METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus investigator's choice chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine/carboplatin). QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) were prespecified. PROs were analyzed for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 PRO assessment. Change in PRO scores from baseline were assessed at week 15 (latest time point at which completion/compliance rates were ≥60%/≥80%). Time to deterioration (TTD) in PROs was defined as time to first onset of ≥ 10-point worsening in score from baseline.
RESULTS: PRO analyses included 317 patients with tumor PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy; n = 217; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 100). There were no between-group differences in change from baseline to week 15 in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL; least-squares mean difference, -1.81 [95% CI, -6.92 to 3.30]), emotional functioning (-1.43 [-7.03 to 4.16]), physical functioning (-1.05 [-6.59 to 4.50]), or EQ-5D VAS (0.18 [-5.04 to 5.39]), and no between-group difference in TTD in QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, emotional functioning, or physical functioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Together with the efficacy and safety findings, PRO results from KEYNOTE-355 support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients with advanced TNBC with tumor PD-L1 (CPS ≥10).
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions (n = 64) were conducted with women with breast cancer from two public and three private hospitals. This study specifically focused on (a) health costs, (b) nonhealth costs, (c) employment and earnings, and (d) financial assistance. Thematic analysis was used.
RESULTS: Financial needs related to cancer treatment and health care varied according to the participant's socioeconomic background and type of medical insurance. Although having medical insurance alleviated cancer treatment-related financial difficulties, limited policy coverage for cancer care and suboptimal reimbursement policies were common complaints. Nonhealth expenditures were also cited as an important source of financial distress; patients from low-income households reported transport and parking costs as troublesome, with some struggling to afford basic necessities, whereas participants from higher-income households mentioned hired help, special food and/or supplements and appliances as expensive needs following cancer. Needy patients had a hard time navigating through the complex system to obtain financial support. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, reductions in household income due to loss of employment and/or earnings were a major source of economic hardship.
CONCLUSION: There are many unmet financial needs following a diagnosis of (breast) cancer even in settings with universal health coverage. Health care professionals may only be able to fulfill these unmet needs through multisectoral collaborations, catalyzed by strong political will.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As unmet financial needs exist among patients with cancer across all socioeconomic groups, including for patients with medical insurance, financial navigation should be prioritized as an important component of cancer survivorship services, including in the low- and middle-income settings. Apart from assisting survivors to understand the costs of cancer care, navigate the complex system to obtain financial assistance, or file health insurance claims, any planned patient navigation program should also provide support to deal with employment-related challenges and navigate return to work. It is also echoed that costs for essential personal items (e.g., breast prostheses) should be covered by health insurance or subsidized by the government.