Search

Purpose: On March 4, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We discuss the FDA's review of the key data and regulatory considerations supporting this approval., Patients and Methods: The approval was based on the results of CheckMate 816, an international, multiregional, active-controlled trial that randomly assigned 358 patients with resectable NSCLC, stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (N2) per the American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh staging edition to receive either nivolumab plus platinum-doublet or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone for three cycles before planned surgical resection. The major efficacy end point that supported this approval was event-free survival (EFS)., Results: At the first planned interim analysis (IA), the hazard ratio (HR) for EFS was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.87; P = .0052; statistical significance boundary = .0262) favoring the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm; the median EFS was 31.6 months (95% CI, 30.2 to not reached) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm versus 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) in the chemotherapy-only arm. At the time of a prespecified IA for overall survival (OS), 26% of patients had died, and the HR for OS was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87; P = .0079; statistical significance boundary = .0033). Eighty-three percent of patients in the nivolumab-containing arm versus 75% in the chemotherapy-only arm received definitive surgery., Conclusion: This approval, the first for any regimen for the neoadjuvant treatment of NSCLC in the United States, was supported by a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS with no evidence of detriment in OS or negative impact on patients' receipt and timing of surgery or surgical outcomes.

Purpose: The US Food and Drug Administration approved fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (DS-8201a, T-DXd) for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low (immunohistochemistry 1 + or immunohistochemistry 2+/in situ hybridization-) breast cancer who have received a prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or developed disease recurrence during or within 6 months of completing adjuvant chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Approval was based on DESTINY-Breast04, a phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial in patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer, determined at a central laboratory. A total of 557 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks (n = 373) or physicians' choice of chemotherapy (n = 184)., Results: The study met its primary efficacy end point of progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review assessment in the hormone receptor-positive (HR+) cohort (N = 494) with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.51(95% CI, 0.40 to 0.64; P < .0001). Key secondary end points were also met, including PFS in the intent-to-treat population with an HR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63; P < .0001), overall survival (OS) in the HR+ cohort with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P = .0028) and OS in the intent-to-treat with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84; P = .0010). The safety profile of T-DXd was consistent with previously approved indications, and no new safety signals were observed in this study population., Conclusion: The approval of T-DXd in HER2-low metastatic breast cancer was based on statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS and OS improvements observed in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial and represents the first approved therapy specifically for the treatment of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Purpose: The US Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 score ≥ 20%., Patients and Methods: The approval was based on monarchE, a phase III, open-label, 2-cohort, multicenter trial of patients with EBC randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus ET (n = 2,808) or ET alone (n = 2,829). Abemaciclib was given at 150 mg orally twice daily for 2 years., Results: Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) in the intent-to-treat population was statistically significant at the second IDFS interim analysis (IA; March 2020; hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI], 0.747 [0.598 to 0.932]; P = .0096); however, only 12.5% of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, and the HR for overall survival (OS) was > 1. A prespecified, controlled analysis of IDFS in patients with Ki-67 ≥ 20% in cohort 1 was statistically significant at the final IDFS analysis (July 2020; HR [95% CI], 0.643 [0.475 to 0.872]; P = .0042). At the first OS IA (April 2021), the majority of patients had completed adjuvant therapy, IDFS remained consistent, and potential detriment in OS was not observed for this subgroup (HR [95% CI], 0.767 [0.511 to 1.152]). The HR for OS in the intent-to-treat population at OS IA remained > 1 (HR [95% CI], 1.091 [0.818 to 1.455]). More patients in the abemaciclib plus ET arm experienced treatment emergent adverse events (all grades 98.4% v 88.8%, grade 3 ≥ 49.7% v 16.3%)., Conclusion: The approval of abemaciclib in adjuvant EBC was limited to patients with high risk of recurrence and Ki-67 ≥ 20%, given their favorable benefit:risk with a statistically significant IDFS advantage and no observed detriment on survival., Competing Interests: Flora MulkeyEmployment: BeiGene (I)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Many older women will be treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor (AI), given US Food and Drug Administration approval of three agents in this class. The current pooled analysis examines the efficacy and safety of this combination in older women., Patients and Methods: We pooled data from three randomized controlled studies (N = 1,827) of different CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with an AI for initial treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The effect of age on progression-free survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox proportional hazards regression model., Results: For patients age 75 years or older (n = 198) who were treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and an AI, hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.76) with an estimated median progression-free survival of 31.1 months (95% CI, 20.2 months to not reached) versus 13.7 months (95% CI, 10.9 months to 24.9 months) for those treated with an AI. Incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 88.8% in patients age 75 years and older and 73.4% in patients younger than age 75 years. Patients age 75 years or older reported a decline in quality-of-life measures using the EQ-5D regardless of treatment with AI alone or with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor., Conclusion: There was similar efficacy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with an AI compared with AI alone for first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in older women compared with younger patients. Patients older than age 75 years experienced higher rates of toxicity, dose modifications, and a decrease from baseline in quality-of-life measures.

Purpose: To assess the relationship among tumor response rate, overall survival, and the development of related adverse events of special interest (AESIs) or related immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) in patients with urothelial cancer treated with anti-programmed death protein 1 or ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/L1) antibodies., Patients and Methods: We examined seven trials in 1,747 patients with metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer that led to approval of an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody. Five trials enrolled patients who had received prior platinum-based therapy, and two enrolled patients who were cisplatin ineligible. The data sets were searched for AESIs, related AESIs, imAEs, and related imAEs. The relationship to study drug was determined by the investigator. ImAEs were defined as AESIs treated with topical or systemic corticosteroids., Results: In these exploratory analyses, a related AESI was reported in 64% of responding patients and in 34% of patients who did not respond to the anti-PD-1/L1 antibody, whereas a related imAE occurred in 28% and 12% of patients who did and did not respond to study drug, respectively. In a responder analysis, an increase in overall survival was seen in patients with related AESIs compared with those with no related AESIs (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.52). Fifty-seven percent of responding patients with a related AESI reported the AESI before documentation of response., Conclusion: Patients who responded to treatment with an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody were more likely to report a related AESI or related imAE. This relationship did not seem to be due to the increased duration of exposure in responding patients. Systemic corticosteroid use did not appear to affect the duration of response.

Purpose: To provide evidence-based consensus recommendations on choice of end points for clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer, with a focus on biologic subtype and line of therapy., Methods: The National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Steering Committee convened a working group of breast medical oncologists, patient advocates, biostatisticians, and liaisons from the Food and Drug Administration to conduct a detailed curated systematic review of the literature, including original reports, reviews, and meta-analyses, to determine the current landscape of therapeutic options, recent clinical trial data, and natural history of four biologic subtypes of breast cancer. Ongoing clinical trials for metastatic breast cancer in each subtype also were reviewed from ClinicalTrials.gov for planned primary end points. External input was obtained from the pharmaceutic/biotechnology industry, real-world clinical data specialists, experts in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and combined metrics for assessing magnitude of clinical benefit., Results: The literature search yielded 146 publications to inform the recommendations from the working group., Conclusion: Recommendations for appropriate end points for metastatic breast cancer clinical trials focus on biologic subtype and line of therapy and the magnitude of absolute and relative gains that would represent meaningful clinical benefit.

Purpose The outcome and proportion of patients with bone-only (BO) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not been well described. We sought to describe the differential outcomes of patients with BO MBC in clinical trials and explore whether there was a discrepancy in radiographic reads between investigator and blinded independent central review. Methods We pooled and analyzed data on 10,521 patients from 13 prospective trials submitted for MBC treatment in initial or supplemental New Drug or Biologics License Applications from 2005. Three subsets were evaluated: BO, bone with other metastases (BWO), and no bone metastases (NBM). Early discordance rate and late discordance rate were calculated from 3,733 and 2,813 patients subject to a blinded independent central review, respectively. Results Bone metastases were identified in 49% (range: 42% to 73%) of patients across trials. BO disease was present in 12.5% (range: 4% to 26%), dependent on subtype. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the pooled trials demonstrated improved outcomes for the BO subgroup compared with other subgroups (BO v BWO PFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.696; BO v NBM PFS HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.76; BO v BWO OS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.61; BO v NBM OS HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.76). The BO subgroup has a higher early discordance rate and lower late discordance rate than the BWO and NBM subgroups. Conclusion To our knowledge, this review is the largest analysis to date of the BO subgroup of MBC and suggests this subgroup may have a distinct natural history. There also seems to be a difference in how the local investigators assessed progression events in the BO subgroup when compared with the other two groups.

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention's benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.