Virtual Library

Start Your Search

Ticiana Leal



Author of

  • +

    P82 - Immunotherapy (Phase II/III Trials) - Immunotherapy Plus Radiotherapy (ID 259)

    • Event: WCLC 2020
    • Type: Posters
    • Track: Immunotherapy (Phase II/III Trials)
    • Presentations: 1
    • Moderators:
    • Coordinates: 1/28/2021, 00:00 - 00:00, ePoster Hall
    • +

      P82.01 - Tumor Treating Fields (150 kHz) Concurrent with Immune Check Point Inhibitors for Stage 4 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Phase 3 LUNAR Study (ID 3709)

      00:00 - 00:00  |  Presenting Author(s): Ticiana Leal

      • Abstract
      • Slides

      Introduction

      Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are a non-invasive, anti-mitotic treatment that disrupts the formation of the mitotic spindle and dislocation of intracellular constituents. TTFields plus temozolomide significantly extended survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Efficacy of TTFields in NSCLC has been shown in preclinical models as well as safety in combination with pemetrexed in a pilot study. In the Phase 3 LUNAR study [NCT02973789], we investigated if the addition of TTFields to immune checkpoint inhibitors or docetaxel increases overall survival (OS).

      Methods

      Patients (N=534), with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC, are stratified by their selected standard therapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors or docetaxel), histology and geographical region. Key inclusion criteria are disease progression, ECOG 0-2, no electronic medical devices in the upper torso, and absence of brain metastasis. TTFields (150 kHz) are applied to the upper torso for at >18 hours/day until progression in the thorax and/or liver. The primary endpoint is superiority in OS between patients treated with TTFields in combination with the standard of care treatments versus standard of care treatments alone. Key secondary endpoints compare the OS in patients treated with TTFields and docetaxel versus docetaxel alone, and patients treated with TTFields and immune checkpoint inhibitors vs those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors alone. An exploratory analysis will test non-inferiority of TTFields with docetaxel compared to checkpoint inhibitors alone. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, radiological response rate, quality of life based on the EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire. The sample size is powered to detect a HR of 0.75 in TTFields-treated patients versus control group. In March 2020, an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) performed a review of the LUNAR trial data collected to that point. The DMC concluded that no unexpected safety issues could be found in patients treated with the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and TTFields, and recommended to continue the LUNAR study as planned.

      Results

      TiP N/A

      Conclusion

      TiP N/A

      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.

  • +

    PS01 - Presidential Symposium (Japanese, Mandarin, Spanish Translation Available) (ID 143)

    • Event: WCLC 2020
    • Type: Plenary
    • Track: N.A.
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      PS01.09 - Pembrolizumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Pembrolizumab Plus Placebo as 1L Therapy for Metastatic NSCLC of PD-L1 TPS ≥50%: KEYNOTE-598 (ID 4248)

      07:00 - 09:00  |  Author(s): Ticiana Leal

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Introduction

      In KEYNOTE-024, pembrolizumab monotherapy significantly improved survival versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. We conducted the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-598 study (NCT03302234) to determine whether adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab improved efficacy over pembrolizumab alone in this population.

      Methods

      Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W or saline placebo for up to 18 cycles; patients in both arms received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles. Randomization was stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs 1), region (East Asia vs not East Asia), and histology (squamous vs nonsquamous). Treatment differences in the primary endpoints of OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1; blinded, independent central review) were assessed by the stratified log-rank test in the ITT population. The protocol-specified first interim analysis (IA1) was planned to occur when ~255 deaths occurred and ~12 months after the last participant was randomized. Nonbinding futility criteria at IA1 were differences in the restricted mean survival time (RMST) between pembro–ipi and pembro–placebo of ≤0.2 at the maximum observation time and ≤0.1 at 24 months of follow-up.

      Results

      Between 12‑January‑2018 and 22‑August‑2019, 568 participants were randomized to pembro–ipi (n=284; 282 treated) and pembro–placebo (n=284; 281 treated). As of 01‑September‑2020, median (range) study follow-up was 20.6 months (12.4-31.7), treatment was ongoing in 21.3% in the pembro–ipi arm vs 23.8% in the pembro–placebo arm, and median number of treatment cycles was 10 vs 15. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. With 272 deaths, median OS was 21.4 months for pembro–ipi vs 21.9 months for pembro–placebo (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.37]; P = 0.74). RMST differences were –0.56 at the maximum observation time and –0.52 at 24 months, which met the futility criteria. With 372 events, median PFS was 8.2 months for pembro–ipi vs 8.4 months for pembro–placebo (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.86-1.30]; P = 0.72). ORR was 45.4% in both arms; median DOR was 16.1 months for pembro–ipi vs 17.3 months for pembro–placebo. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 76.2% of pembro–ipi recipients vs 68.3% of pembro–placebo recipients, were of grade 3-5 in 35.1% vs 19.6%, led to death in 2.5% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 25.2% vs 10.7%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 44.7% of pembro–ipi recipients vs 32.4% of pembro–placebo recipients, were grade 3-5 in 20.2% vs 7.8%, led to death in 2.1% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 14.9% vs 5.3%. Based on the observed efficacy and safety, the external data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped due to futility and that participants discontinue ipi/placebo.

      Conclusion

      Adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab does not improve efficacy and is associated with greater toxicity than pembrolizumab alone as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. These data confirm pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard-of-care for this population.

      Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      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.

  • +

    PS02 - Presidential Symposium (Re-Broadcast) (Japanese, Mandarin, Spanish Translation Available) (ID 275)

    • Event: WCLC 2020
    • Type: Plenary
    • Track: N.A.
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      PS02.09 - Pembrolizumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Pembrolizumab Plus Placebo as 1L Therapy for Metastatic NSCLC of PD-L1 TPS ≥50%: KEYNOTE-598 (ID 4292)

      18:00 - 20:00  |  Author(s): Ticiana Leal

      • Abstract
      • Slides

      Introduction
      In KEYNOTE-024, pembrolizumab monotherapy significantly improved survival versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. We conducted the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-598 study (NCT03302234) to determine whether adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab improved efficacy over pembrolizumab alone in this population. Methods
      Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W or saline placebo for up to 18 cycles; patients in both arms received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles. Randomization was stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs 1), region (East Asia vs not East Asia), and histology (squamous vs nonsquamous). Treatment differences in the primary endpoints of OS and PFS (RECIST v1.1; blinded, independent central review) were assessed by the stratified log-rank test in the ITT population. The protocol-specified first interim analysis (IA1) was planned to occur when ~255 deaths occurred and ~12 months after the last participant was randomized. Nonbinding futility criteria at IA1 were differences in the restricted mean survival time (RMST) between pembro–ipi and pembro–placebo of ≤0.2 at the maximum observation time and ≤0.1 at 24 months of follow-up. Results
      Between 12‑January‑2018 and 22‑August‑2019, 568 participants were randomized to pembro–ipi (n=284; 282 treated) and pembro–placebo (n=284; 281 treated). As of 01‑September‑2020, median (range) study follow-up was 20.6 months (12.4-31.7), treatment was ongoing in 21.3% in the pembro–ipi arm vs 23.8% in the pembro–placebo arm, and median number of treatment cycles was 10 vs 15. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. With 272 deaths, median OS was 21.4 months for pembro–ipi vs 21.9 months for pembro–placebo (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.37]; P = 0.74). RMST differences were –0.56 at the maximum observation time and –0.52 at 24 months, which met the futility criteria. With 372 events, median PFS was 8.2 months for pembro–ipi vs 8.4 months for pembro–placebo (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.86-1.30]; P = 0.72). ORR was 45.4% in both arms; median DOR was 16.1 months for pembro–ipi vs 17.3 months for pembro–placebo. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 76.2% of pembro–ipi recipients vs 68.3% of pembro–placebo recipients, were of grade 3-5 in 35.1% vs 19.6%, led to death in 2.5% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 25.2% vs 10.7%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 44.7% of pembro–ipi recipients vs 32.4% of pembro–placebo recipients, were grade 3-5 in 20.2% vs 7.8%, led to death in 2.1% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 14.9% vs 5.3%. Based on the observed efficacy and safety, the external data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped due to futility and that participants discontinue ipi/placebo. Conclusion
      Adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab does not improve efficacy and is associated with greater toxicity than pembrolizumab alone as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. These data confirm pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard-of-care for this population.

      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.