Search

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We report 3-year efficacy and safety results from the phase III CheckMate 649 trial. Patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥5. With 36.2-month minimum follow-up, for patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, the OS hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.81); 21% versus 10% of patients were alive at 36 months, respectively; the PFS HR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.81); 36-month PFS rates were 13% versus 8%, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) per BICR was 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus 45% (95% CI, 40 to 50) with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.4) versus 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.9), respectively. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy also continued to show improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR versus chemotherapy in the overall population. Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy maintained clinically meaningful long-term survival benefit versus chemotherapy alone, with an acceptable safety profile, supporting the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Purpose: In CheckMate 649, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced/metastatic non-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Methods: In patients (N = 1,581) concurrently randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy and in those with tumor PD-L1 expression at a combined positive score (CPS) of ≥5, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga), which included the FACT-General (FACT-G) and Gastric Cancer subscale (GaCS). The FACT-G GP5 item assessed treatment-related symptom burden. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures in the PRO analysis population (randomly assigned patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessments). Time to symptom or definitive deterioration analyses were also conducted., Results: In the PRO analysis population (n = 1,360), PRO questionnaire completion rates were mostly >80% during treatment. Patient-reported symptom burden was not increased with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Mean improved changes from baseline were greater with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for FACT-Ga total, GaCS, and EQ-5D visual analog scale in patients with a CPS of ≥5; results were similar for the overall PRO analysis population. In CPS ≥5 and all randomly assigned populations, nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk of symptom deterioration versus chemotherapy, on the basis of FACT-Ga total score and GaCS; time to definitive deterioration was longer, and the risk of definitive deterioration in HRQoL was reduced with nivolumab plus chemotherapy across EQ-5D and most FACT-Ga measures (hazard ratio [95% CI] <1)., Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy alone, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed stable or better on-treatment HRQoL in patients with advanced/metastatic non-HER2-positive GC/GEJC/EAC and also showed decreased risk of definitive HRQoL deterioration.

Purpose: Subset analyses from phase III evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition (EGFRi) suggest improved outcomes in patients with EGFR- amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA), but large-scale analyses are lacking. This multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the role of EGFRi in the largest cohort of patients with EGFR- amplified GEA to date., Patients and Methods: A total of 60 patients from 15 tertiary cancer centers in six countries met the inclusion criteria. These criteria required histologically confirmed GEA in the metastatic or unresectable setting with EGFR amplification identified by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved assay, and who received on- or off-protocol EGFRi. Testing could be by tissue next-generation sequencing, plasma circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing, and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments approved laboratory. Treatment patterns and outcomes analysis was also performed using a deidentified clinicogenomic database (CGDB)., Results: Sixty patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi, including 31 of 60 patients (52%) with concurrent chemotherapy. Across treatment lines, patients achieved a 43% objective response rate with a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4). Patients receiving EGFRi in first-, second-, and third-line therapy achieved a median overall survival of 20.6 months (95% CI, 13.5 to not reached [NR]), 9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to NR), and 8.4 months (7.6 to NR), respectively. This survival far exceeded the 11.2-month (95% CI, 8.7 to 14.2) median overall survival from first-line initiation of non-EGFRi therapy in patients with EGFR -amplified GEA in the CGDB. Despite this benefit, analysis of the CGDB (January 2011-December 2020) suggests that only 5% of patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi., Conclusion: Patients with EGFR- amplified GEA derive significant benefit from EGFRi. Further prospective investigation of EGFRi in a well-selected patient population is ongoing in an upcoming trial of amivantamab in EGFR and/or MET amplified GEA.

Purpose: To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma., Methods: After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy., Results: Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached., Conclusion: Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%., Competing Interests: Karyn A. GoodmanConsulting or Advisory Role: RenovoRx Tanios Bekaii-SaabConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Ipsen, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, AbbVie, Incyte, Immuneering, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Natera, Treos Bio, Celularity, SOBI, BeiGene, Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent WO/2018/183488 and Patent WO/2019/055687Other Relationship: Exelixis, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network Daniel J. BoffaResearch Funding: Epic Sciences Wendy L. FrankelPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent title: Automated Identification of Tumor Buds. Application No.: 16/230,118. Filing date: December 21, 2018. Publication date: July 4, 2019. Applicant(s): Ohio State Innovation Foundation, Columbus, OH. Inventor(s): Metin Gurcan, Winston-Salem, NC; Wendy Frankel, Columbus, OH; Wei Chen, Columbus, OH; Ahmad Fauzi and Mohammad Faizal, Selangor, MY Anne NoonanConsulting or Advisory Role: Helsinn Healthcare, QED Therapeutics, Exelixis, Eisai Yelena Y. JanjigianStock and Other Ownership Interests: RgenixConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Rgenix, Bayer, Imugene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Zymeworks, Seattle Genetics, Merck Sharpe and Dohme Corp, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Jounce Therapeutics, Ono PharmaceuticalResearch Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche, Genentech, Rgenix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, LillyOther Relationship: Paradigm, Clinical Care Options, Axis Medical Education, Research to Practice Paul J. ThurmesConsulting or Advisory Role: US OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: US Oncology Alan P. VenookConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Array BioPharmaResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AmgenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from Now-UptoDate for authoring and maintaining two chaptersTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech, Roche Jeffrey A. MeyerhardtHonoraria: Cota Healthcare, Taiho PharmaceuticalResearch Funding: Boston Biomedical Eileen M. O'ReillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Agios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Berry Genomics, Celgene, CytomX Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Eisai, Exelixis/Ipsen, Flatiron Health, Incyte, Janssen, LAM Therapeutics, Lilly, Loxo, Genentech/Roche, Minapharma, QED Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sillajen, SOBI, Yiviva, Autem Medical, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Silenseed, TheraBionic, twoXAR, Vector HealthResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Acta Biologica, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Halozyme, MabVax, Roche, Silenseed David H. IlsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Astellas Pharma, IQvia, MacrogenicsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Metastatic esophagogastric cancer treatments after failure of second-line chemotherapy are limited. Nivolumab demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) versus placebo in Asian patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers. We assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Western patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancers., Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic chemotherapy-refractory gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal junction cancer from centers in the United States and Europe received nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The primary end point was objective response rate. The association of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status with response and survival was also evaluated., Results: Of 160 treated patients (59 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 49 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, 52 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg), 79% had received two or more prior therapies. At the data cutoff, investigator-assessed objective response rates were 12% (95% CI, 5% to 23%), 24% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), and 8% (95% CI, 2% to 19%) in the three groups, respectively. Responses were observed regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status. With a median follow-up of 28, 24, and 22 months across the three groups, 12-month progression-free survival rates were 8%, 17%, and 10%, respectively; 12-month OS rates were 39%, 35%, and 24%, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 17%, 47%, and 27% of patients in the three groups, respectively., Conclusion: Nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity, durable responses, encouraging long-term OS, and a manageable safety profile in patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancer. Phase III studies evaluating nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in earlier lines of therapy for esophagogastric cancers are underway.

Purpose: Docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) is a standard first-line three-drug chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma and is associated with significant toxicity. We examined the safety and efficacy of a modified DCF (mDCF) regimen in a randomized multicenter phase II study., Patients and Methods: Previously untreated patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either mDCF (fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] over 48 hours, docetaxel 40 mg/m2 IV on day 1, cisplatin 40 mg/m2 IV on day 3, every 2 weeks) or parent DCF (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 IV over 5 days with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, every 3 weeks). The study had 90% power to differentiate between 6-month progression-free survival of 26% and 43%, with type I and II error rates of 10% each. An early stopping rule for toxicity was included, defined as grade 3 to 4 adverse event rate > 70% in the first 3 months., Results: From November 2006 to June 2010, 85 evaluable patients were enrolled (male, n = 61; female, n = 24; median age, 58 years; Karnofsky performance status, 90%; GEJ, n = 28; gastric, 57). mDCF (n = 54) toxicity rates included 54% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (22% hospitalized) within the first 3 months and 76% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. The DCF arm (n = 31) closed early because of toxicity, with rates of 71% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (52% hospitalized) within 3 months and 90% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. Six-month PFS was 63% (95% CI, 48% to 75%) for mDCF and 53% (95% CI, 34% to 69%) for DCF. Median overall survival was improved for mDCF (18.8 v 12.6 months; P = .007)., Conclusion: mDCF is less toxic than parent DCF, even when supported with growth factors, and is associated with improved efficacy. mDCF should be considered a standard first-line option for patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.