PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-122 was an open-label, randomized study conducted at 29 sites, globally. Participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by liver metastasis (present versus absent). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using the stratified log-rank test (superiority threshold, one-sided P = 0.0187). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population.
RESULTS: Between 5 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, 233 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pembrolizumab, n = 117; chemotherapy, n = 116); Most participants (86.7%) received study treatment in the second-line or later setting. Median time from randomization to data cut-off (30 November 2020) was 45.1 months (interquartile range, 39.0-48.8 months). Median OS was 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-22.9 months] with pembrolizumab and 15.3 months (95% CI 10.9-18.1 months) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio, 0.90 (95% CI 0.67-1.19; P = 0.2262)]. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 of 116 participants (10.3%) with pembrolizumab and 49 of 112 participants (43.8%) with chemotherapy. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: 1 participant (0.9%) with pembrolizumab (pneumonitis) and 2 (1.8%) with chemotherapy (pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage).
CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS compared with chemotherapy in participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC but did have manageable safety and a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
METHODS: MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.
RESULTS: Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.
[Media: see text].
CASE REPORT: We report a case of a patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and underlying active psoriasis who experienced a remarkable response, without developing psoriasis flares, following treatment with a single dose of atezolizumab and first-line chemotherapy.
MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: The patient remained asymptomatic 10 months since treatment discontinuation, without disease progression, despite having received only a single dose of atezolizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy.
DISCUSSION: Little is known about the optimum duration required to achieve a durable response with immunotherapy. Patients with autoimmune disease are commonly excluded from immunotherapy trials owing to a higher risk of autoimmune disease flares or immune-related adverse events. The remarkable outcome observed in this case offers some insights into the possible durable response with limited doses of immunotherapy and a safer approach for administering immunotherapy in patients with autoimmune disease. Initiating chemotherapy to induce remission in active autoimmune disease prior to administering immunotherapy could potentially be an ideal approach that facilitates the use of immunotherapy in this patient population.
METHODS: The medical records for NHL patients who had undergone HDT followed by AHSCT from October 1997 to November 2016 from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia were obtained from the medical record database and analysed retrospectively through statistical analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were retrospectively identified post-AHSCT, where the majority of whom had B cell lymphoma (53.4%). Majority of patients (88.5%) were in complete remission before AHSCT. The overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years were 68.9% and 60.8%, respectively. The major cause of death was disease progression at 73.9%, while transplant-related mortality was 15.2%, with a median follow-up period of 179.5 weeks.
CONCLUSION: Our study illustrates the promising outcomes of HDT with AHSCT in NHL patients in a resource-limited country. We recommend larger studies to be conducted in the future with a longer duration of follow-up to validate our findings.
METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
METHODS: Participants with R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy for R/M disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy. Post hoc efficacy analyses of the PD-L1 CPS < 1 and CPS 1-19 subgroups were performed.
RESULTS: Of 882 participants enrolled, 128 had PD-L1 CPS < 1 and 373 had CPS 1-19. For pembrolizumab versus cetuximab-chemotherapy, the median overall survival was 7.9 versus 11.3 months in the PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 0.96 to 2.37]) and 10.8 versus 10.1 months in the CPS 1-19 subgroup (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.12]). For pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus cetuximab-chemotherapy, the median overall survival was 11.3 versus 10.7 months in the PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup (HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.94]) and 12.7 versus 9.9 months in the CPS 1-19 subgroup (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94]).
CONCLUSION: Increased efficacy of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab-chemotherapy was observed with increasing PD-L1 expression. PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup analysis was limited by small participant numbers. Results from the PD-L1 CPS 1-19 subgroup support previous findings of treatment benefit with pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 tumors. Although PD-L1 expression is informative, exploration of additional predictive biomarkers is needed for low PD-L1-expressing HNSCC.
METHODS: In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review).
RESULTS: Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: In patients from Asia with previously treated advanced HCC, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival and PFS, and ORR was greater versus placebo.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy. Efficacy was evaluated in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20, CPS ≥ 1, and total populations, with no multiplicity or alpha adjustment.
RESULTS: The median study follow-up was 45.0 months (interquartile range, 41.0-49.2; n = 882). At data cutoff (February 18, 2020), overall survival improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81) and CPS ≥ 1 populations (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89) and was noninferior in the total population (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97). Overall survival improved with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.84), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and total (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85) populations. The objective response rate on second-course pembrolizumab was 27.3% (3 of 11). PFS2 improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84) and CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95) populations and with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.81), and total (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88) populations. PFS2 was similar after pembrolizumab and longer after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line taxanes and shorter after pembrolizumab and similar after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line nontaxanes.
CONCLUSION: With a 4-year follow-up, first-line pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus cetuximab-chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Patients responded well to subsequent treatment after pembrolizumab-based therapy.
METHODS: In the global, open-label, phase 3 IMbrave050 study, adult patients with high-risk surgically resected or ablated hepatocellular carcinoma were recruited from 134 hospitals and medical centres in 26 countries in four WHO regions (European region, region of the Americas, South-East Asia region, and Western Pacific region). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-web response system using permuted blocks, using a block size of 4, to receive intravenous 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (12 months) or to active surveillance. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by independent review facility assessment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04102098.
FINDINGS: The intention-to-treat population included 668 patients randomly assigned between Dec 31, 2019, and Nov 25, 2021, to either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=334) or to active surveillance (n=334). At the prespecified interim analysis (Oct 21, 2022), median duration of follow-up was 17·4 months (IQR 13·9-22·1). Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival (median, not evaluable [NE]; [95% CI 22·1-NE]) compared with active surveillance (median, NE [21·4-NE]; hazard ratio, 0·72 [adjusted 95% CI 0·53-0·98]; p=0·012). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 136 (41%) of 332 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 44 (13%) of 330 patients in the active surveillance group. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in six patients (2%, two of which were treatment related) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, and one patient (<1%) in the active surveillance group. Both atezolizumab and bevacizumab were discontinued because of adverse events in 29 patients (9%) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
INTERPRETATION: Among patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following curative-intent resection or ablation, recurrence-free survival was improved in those who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance. To our knowledge, IMbrave050 is the first phase 3 study of adjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma to report positive results. However, longer follow-up for both recurrence-free and overall survival is needed to assess the benefit-risk profile more fully.
FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.
CASE REPORT: In this case series, we report on two cases of WT which had poor response to pre-operative chemotherapy. Both cases underwent surgery after pre-operative chemotherapy and recovery was uneventful during a two-year follow-up.
DISCUSSION: Both patients had chemotherapy prior planned surgery, but had unfortunate poor tumour response. The tumour progressed in size which required a radical nephrectomy. The histology report for the first case had more than 60% blastemal cells remaining despite giving pre-operative chemotherapy with no focal anaplasia. This showed poor response to chemotherapy evidenced by the high number of blastemal cells. The second case was a stromal type WT which is known for poor response and may lead to enhancement of growth and maturation induced by chemotherapy. These were the possible reason of poor response of WT in these two cases.