal fees: BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Lilly, outside the conduct of the study. B.C. Cho: Grants/research support: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, ONO/BMS, MSD, Bayer; Advisor/honoraria fees: AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Yuhan, BMS, MSD, Novartis; Speaker’s bureau fees: AZ, BMS, MSD, Novartis. J. Schneider: Stock/other ownership: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Celgene, Loxo; Consulting/advisory role: Takeda Oncology; Research funding: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. F.A. Shepherd: Consultancy/advisory role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono; Stock ownership: Lilly, AstraZeneca; Honoraria: Lilly, AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research funding: Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, Merrimack. S. Peters: Personal fees: AbbVie, Amgen, AZ, Bayer, Biocartis, BI, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Non-financial support: Amgen, AZ, BI, BMS, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Illumina, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer. S.L. Geater: Research grants/funding: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis. T. Van Ngoc: Research funding: AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis. M.C. Garassino: Personal fees: Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Tiziana Science, Clovis, Merck Serono, Bayer, MSD, GSK. F. Liu, D. Clemett, P. Thiyagarajah, M. Ouwens, U. Scheuring: Full-time employment: AstraZeneca. N. Rizvi: Advisory boards: AbbVie, AZ, BMS, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Neogenomics, Oncomed, Gritstone, Bellicum; Equity: Oncomed, Gritstone, Bellicum, ARMO; Royalties: PGDX (patent filed by MSKCC). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.