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

First-Line Sunvozertinib in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations

Progression-free survival (PFS) was higher in the Sun group vs chemotherapy, 10.3 m vs 7.5 m with HR of .65 with higher responses (58.9% vs 31.1%) diarrhea high CK and anemia were the most common side effects. The issue is that amivan was not part of treatment and compared to chemotherapy ami in addition to chemotherapy had 11m PFS also in this trial few had brain mets so no evaluation for CNS protection or treatment. But an oral agent in patients who don’t want to come to the office often.

Selpercatinib in Early-Stage RET Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

109 patients with stage II or IIIA disease, 2-year investigator-assessed event-free survival was 92% with selpercatinib and 61% with placebo (HR for disease recurrence, progression, or death, 0.17 P<0.001). Patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), event-free survival at 2 years was 94% with selpercatinib and 70% with placebo. Genomic testing is expanding now for early stage NSCLC. More study in the adjuvant setting showing promise with targeted therapy.

Ensartinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

It seems the old cliche of more drugs than patients is becoming true for most providers here. The data needs to mature further here but likely this will be another option for Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)+ non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the adjuvant setting. It does look like CNS protection benefits are meaningful as well.

Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (HARMONi-6): interim overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in China

The median overall survival (OS) was 27·9 months with ivonescimab versus 23·7 months with tis.

Sacituzumab tirumotecan plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (OptiTROP-Lung05): interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with sac-TMT plus pembrolizumab than with pembrolizumab alone (not reached vs 5·7 m) this is regardless of PDL-1 expression (1-49 or >50).