Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Marcin Kowanetz
Author of
-
+
MA 05 - Immuno-Oncology: Novel Biomarker Candidates (ID 658)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Yoichi Nakanishi, P. Mitchell
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 303 + 304
-
+
MA 05.09 - Pre-Existing Immunity Measured by Teff Gene Expression in Tumor Tissue is Associated with Atezolizumad Efficacy in NSCLC (ID 10759)
16:35 - 16:40 | Presenting Author(s): Marcin Kowanetz
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Association between T-effector (Teff) gene expression (GE), a marker of pre-existing immunity, and OS benefit with atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) was demonstrated in the Phase II study POPLAR of atezolizumab vs docetaxel in 2L+ NSCLC. We analyzed Teff GE association with atezolizumab efficacy in a larger Phase III study, OAK.
Method:
Patients with 2L+ NSCLC were randomized to receive atezolizumab or docetaxel. Teff signature was defined by 3 genes (PD-L1, CXCL9, and IFNγ), and Teff GE was measured by averaging the normalized expression of each gene. Teff GE subgroups were defined by quartiles. PD-L1 expression was assessed using the SP142 IHC assay; the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 subgroup had ≥ 1% PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TC) or tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC).
Result:
753 of 850 patients from the OAK primary analysis constituted the biomarker evaluable population (BEP) for Teff GE. Expression of the Teff signature was associated with PD-L1 expression by IHC (P = 7.3×10[−45]). Although no significant PFS benefit with atezolizumab vs docetaxel was observed in the BEP (HR, 0.94 [95% CI: 0.81, 1.10]) or the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 subgroup (HR, 0.93 [95% CI: 0.76, 1.15]), a gradient of improved PFS benefit with atezolizumab was observed with increasing Teff GE. Significant PFS benefit occurred with ≥ median Teff GE cutoff (HR, 0.73 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.91]; Table). Teff GE also enriched for improved OS; however, a trend toward OS benefit was still observed in patients with low Teff GE (Table).Table. PFS and OS with atezolizumab vs docetaxel by PD-L1 IHC and Teff GE subgroups PFS, HR (95% CI) OS, HR (95% CI) OAK primary population (N = 850)[a] ITT[a] 0.95 (0.82, 1.10) 0.73 (0.62, 0.87) TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3[a ](n = 463) 0.91 (0.74, 1.12) 0.74 (0.58, 0.93) TC2/3 or IC2/3[a] (n = 265) 0.76 (0.58, 0.99) 0.67 (0.49, 0.90) OAK BEP for Teff GE (N = 753) BEP 0.94 (0.81, 1.10) 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (n = 420) 0.93 (0.76, 1.15) 0.74 (0.58, 0.95) Teff GE subgroups ≥ 25% (n = 570) 0.91 (0.76, 1.09) 0.67 (0.54, 0.83) < 25% (n = 183) 1.11 (0.82, 1.49) 0.87 (0.63, 1.21) ≥ 50% (n = 379) 0.73 (0.58, 0.91) 0.59 (0.46, 0.76) < 50% (n = 374) 1.30 (1.05, 1.61) 0.87 (0.68, 1.11) ≥ 75% (n = 190) 0.66 (0.48, 0.91) 0.60 (0.42, 0.87) < 75% (n = 563) 1.10 (0.92, 1.31) 0.76 (0.62, 0.92) [a]Rittmeyer A. et al. Lancet, 2017;389:255-265. NCT02008227.
Conclusion:
This is the first demonstration of the association between markers of Teff biology and clinical outcomes with cancer immunotherapy in a randomized Phase III trial. Teff GE may reflect pre-existing immunity and be a more sensitive biomarker compared with PD-L1 IHC, identifying more patients (50% prevalence) likely to experience PFS benefit with atezolizumab.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 17 - Immunotherapy II (ID 683)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Yuichiro Ohe, Anne Tsao
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 14:30 - 16:15, Room 301 + 302
-
+
OA 17.07 - Long-Term Survival in Atezolizumab-Treated Patients with 2L+ NSCLC from Ph III Randomized OAK Study (ID 8663)
15:35 - 15:45 | Author(s): Marcin Kowanetz
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) inhibits PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and B7.1, restoring anti-cancer immunity. OAK, a Phase III study of atezolizumab vs docetaxel demonstrated superior OS of atezolizumab. The characteristics of the long-term survivors (LTS) in the OAK primary population (n = 850) are evaluated and describe the largest cohort of cancer immunotherapy-treated NSCLC LTS yet reported.
Method:
Patients received IV q3w atezolizumab (1200 mg) until PD / loss of clinical benefit or docetaxel (75 mg/m[2]) until PD / unacceptable toxicity. No crossover was allowed. LTS were defined as patients with OS ≥ 24 months and non-LTS as those who died within 24 months of randomization. Patients with OS censored prior to 24 months were not included. Data cutoff, January 23, 2017.
Result:
A higher 2-year survival rate was observed for the atezolizumab-arm (31%) vs docetaxel-arm (21%). After a minimum follow-up of 26 months, there were 119 LTS vs 279 non-LTS in the atezolizumab-arm and 77 LTS vs 299 non-LTS in the docetaxel-arm. Characteristics of atezolizumab-arm LTS and non-LTS are shown (Table). Atezolizumab-arm LTS were enriched for non-squamous histology and high PD-L1–expressing tumors, but also included low/no PD-L1–expressing tumors (40.3%). Atezolizumab-arm LTS had higher ORR (39.5%) than non-LTS (5.0%) but included LTS subjects with PD. 52.9% atezolizumab-arm vs 71.4% docetaxel-arm LTS received anti-cancer non-protocol therapy (NPT) after discontinuation of protocol-defined therapy. 51.9% of docetaxel-arm LTS vs 12.7% non-LTS received non-protocol immunotherapy. Median treatment exposure in atezolizumab-arm LTS was 18.0 months. Atezolizumab-arm LTS had a comparable safety profile to all atezolizumab-treated population.
Conclusion:
Atezolizumab provides superior 2-year OS benefit vs docetaxel and is well tolerated. The majority of docetaxel-arm LTS received a checkpoint inhibitor as NPT. Atezolizumab LTS appeared to have favorable prognostic factors, including non-squamous histology, but notably were not limited to patients with RECIST v1.1 response or with PD-L1 expression.Table. Characteristics of Atezolizumab-Arm Long-Term Survivors (LTS) vs Non-Long Term Survivors (Non-LTS) Atezolizumab LTS (n = 119) n (%) Atezolizumab Non-LTS (n = 279) n (%) Sex Male 61 (51.3) 183 (65.6) Female 58 (48.7) 96 (34.4) Tobacco use history Never smoker 29 (24.4) 47 (16.8) Current/previous smoker 90 (75.6) 232 (83.2) Histology Non-squamous 101 (84.9) 195 (69.9) Squamous 18 (15.1) 84 (30.1) No. of prior therapies, 1 89 (74.8) 209 (74.9) ECOG performance status at baseline 0 60 (50.4) 89 (31.9) 1 59 (49.6) 190 (68.1) EGFR mutation status, positive 11 (9.2) 26 (9.3) PD-L1 IHC subgroup TC3 or IC3 28 (23.5) 39 (14.0) TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 71 (59.7) 156 (55.9) TC0 and IC0 48 (40.3) 119 (42.7) Best overall response Complete response 5 (4.2) 0 (0) Partial response 42 (35.3) 14 (5.0) Stable disease 47 (39.5) 97 (34.8) Progressive disease 25 (21.0) 142 (50.9) IC, tumor-infiltrating immune cell; TC, tumor cell. TC3 or IC3 = PD-L1 ≥ 50% TC or 10% IC; TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 = PD-L1 ≥ 1% on TC or IC; TC0 and IC0 = PD-L1 < 1% on TC and IC. NCT02008227.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
