First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Author(s): Prof Mustafa Özgüroğlu, MD¹; Prof Saadettin Kilickap, MD²; Prof Ahmet Sezer, MD³; Prof Mahmut Gümüş, MD⁴; Prof Igor Bondarenko, MD⁵; Miranda Gogishvili, MD⁶; Marina Nechaeva, MD⁷; Prof Michael Schenker, MD⁸; Prof Irfan Cicin, MD⁹; Prof Gwo Fuang Ho, MD¹⁰; Yaroslav Kulyaba, MD¹¹; Kasimova Zyuhal, MD¹²; Roxana-Ioana Scheusan, MD¹³; Prof Marina Chiara Garassino, MD¹⁴; Xuanyao He, PhD¹⁵; Manika Kaul, MD¹⁵; Emmanuel Okoye, MPH¹⁵; Yuntong Li, PhD¹⁵; Siyu Li, PhD¹⁵; Jean-Francois Pouliot, PhD¹⁵; Frank Seebach, MD¹⁵; Israel Lowy, MD¹⁵; Giuseppe Gullo, MD¹⁵; Petra Rietschel, MD¹⁵

Source: doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00329-7

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

The EMPOWER-Lung1 study looked at patients with metastatic NSCLC and PDL1 expression >= 50%, randomized to cemiplimab vs. chemo; no surprise, the benefit was significant in the CPI therapy group. Interestingly, they allow the patients on the CPI arm to have chemo added at the time of progression, which would be a different approach. We should see more results on this as follow-up matures.

BACKGROUND

Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months’ follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression.

METHODS

EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.

FINDINGS

Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months’ follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1–31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5–16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46–0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2–8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3–6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42–0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1–9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3–18·7). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals

INTERPRETATION

At 35 months’ follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

FUNDING

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Author Affiliations

¹Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Türkiye; ²Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology, Istinye University Istanbul, Türkiye; ³Department of Medical Oncology, Başkent University, Adana, Türkiye; ⁴Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Türkiye; ⁵Department of Oncology and Medical Radiology, Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy, Dnipro, Ukraine; ⁶High Technology Medical Centre, University Clinic, Tbilisi, Georgia; ⁷Division Arkhangelsk Clinical Oncology Center, Arkhangelsk, Russia; ⁸Centrul de Oncologie Sf Nectarie SRL, Craiova, Romania; ⁹Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye; ¹⁰Clinical Oncology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; ¹¹Prognosis Optima LLC, Kyiv, Ukraine; ¹²Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment, Dobrich, Bulgaria; ¹³Oncocenter Oncologie Clinica, Timisoara, Romania; ¹⁴Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, Knapp Center for Biomedical Discovery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; ¹⁵Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY, USA

Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study

PACIFIC-2 was a phase III trial testing durva given concurrently with cCRT (and continued as consolidation) versus placebo + cCRT in unresectable stage III NSCLC, and it did not meet its primary endpoint. The overall response rate (ORR) was essentially identical (60.7% vs 60.6%), and pneumonitis rates were similar (any grade 28.8% vs 28.7%; grade ≥3: 4.6% vs 5.6%), but adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation and fatal AEs were higher with durva (25.6% vs 12.0%; 13.7% vs 10.2%), especially early on. Starting IO up front with cCRT didn’t improve outcomes and added early toxicity—consolidation durva after cCRT is still the way to go.

Sevabertinib in Advanced HER2-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Sevabertinib shows strong efficacy in HER2-mutant NSCLC, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 64% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months in previously treated, HER2-TKI–naive patients, and an overall response rate (ORR) of 71% with a duration of response (DOR) of 11.0 months in first-line therapy. Activity is highest in TKD mutations, especially Y772_A775dupYVMA, and intracranial responses are seen. Safety is manageable: diarrhea is common but mostly low grade, with grade ≥3 in 5–23% and rare discontinuations. Notably, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was not observed. These data position sevabertinib as a viable oral TKI alongside ADCs for HER2-mutant NSCLC, particularly for TKD/YVMA disease.

Overall Survival with Amivantamab–Lazertinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC

The combination therapy demonstrated improved overall survival (a 25% reduction in mortality) but was associated with increased toxicity, including skin rash and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Single-agent osimertinib may lose its role as monotherapy for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as the FLAURA2 trial showed that combining osimertinib with chemotherapy yielded better outcomes than osimertinib alone.

Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

The phase III NeoADAURA trial evaluated neoadjuvant osimertinib (OSI) with or without platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) versus CT alone in resectable, EGFR-mutated stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Both OSI+CT and OSI monotherapy significantly improved major pathologic response (MPR: 26% and 25% vs 2%), and 12-month event-free survival (EFS) rates were higher with OSI-containing regimens (OSI+CT 93%, OSI 95%, CT 83%). Nodal downstaging was also more frequent with OSI arms (53% vs 21%). Neoadjuvant OSI—with or without CT—looks like a real step forward for our EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, especially given the robust pathologic responses and high rates of surgical completion.

Phase III Study of Mediastinal Lymph Node Dissection for Ground Glass Opacity–Dominant Lung Adenocarcinoma

This large, well-done study compared systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection (LND) versus no LND in patients with GGO-dominant invasive lung adenocarcinoma (CTR ≤0.5, ≤3 cm, cT1N0M0). Interim analysis of 302 patients showed no lymph node metastases in either arm, with both groups achieving 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of 100% at the time of analysis. The no LND arm had significantly shorter surgery duration (74 vs 109 min), less blood loss (44 vs 82 mL), shorter hospital stays (3.9 vs 4.5 days), and fewer grade ≥2 complications (3.3% vs 9.3%). Based on these findings, the trial was terminated early for nonmaleficence, and the authors recommend omitting systematic mediastinal LND in this population. In short, for carefully selected GGO-dominant lung adenocarcinoma, skipping mediastinal LND appears safe and spares patients’ unnecessary morbidity—this could be a real practice-changer for our early-stage, node-negative cases.