Safety and Efficacy of Durvalumab and Tremelimumab Alone or in Combination in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Ronan J. Kelly(Johns Hopkins University), Jeeyun Lee(Samsung Medical Center), Yung‐Jue Bang(Seoul National University Hospital), Khaldoun Almhanna(Brown University), Mariela Blum‐Murphy(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Daniel V.T. Catenacci(University of Chicago), Hyun Cheol Chung(Yonsei University), Zev A. Wainberg(Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center), Michael K. Gibson(Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Keun‐Wook Lee(Seoul National University Bundang Hospital), Johanna C. Bendell(Tennessee Oncology), Crystal S. Denlinger(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Cheng Ean Chee(National University Cancer Institute, Singapore), Takeshi Omori(Osaka International Cancer Institute), Rom S. Leidner(Providence Portland Medical Center), Heinz‐Josef Lenz(University of Southern California), Yee Chao(Taipei Veterans General Hospital), Marlon C. Rebelatto(AstraZeneca (Japan)), Philip Z. Brohawn(AstraZeneca (Japan)), Peng He(AstraZeneca (Netherlands)), Jennifer McDevitt(AstraZeneca (Netherlands)), Siddharth Sheth(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Judson M. Englert(AstraZeneca (Netherlands)), Geoffrey Y. Ku(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)
Clinical Cancer Research
November 1, 2019
Cited by 129Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study assessed durvalumab and tremelimumab in combination or as monotherapy for chemotherapy-refractory gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Second-line patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive durvalumab plus tremelimumab (arm A), or durvalumab (arm B) or tremelimumab monotherapy (arm C), and third-line patients received durvalumab plus tremelimumab (arm D). A tumor-based IFNγ gene signature was prospectively evaluated as a potential predictive biomarker in second- and third-line patients receiving the combination (arm E). The coprimary endpoints were objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were treated: 6 in phase Ib and 107 (arm A, 27; arm B, 24; arm C, 12; arm D, 25; arm E, 19) in phase II. Overall response rates were 7.4%, 0%, 8.3%, 4.0%, and 15.8% in the five arms, respectively. PFS rates at 6 months were 6.1%, 0%, 20%, 15%, and 0%, and 12-month overall survival rates were 37.0%, 4.6%, 22.9%, 38.8%, and NA, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 17%, 4%, 42%, 16%, and 11% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates were low regardless of monotherapy or combination strategies. No new safety signals were identified. Including use of a tumor-based IFNγ signature and change in baseline and on-treatment circulating tumor DNA are clinically feasible and may be novel strategies to improve treatment response in this difficult-to-treat population.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis