Start Your Search
OA05 - Clinical Trials in IO (ID 899)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/24/2018, 13:30 - 15:00, Room 106
OA05.07 - IMpower132: PFS and Safety Results with 1L Atezolizumab + Carboplatin/Cisplatin + Pemetrexed in Stage IV Non-Squamous NSCLC (ID 12389)
14:35 - 14:45 | Author(s): Francisco Orlandi
In addition to the combination of atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1)+platinum+taxane±bevacizumab, non-squamous NSCLC patients may derive benefit from adding atezolizumab to platinum+pemetrexed. The randomized Phase III IMpower132 study (NCT02657434) evaluated first-line pemetrexed+carboplatin or cisplatin±atezolizumab in patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK driver mutations.a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 or 6 cycles of carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 Q3W alone (arm PP) or in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W (arm APP), followed by pemetrexed (arm PP) or atezolizumab + pemetrexed (arm APP) maintenance. Atezolizumab could be continued beyond disease progression per protocol guidelines. PFS and OS were co-primary endpoints. Efficacy by PD-L1 expression was an exploratory endpoint. Here, we present investigator-assessed PFS per RECIST v1.1 (final analysis), OS (interim analysis) and safety data.4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
292 pts were enrolled in arm APP and 286 pts in arm PP. 43% and 40% in arms APP and PP, respectively, had ECOG PS 0. At the data cutoff (22 May 2018), median follow-up was 14.8 mo overall. PFS analysis showed a statistically significant improvement between arm APP vs PP (median PFS 7.6 vs 5.2 mo; HR=0.596; 95% CI: 0.494, 0.719; P<0.0001). Interim analysis showed a numerical but non-statistically significant OS improvement (Table). Efficacy results were consistent across all key clinical subgroups. Grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 53.6% of patients (APP) vs 39.1% (PP). 7.2% of patients (APP) vs 5.1% (PP) had a Grade 5 AE, 3.8% (APP) vs 2.6% (PP) were treatment related. 48.5% of patients (APP) vs 38.0% (PP) experienced AEs of special interest specific to atezolizumab.8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
IMpower132 met its co-primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS in the ITT. Interim OS data (not fully mature) showed numerical improvement. Atezolizumab+pemetrexed+carboplatin or cisplatin was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.
Table. IMpower132 Efficacy Analyses APP Arm
(atezolizumab+pemetrexed+ carboplatin or cisplatin)
(pemetrexed+carboplatin or cisplatin)
ITT n=292 n=286 Median PFS (95% CI), mo 7.6 (6.6, 8.5) 5.2 (4.3, 5.6) HRa (95% CI; P value) 0.596 (0.494, 0.719; P < 0.0001) 12-Month PFS (95% CI), % 33.7% (28.2, 39.2) 17.0% (12.6, 21.4) Median OS (95% CI), mo 18.1 (13.0, NE) 13.6 (11.4, 15.5) HRa (95% CI; P value) 0.813 (0.644, 1.025; P = 0.0797) 12-Month OS (95% CI), % 59.6% (53.9, 65.3) 55.4% (49.5, 61.2) ORR (confirmed, inv-assessed), % 46.9% 32.2% DOR (95% CI), mo 10.1 (7.2, 13.3) 7.2 (5.7, 9.0) PD-L1–highb n=25 n=20 Median PFS (95% CI), mo 10.8 (7.9, NE) 6.5 (2.4, 10.6) HR (95% CI; P value) 0.464 (0.224, 0.960; P = 0.0339) PD-L1–lowb n=63 n=73 Median PFS (95% CI), mo 6.2 (4.4, 8.4) 5.7 (4.2, 7.9) HR (95% CI; P value) 0.804 (0.556, 1.163; P = 0.2462) PD-L1–negativeb n=88 n=75 Median PFS (95% CI), mo 8.5 (6.1, 11.2) 4.9 (4.2, 5.8) HR (95% CI; P value) 0.448 (0.313, 0.642; P < 0.0001)
DOR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; inv, investigator; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
a Stratified. b Baseline tissue available in 60% of patients. PD-L1–high (TC3/IC3): patients with PD-L1 expression in ≥50% of tumor cells or ≥10% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells; PD-L1–low (TC12/IC12): patients with PD-L1 expression in ≥1% and <50% of tumor cells or ≥1% and <10% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells; and PD-L1–negative (TC0/IC0): patients with PD-L1 expression in <1% of tumor cells and <1% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells.NCT02657434
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.
PL02 - Presidential Symposium - Top 5 Abstracts (ID 850)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Plenary Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/25/2018, 08:15 - 09:45, Plenary Hall
PL02.09 - Nintedanib + Pemetrexed/Cisplatin in Patients with Unresectable MPM: Phase III Results from the LUME-Meso Trial (ID 11192)
09:15 - 09:25 | Author(s): Francisco Orlandi
Nintedanib targets VEGFR 1–3, PDGFR α/β, FGFR 1–3, Src and Abl kinases, all implicated in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) pathophysiology. This global Phase II/III, randomised, double-blind study investigated pemetrexed/cisplatin in combination with nintedanib or pemetrexed/cisplatin in combination with placebo, followed by nintedanib or placebo maintenance, in patients with unresectable MPM. In the double-blind, randomised Phase II part, nintedanib plus pemetrexed/cisplatin improved PFS vs placebo (HR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.34–0.91; p=0.017; median 9.4 vs 5.7 months).
In Phase III, chemotherapy-naïve patients with epithelioid MPM (ECOG PS 0–1) were randomised 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2)/cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on Day 1, plus nintedanib (200 mg bid) or matched placebo on Days 2–21. After combination treatment, patients without disease progression received nintedanib or placebo maintenance. The primary endpoint (PFS by investigator assessment) and key secondary endpoint (OS) were planned to be analysed by hierarchical testing, with an interim OS analysis at the time of the primary PFS analysis. PFS was also assessed by independent central review. Based on the assumed treatment effect (HR=0.63), the study had 90% power to detect a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS.
In total, 458 patients were randomised. Baseline patient characteristics and oncological history were similar between treatment arms. Median duration of nintedanib or placebo administration was 5.3 and 5.1 months, respectively. After 250 events, there was no difference in PFS between nintedanib and placebo arms (HR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.79–1.30; p=0.91; median 6.8 vs 7.0 months, respectively). PFS by central independent review was similar (242 events; HR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.77–1.28; p=0.96; median 6.8 months in each arm). In the interim OS analysis (127 deaths [28% of events]), median OS was 14.4 vs 16.1 months (nintedanib vs placebo; HR=1.12; 95% CI: 0.79–1.58; p=0.54). There were no unexpected safety findings. The proportion of patients with Grade ≥3 AEs was higher with nintedanib than with placebo (72% vs 62%). The most frequently reported Grade ≥3 AE by medical concept in both treatment arms was neutropenia (nintedanib: 32%; placebo: 24%). The proportion of deaths due to serious AEs was 4.0% (nintedanib) and 7.5% (placebo).
The primary endpoint of the Phase III part of LUME-Meso was not met ‒ Phase II findings were not confirmed. The reported safety profile was consistent with the known safety profiles of nintedanib and pemetrexed/cisplatin.a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419