TY - JOUR
T1 - Alliance Foundation Trial 09
T2 - A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase 2 Trial Evaluating Two Sequences of Pembrolizumab and Standard Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC
AU - Hensing, Thomas A.
AU - Wang, Xiaofei
AU - Stinchcombe, Thomas E.
AU - Gao, Junheng
AU - Knopp, Michael V.
AU - Watson, Mark
AU - Dudek, Arkadiusz Z.
AU - Graziano, Stephen L.
AU - Patel, Jyoti D.
AU - Faller, Bryan A.
AU - Dragnev, Konstantin H.
AU - Kozono, David
AU - Vokes, Everett E.
N1 - Funding Information:
Disclosure: Dr. Stinchcombe reports receiving personal fees from Takeda , AstraZeneca , Genentech / Roche , Foundation Medicine, Pfizer , EMD Serono , Novartis , Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly , Medtronic , Puma, and Biotechnology and grants to institution from Genentech/Roche, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Advaxis, and Regeneron outside of the submitted work. Dr. Dudek reports receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute , during the conduct of the study, and grants from Merck and Eli Lilly, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Patel reports receiving personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of the submitted work. Dr. Faller reports receiving nonfinancial support from Celgene , Janssen Biotech , Genentech , Novartis, Amgen , Merck, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Tersera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, Genzyme Corp., Aurobindo Pharma, E.R. Squibb, Lilly USA, Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp., Puma Biotech, Agios, Pharmacyclics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Healthcare, AbbVie Inc., Verastem, Inc., Gilead, Taiho Oncology, CSL Behring, Atellas, Sirtex Medical, Teva Pharma, and Janssen Pharma outside of the submitted work. Dr. Dragnev reports receiving support from the Alliance Foundation for Trials during the conduct of the study and grants to institution from Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, and Io Therapeutics outside of the submitted work. Dr. Vokes reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene , Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Information:
Disclosure: Dr. Stinchcombe reports receiving personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Medtronic, Puma, and Biotechnology and grants to institution from Genentech/Roche, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Advaxis, and Regeneron outside of the submitted work. Dr. Dudek reports receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Merck and Eli Lilly, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Patel reports receiving personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of the submitted work. Dr. Faller reports receiving nonfinancial support from Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Genentech, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Tersera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, Genzyme Corp., Aurobindo Pharma, E.R. Squibb, Lilly USA, Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp., Puma Biotech, Agios, Pharmacyclics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Healthcare, AbbVie Inc., Verastem, Inc., Gilead, Taiho Oncology, CSL Behring, Atellas, Sirtex Medical, Teva Pharma, and Janssen Pharma outside of the submitted work. Dr. Dragnev reports receiving support from the Alliance Foundation for Trials during the conduct of the study and grants to institution from Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, and Io Therapeutics outside of the submitted work. Dr. Vokes reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Introduction: The sequence of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab may affect antitumor immune response and efficacy of immunotherapy. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of two sequences of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in patients with stage 4 NSCLC. Both arms were considered investigational, and the study used a “pick a winner” design. The primary end point was objective response rate by independent radiologic review after eight cycles (24 wk). Patients were randomized 1:1 to arm A (chemotherapy for four cycles followed by pembrolizumab for four cycles) or arm B (pembrolizumab for four cycles followed by chemotherapy for four cycles). Patients in both arms without disease progression after the initial eight cycles continued pembrolizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum of 2 years. Results: From March 2016 to July 2018, a total of 90 eligible patients were randomized (43 patients to arm A and 47 patients to arm B). The objective response rate at 24 weeks in arms A and B was 39.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 24.9%–54.1 %) and 40.4 % (95 % CI: 26.4%–54.5 %), respectively (p = 0.93). The progression-free survival in arms A and B was as follows: hazard ratio of B versus A equals to 1.06, 95 % CI: 0.68–1.66, p value equals to 0.84, and median progression-free survival of 5.8 months and 4 months, respectively. The overall survival was as follows: hazard ratio of B versus A equals to 1.04, 95 % CI: 0.63–1.74, p value equals to 0.85, and median overall survival of 15.5 months and 14 months, respectively. Conclusions: Additional evaluation of either sequence in a phase 3 trial is not warranted.
AB - Introduction: The sequence of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab may affect antitumor immune response and efficacy of immunotherapy. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of two sequences of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in patients with stage 4 NSCLC. Both arms were considered investigational, and the study used a “pick a winner” design. The primary end point was objective response rate by independent radiologic review after eight cycles (24 wk). Patients were randomized 1:1 to arm A (chemotherapy for four cycles followed by pembrolizumab for four cycles) or arm B (pembrolizumab for four cycles followed by chemotherapy for four cycles). Patients in both arms without disease progression after the initial eight cycles continued pembrolizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum of 2 years. Results: From March 2016 to July 2018, a total of 90 eligible patients were randomized (43 patients to arm A and 47 patients to arm B). The objective response rate at 24 weeks in arms A and B was 39.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 24.9%–54.1 %) and 40.4 % (95 % CI: 26.4%–54.5 %), respectively (p = 0.93). The progression-free survival in arms A and B was as follows: hazard ratio of B versus A equals to 1.06, 95 % CI: 0.68–1.66, p value equals to 0.84, and median progression-free survival of 5.8 months and 4 months, respectively. The overall survival was as follows: hazard ratio of B versus A equals to 1.04, 95 % CI: 0.63–1.74, p value equals to 0.85, and median overall survival of 15.5 months and 14 months, respectively. Conclusions: Additional evaluation of either sequence in a phase 3 trial is not warranted.
KW - Clinical trial
KW - Immunotherapy
KW - Immunotherapy and chemotherapy sequencing
KW - Metastatic non–small cell lung cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112628829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100208
DO - 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100208
M3 - Article
C2 - 34590049
AN - SCOPUS:85112628829
SN - 2666-3643
VL - 2
JO - JTO Clinical and Research Reports
JF - JTO Clinical and Research Reports
IS - 8
M1 - 100208
ER -