Davey B. Daniel

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Abstract Purpose: Complete and timely tissue genotyping is challenging, leading to significant numbers of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) being undergenotyped for all eight genomic biomarkers recommended by professional guidelines. We aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) relative to physician discretion standard-of-care (SOC) tissue genotyping to identify guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mNSCLC. Patients and Methods: Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mNSCLC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted a pretreatment blood sample for comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). Results: Among 282 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 60 patients versus 77 cfDNA identified patients (21.3% vs. 27.3%; P &amp;lt; 0.0001 for noninferiority). In tissue-positive patients, the biomarker was identified alone (12/60) or concordant with cfDNA (48/60), an 80% cfDNA clinical sensitivity for any guideline-recommended biomarker. For FDA-approved targets (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF) concordance was &amp;gt;98.2% with 100% positive predictive value for cfDNA versus tissue (34/34 EGFR-, ALK-, or BRAF-positive patients). Utilizing cfDNA, in addition to tissue, increased detection by 48%, from 60 to 89 patients, including those with negative, not assessed, or insufficient tissue results. cfDNA median turnaround time was significantly faster than tissue (9 vs. 15 days; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Guideline-complete genotyping was significantly more likely (268 vs. 51; P &amp;lt; 0.0001). Conclusions: In the largest cfDNA study in previously untreated mNSCLC, a validated comprehensive cfDNA test identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, with high tissue concordance, more rapidly and completely than tissue-based genotyping. See related commentary by Meador and Oxnard, p. 4583

PURPOSE: Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with poor prognosis and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -targeted drugs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether dual inhibition of MET/EGFR results in clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent NSCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive onartuzumab plus erlotinib or placebo plus erlotinib; crossover was allowed at progression. Tumor tissue was required to assess MET status by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive (MET IHC diagnostic positive) populations; additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: There was no improvement in PFS or OS in the ITT population (n = 137; PFS hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; P = .69; OS HR, 0.80; P = .34). MET-positive patients (n = 66) treated with erlotinib plus onartuzumab showed improvement in both PFS (HR, .53; P = .04) and OS (HR, .37; P = .002). Conversely, clinical outcomes were worse in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab plus erlotinib (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.82; P = .05; OS HR, 1.78; P = .16). MET-positive control patients had worse outcomes versus MET-negative control patients (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.71; P = .06; OS HR, 2.61; P = .004). Incidence of peripheral edema was increased in onartuzumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab plus erlotinib was associated with improved PFS and OS in the MET-positive population. These results combined with the worse outcomes observed in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab highlight the importance of diagnostic testing in drug development.