Read more

November 09, 2019
4 min read
Save

Front-line atezolizumab improves overall survival in advanced NSCLC

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Patients who received atezolizumab as first-line monotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer showed significant improvement in overall survival, according to phase 3 interim overall survival analysis data of the IMpower 110 trial presented at Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Annual Meeting.

Perspective from Timothy F. Burns, MD, PhD

The study met its primary end point of significantly improved overall survival for patients whose tumors expressed higher levels of PD-L1 and received atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy.

“There is a population of patients with NSCLC that does not need chemotherapy immediately,” Giuseppe Giaccone, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and associate director for clinical research at the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center, told HemOnc Today. Gianccone, one of the study’s co-authors, said their aim is to displace chemotherapy as first-line treatment for the population of patients with NSCLC who have high PD-L1 expression.

“Merck has already done this with pembroliziumab (Keytruda), and now atezolizumab is showing it can do the same with a very similar result,” he said.

The IMpower 110 trial enrolled 572 patients with stage IV squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC who did not have previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Study patients had 1 PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs) or tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs). All patients had measurable disease according to RECIST version 1.1 criteria and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1.

Study patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive IV atezolizumab 1,200 mg every three weeks (Arm A) or platinum-based chemotherapy in four or six 21-day cycles (Arm B).

Arm B patients with nonsquamous NSCLC received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or IV carboplatin AUC 6 plus IV pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every three weeks; Arm B patients with squamous NSCLC received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 or IV carboplatin AUC 5 plus IV gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 every three weeks.

Results were risk stratified according to sex, ECOG performance status, histology and tumor PD-L1 expression (TC1/2/3 and any IC vs TC0 and IC1/2/3). The primary end point of OS was tested hierarchically in the wild-type (EGFR/ALK-negative) population (TC3 or IC3 then TC2/3 or IC2/3 then TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3).

The three primary efficacy populations included 554 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 wild-type patients, 328 TC2/3 or IC2/3 wild-type patients and 205 TC3 or IC3 wild-type patients.

The median study follow-up was 15.7 months (range, 0-35) in TC3 or IC2 wild-type patients.

PAGE BREAK

Atezolizumab monotherapy improved median OS by 7.1 months (HR = 0.59) in the TC3 and IC3 WT population compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. Gianconne told the audience that, for the most part, higher expressers of TC/IC had longer survival and better response rates to atezolizumab monotherapy.

Gianconne said the median survival improvements are tremendous by lung cancer’s standards and rival the benefits previously seen with first-line pembrolizumab.

The safety population included 286 patients in Arm A and 263 patients in Arm B. Treatment-related adverse events occurred 60.5% of patients in Arm A and 85.2% of patients in Arm B. Serious (grade 3 or 4) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients in Arm A and 44.1% of patients in Arm B.

“It will be interesting to see how the results of this study impact clinical practice because it will use a different antibody and a different method for selection of patients that requires a platform that examines both immune cells and tumor cells,” Gianconne said.

“Pathologist will have to learn how to do this, and there will be leaning curve for them because not all of these assays are straightforward,” he added. “This could be a limiting factor for uptake of this treatment unless a solution is created that allows pathologists to do patient selection by bringing together both platforms.” – by Drew Amorosi

Reference: Herbst R, et al. Abstract O81. Presented at: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Annual Meeting; Nov. 7-10, 2019; National Harbor, MD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hoffmann-La Roche.