Avelumab vs Standard Second-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Microsatellite Instability

Author(s): Julien Taïeb, MD, PhD^1,2,3; Olivier Bouche, MD, PhD⁴; Thierry André, MD⁵; Karine Le Malicot, MS⁶; Pierre Laurent-Puig, MD, PhD^1,2,3; Jérémie Bez, MS⁶; Clémence Toullec, MD⁷; Christophe Borg, MD⁸; Violaine Randrian, MD, PhD⁹; Ludovic Evesque, MD¹⁰; Stéphane Corbinais, MD¹¹; Hervé Perrier, MD¹²; Bruno Buecher, MD¹³; Frederic Di Fiore, MD, PhD¹⁴; Claire Gallois, MD^1,2; Jean Francois Emile, MD, PhD¹⁵; Côme Lepage, MD, PhD5,¹⁶; Farid Elhajbi, MD, PhD¹⁷; David Tougeron, MD, PhD⁹; for the SAMCO-PRODIGE 54 Investigators

Source: JAMA Oncol. Published online August 3, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2761

Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts

If anti PD-L1 was not used as first line treatment, this study shows you can still use it as second line.

KEY POINTS

QUESTION

Are checkpoint inhibitors better than chemotherapy in the second-line setting for deficient mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)?

FINDINGS

In this phase 2 randomized clinical trial including 122 patients, avelumab, an anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody, was associated with significantly better progression-free survival and disease control duration than standard second-line treatment. In addition, avelumab had a favorable safety profile in the second-line setting of dMMR/MSI mCRC.

MEANING

These findings suggest that for patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC not treated with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an option in the second-line setting, with better efficacy and tolerability than the current standard of care.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE

Only 1 randomized clinical trial has shown the superiority of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with deficient mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the first-line setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether avelumab (an anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody) improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The SAMCO-PRODIGE 54 trial is a national open-label phase 2 randomized clinical trial that was conducted from April 24, 2018, to April 29, 2021, at 49 French sites. Patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC who experienced progression while receiving standard first-line therapy were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive standard second-line therapy or avelumab every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or patient refusal.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary end point was PFS according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours), version 1.1, evaluated by investigators in patients with mCRC and confirmed dMMR and MSI status who received at least 1 dose of treatment (modified intention-to-treat [mITT] population).

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were enrolled in the mITT population. Median age was 66 (IQR, 56-76) years, 65 patients (53.3%) were women, 100 (82.0%) had a right-sided tumor, and 52 (42.6%) had BRAF V600E–mutated tumors. There was no difference in patients and tumor characteristics between treatment groups. No new safety concerns in either group were detected, with fewer treatment-related adverse events of at least grade 3 in the avelumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20 [31.7%] vs 34 [53.1%]; P = .02). After a median follow-up of 33.3 (95% CI, 28.3-34.8) months, avelumab was superior to chemotherapy with or without targeted agents with respect to PFS (15 [24.6%] vs 5 [8.2%] among patients without progression; P = .03). Rates of PFS rates at 12 months were 31.2% (95% CI, 20.1%-42.9%) and 19.4% (95% CI, 10.6%-30.2%) in the avelumab and control groups, respectively, and 27.4% (95% CI, 16.8%-39.0%) and 9.1% (95% CI, 3.2%-18.8%) at 18 months. Objective response rates were similar in both groups (18 [29.5%] vs 16 [26.2%]; P = .45). Among patients with disease control, 18 (75.7%) in the avelumab group compared with 9 (19.1%) in the control group had ongoing disease control at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAMCO-PRODIGE 54 phase 2 randomized clinical trial showed, in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC, better PFS and disease control duration with avelumab over standard second-line treatment, with a favorable safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03186326

Author Affiliations

¹Institut du Cancer Paris Cancer Research for Personalized Medicine, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France; ²Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université de Paris, Paris, France; ³Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP Centre, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France; ⁴Department of Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Reims, Reims, France; ⁵Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Saint Antoine, INSERM 938 and Site de Recherche Intégrée sur le Cancer CURAMUS, Paris, France; ⁶Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive, EPICAD INSERM Lipides Nutrition Cancer–Unité Mixte de Recherche 1231, University of Burgundy and Franche Comté, Dijon, France; ⁷Department of Medical Oncology, Institut du Cancer, Avignon-Provence, France; ⁸Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France; ⁹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Poitiers University Hospital, Poitiers, France; ¹⁰Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France; ¹¹Department of Medical Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France; ¹²Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Marseille, France; ¹³Department of Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France; ¹⁴Hepatogastroenterology Department, CHU Rouen, University of Rouen Normandy, INSERM 1245, Institut de Recherche en Oncologie Group, Normandie University, Rouen, France; ¹⁵EA4340, Pathology Department and INSERM, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Boulogne, France; ¹⁶Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospital Dijon, University of Burgundy and Franche Comté, Dijon, France; ¹⁷Medical Oncology Department, Oscar Lambret Center, Lille, France; JAMA Oncol. Published online August 3, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.2761

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Microsatellite-Instability–High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Here is a large phase-III well done study confirming what we knew from earlier studies, that ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Ipi+Nivo) is highly active and effective in the microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer (MSI-high met-CRC) population. This is most likely more effective than single agent IO therapy but with higher rates of toxicity. When all things are equal, I would consider this to be the standard of care (SOC) in this context.

Oxaliplatin Added to Fluoropyrimidine/Bevacizumab as Initial Therapy for Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Older Patients: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Trial (JCOG1018)

This Japanese study showed no benefit with the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (5FU+bev) in patients who were aged 70-74 but unfit, or >=75. Interestingly survival was actually shorter in the patients who received oxaliplatin at 21.3 vs 19.7 months.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Standard of Care for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Analysis of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III LEAP-017 Study

Overall survival (OS) improvement was not statistically significant in the study arm but is a non-chemotherapy option. Patients here had tumors with MSS.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study

Less maintenance is NOT NON-inferior, so it is inferior in patients with wild type BRAF metastatic colon cancer. So it is better to keep on the full regimen. Although, quality of life is better.

A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer screening by peripheral blood testing? This cell-free DNA assay had an 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia. However, the issue is that this does not detect precancerous lesions well. Colonoscopy has its obvious advantages as it can both diagnose colorectal cancer as well as eradicate precancerous lesions.