Confirms what we already know. No real surprises.
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.
Superior to osi (23 vs 16 progression-free survival). This is more toxic though, but seems manageable. Could this be a new first line standard of care? Also, this includes brain penetration data.
Adding SBRT improves local control and disease progression in the brain but not overall survival. Do the radiation oncologists have input? Is it worth it to control symptoms?
Neoadjuvant Osimertinib did not have a significant impact on major pathologic response and there were no ypCR’s after a median of ~8 weeks of therapy. I do think this shows a measurable response, enough such that I would consider Osi in a patient with “borderline resectable” disease.
Osimertinib in adjuvant, now after chemotherapy and radiation, next… Neoadjuvant??? Trials are ongoing.
This is here till progression.
Failed? Numerical overall survival (OS) benefit for sacituzumab vs docetaxol, but not statistically significant. Better tolerated, also overall survival (OS) noticed more in patients who did not respond to antiPDL-1 therapy.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
