Iveta Kudaba

Importance: Safe and effective therapies for untreated, advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer remain an unmet need. Objective: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. Design, Setting, and Participants: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-062 randomized, controlled, partially blinded interventional trial enrolled 763 patients with untreated, locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic G/GEJ cancer with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater from 200 centers in 29 countries between September 18, 2015, and May 26, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m2/d on day 1 plus fluorouracil 800 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily), or chemotherapy plus placebo, every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater or 10 or greater. Results: A total of 763 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab (n = 256), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 257), or chemotherapy (n = 250). The median (range) age of all patients in the study cohort was 62 (20-87) years; 554 of 763 (72.6%) were men. At final analysis, after a median (range) follow-up of 29.4 (22.0-41.3) months, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 10.6 vs 11.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 99.2% CI, 0.69-1.18). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 1 or greater. Pembrolizumab prolonged OS vs chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 10 or greater (median, 17.4 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), but this difference was not statistically tested. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (12.5 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03; P = .05) or CPS of 10 or greater (12.3 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17; P = .16) or for PFS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (6.9 vs 6.4 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .04). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse event rates for pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and chemotherapy were 17%, 73%, and 69%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that among patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy, with fewer adverse events observed. Pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for the OS and PFS end points tested. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494583.

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 5-year results from the phase III KEYNOTE-042 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02220894 ). Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations and with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 1% received pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles or chemotherapy (carboplatin + paclitaxel or pemetrexed) for 4-6 cycles with optional maintenance pemetrexed. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, ≥ 20%, and ≥ 1% groups. Patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab with ≥ stable disease could begin second-course pembrolizumab upon progression. One thousand two hundred seventy‐four patients were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab, n = 637; chemotherapy, n = 637). Median follow-up time was 61.1 (range, 50.0-76.3) months. OS outcomes favored pembrolizumab ( v chemotherapy) regardless of PD-L1 TPS (hazard ratio [95% CI] for TPS ≥ 50%, 0.68 [0.57 to 0.81]; TPS ≥ 20%, 0.75 [0.64 to 0.87]; TPS ≥ 1%, 0.79 [0.70 to 0.89]), with estimated 5-year OS rates with pembrolizumab of 21.9%, 19.4%, and 16.6%, respectively. No new toxicities were identified. Objective response rate was 84.3% among 102 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab and 15.2% among 33 patients who received second-course pembrolizumab. First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to show durable clinical benefit versus chemotherapy after 5 years of follow-up in PD-L1–positive, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations and remains a standard of care.

LBA4 Background: In KEYNOTE-024, pembro significantly improved PFS (primary end point) and OS (secondary end-point) over chemo as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC without targetable alterations and PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. In KEYNOTE-042, we compared pembro with chemo at the lower TPS of ≥1% (NCT02220894). Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ≤35 cycles of pembro 200 mg Q3W or investigator’s choice of ≤6 cycles of paclitaxel + carboplatin or pemetrexed (peme) + carboplatin with optional peme maintenance (nonsquamous only). Randomization was stratified by region (east Asia vs non-east Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), and TPS (≥50% vs 1-49%). Primary end-points were OS in pts with TPS ≥50%, ≥20%, and ≥1%. OS differences were assessed sequentially using the stratified log-rank test. Efficacy boundaries at the prespecified second interim analysis were one-sided P = .0122, .01198, and .01238, respectively. Results: 1274 pts were randomized: 637 to each arm. 599 pts (47.0%) had TPS ≥50%, 818 (64.2%) had TPS ≥20%. After 12.8-mo median follow-up, 13.7% were still on pembro and 4.9% were receiving peme maintenance. Pembro significantly improved OS in pts with TPS ≥50% (HR 0.69), TPS ≥20% (HR 0.77), and TPS ≥1% (HR 0.81) (Table). Grade 3-5 drug-related AEs were less frequent with pembro (17.8% vs 41.0%). The external DMC recommended continuing the trial to evaluate PFS (secondary end-point). Conclusion: KEYNOTE-042 is the first study with a primary end-point of OS to demonstrate superiority of pembro over platinum-based chemo in pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations and a PD-L1 TPS ≥1%. These data confirm and potentially extend the role of pembro monotherapy as a standard first-line treatment for PD-L1-expressing advanced/metastatic NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT02220894. [Table: see text]

LBA4007 Background: KEYNOTE062 (NCT02494583) was a randomized, active controlled study of 1L P or P+C vs C in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥1 (CPS ≥1), HER2-negative, advanced GC. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1:1 to P 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 y, P+C (cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 + 5-FU 800 mg/m 2 /d on d1-d5 Q3W [or capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 BID on d1-d14 Q3W per local guideline]) or placebo Q3W + C. Randomization was stratified by region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment. Primary endpoints were OS in CPS ≥1 and CPS ≥10 for P+C vs C and P vs C and PFS (RECIST v1.1; central review) in CPS ≥1 for P+C vs C. ORR (RECIST v1.1; central review) in CPS ≥1 for P+C vs C was the secondary endpoint. Final analysis cutoff date was 26 Mar 2019. Results: 763 pts (281 with CPS ≥10) were randomized to P+C (257), P (256), or C (250) (Table). Median follow-up was 11.3 mo. P was noninferior to C for OS in CPS ≥1 per prespecified margins. P vs C prolonged OS in CPS ≥10 (median 17.4 vs 10.8 mo; HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97) but wasn’t tested per analysis plan. P+C vs C was not superior for OS in CPS ≥1 or CPS ≥10, with a favorable trend for P+C. P+C did not significantly prolong PFS in CPS ≥1. ORR was higher for P+C vs C. Grade 3-5 drug-related AE rates were 17% (P), 73% (P+C), and 69% (C). Conclusions: As 1L therapy for advanced GC, P was noninferior to C for OS in CPS ≥1 with clinically meaningful improvement for OS in CPS ≥10. P+C did not show superior OS and PFS in CPS ≥1 and OS in CPS ≥10. The safety profile was more favorable for P vs C. Clinical trial information: NCT02494583. [Table: see text]