Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Fabrice Barlesi
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 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- 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.
-
+
MS 05 - Clinical Issues of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ID 527)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Symposium
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Luis E Raez, Nico Van Zandwijk
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Main Hall
-
+
MS 05.02 - First-line versus Second-Line Anti-PD-(L)1 Therapy for Patients with Positive PD-L1 Expression (ID 7659)
16:00 - 16:15 | Presenting Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in other Western countries, with more than 1.8 million new cases and 1.5 million deaths worldwide in 2012 (Globocan, 2012). Recent advances in the management of NSCLC have included use of therapies targeting oncogenes (EGFR, BRAF or HER2 mutations, ALK or ROS1 rearrangements) but molecular alteration is currently detected in only the half of the patients with non-squamous NSCLC (Barlesi et al., 2016). Immune check point inhibitors (ICI), the first of which targeted the lymphocyte cell surface inhibitory receptor PD-1 or its ligand PD-L1, have recently become available and have been shown to provide an overall survival advantage over standard second-line chemotherapy (Borghaei et al., 2015; Brahmer et al., 2015; Herbst R et al, Lancet 2016; Rittmeyer et al, 2016), and more recently over first-line standard chemotherapy in monotherapy for a small subgroup driven by PD-L1 expression (Reck et al., 2016) or in combination regardless of PD-L1 expression (Langer et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), for both squamous and non-squamous NSCLC. Unfortunately, the long-term overall survival benefit is driven by only about 20-25% of the patients. PD-L1 tumor expression has been proposed to guide the patients’ selection but remains controversial (Kerr K, 2016). However, PD-L1 tumor expression of more than 1% and 50% is mandatory for the use of pembrolizumab monotherapy in second and first-line, respectively. Therefore, how to choose the best way to use ICIs for advanced NSCLC patients? Many aspects may be considered and will be discussed during the session including the PD-L1 expression and other potential predictive biomarkers (as tumor mutational burden), the current contra-indications to ICIs, the potential suspected factors predicting a higher risk of rapid progression on ICIs, the potential synergy for the concomitant combination of ICIs with chemotherapy or conversely a sequential use, the side effects for monotherapies and combinations, and the recent data on ICIs combinations versus standard chemotherapy. In summary, the attendees will have the arguments to globally assess the risk/benefit balance in using ICIs first or at resistance to chemotherapy and discuss the chosen strategies with their patients.
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 16 - Treatment Strategies and Follow Up (ID 686)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Early Stage NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Jun Nakajima, T. Demmy
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 14:30 - 16:15, Room 315
-
+
OA 16.03 - Recurrences and 2<Sup>Nd</Sup> Primary Cancers in the IFCT-0302 Trial Assessing a CT-Scan-Based Follow-Up after Lung Cancer Surgery (ID 9006)
14:50 - 15:00 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
The IFCT-0302 trial is the first large randomized phase III multicenter trial which compared two follow-up modalities after surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Method:
After complete resection of a stage pI, II, IIIA or T4 (pulmonary nodules in the same lobe) N0-2 NSCLC (TNM 6[th] edition), patients were randomized (1/1) between 2 follow-up programs: - arm 1, clinical examination and Chest X-ray, - arm 2, clinical examination, Chest X-ray, thoraco-abdominal CT-scan plus bronchoscopy (optional for adenocarcinomas). In both arms, procedures were repeated every 6 months after randomization during the first 2 years, and yearly until 5 years. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Distinction between lung recurrences and 2[nd] primary lung cancer was assessed by investigators, using the Martini and Melamed definition (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1975).
Result:
1775 patients were randomized (arm 1: 888; arm 2: 887). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms: males 76.3%, median age 63 years (range: 34-88), squamous and large cell carcinomas 39.5%, stage I 68.1%, stage II 13.7%, stage III 18.3%, lobectomy or bilobectomy 86,6%. OS and DFS were not significantly different between arms (OS: HR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.8-1.07; p=0.27). Median disease-free survival was 4.95 years (95% CI: 4.4- not reached) in arm 1 and not reached in arm 2, respectively. A recurrence was diagnosed in 245 patients (27.6%) in arm 1, and in 291 patients (32.8%) in arm 2. Recurrences were symptomatic in 203 (82.9%) and 163 (56.0%) patients, respectively. The most frequent sites of recurrence were: ipsilateral lung (42.0 and 33.0%), brain (29.4 and 23.4%), and contralateral lung (24.9 and 22.3%), respectively. Treatment of recurrence achieved complete remission in 25 (10.2%) and 52 (17.9%) patients (p=0.01), respectively. Second primary cancers (SPC) were diagnosed in 101 patients (11.4%) in arm 1, and 97 patients (10.9%) in arm 2, with symptoms at diagnosis in 64 (63.4%) and 37 (38.1%) patients, respectively. The most frequent sites of SPC were: lung (25.7 and 41.2%), prostate (14.8 and 11.3%), and ENT (11.9 and 7.2%), respectively. Treatment of SPC achieved complete remission in 30 (29.7%) and 40 (41.2%) patients (p=0.10), respectively.
Conclusion:
Although OS and DFS were not significantly increased by thoraco-abdominal CT-scan-based follow-up, recurrences or SPCs were more frequently asymptomatic and amenable to curative treatment in patients followed by thoraco-abdominal CT scan compared to those followed by chest X-ray only.
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 17.05 - IFCT-1502 CLINIVO: Real-Life Experience with Nivolumab in 600 Patients (Pts) with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 9371)
15:15 - 15:25 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Nivolumab is a standard option for second‐line treatment in pts with advanced NSCLC. Real‐life data are lacking regarding the efficacy of nivolumab and post‐nivolumab treatment.
Method:
This analysis included the first 600 consecutive pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who received ≥1 dose of nivolumab 3mg/kg q2w through the French EAP from 01/2015 for Squamous ﴾Sq﴿ and 06/2015 for Non‐Sq NSCLC, until 08/2015.
Result:
Median age was 64 yo, there were 409 ﴾68%﴿ men, 521 ﴾87%﴿ smokers, 478 ﴾80%﴿ PS0/1 pts, 230 ﴾38%﴿ Sq and 370 ﴾62%﴿ Non‐Sq NSCLC, 130 ﴾22%﴿ pts with brain metastases. Nivolumab was administered as 2nd/3rd/≥4th‐line for 26%/33%/41% pts, respectively. Best response was PR/SD/PD for 17%/30%/37% of patients, respectively, with 16% not assessable. Toxicities occurred in 187 ﴾31%﴿ pts, including 10% grade ≥3 events. After a median follow‐up of 22.1 ﴾95% CI 21.6‐22.6﴿ months, median PFS and OS from the initiation of nivolumab were 2.1 ﴾95%CI 1.9‐2.3﴿ and 9.5 ﴾95%CI 8.4‐10.8﴿ months, respectively. In the 92 pts with PS2 at initiation of nivolumab, PR/SD rates were 7%/28%; median OS was 3.6 (95%CI 2.7-5.2) months. A total of 130 pts had brain metastases at initiation of nivolumab: PR/SD rates were 12%/25%; median OS was 6.6 (95%CI 3.8-8.3) months. Post‐nivolumab treatment was administered to 262 ﴾44%﴿ pts, and mostly consisted of gemcitabine ﴾19%﴿, docetaxel ﴾18%﴿, paclitaxel ﴾14%﴿, erlotinib ﴾12%﴿, vinorelbine ﴾9%﴿, platin‐based doublet ﴾8%﴿, or pemetrexed ﴾8%﴿. Access to post‐nivolumab treatment was higher in PS0/1 vs. PS2 pts ﴾48% vs. 23%, p<0.001﴿, but was not different according to histology or treatment line or disease control with nivolumab. Best response to post‐nivolumab treatment was PR/SD/PD for 15%/42%/42% of pts, respectively. In the whole cohort, median post‐nivolumab OS was 4.0 ﴾95%CI 2.8‐4.6﴿ months, and was significantly higher in case of PR to nivolumab ﴾HR=0.38; 95%CI 0.23‐0.64; p<0.001﴿, and if subsequent treatment was delivered ﴾HR=0.30; 95%CI 0.24‐0.38; p<0.001﴿; median post‐nivolumab OS in pts receiving post‐nivolumab treatment was 7.5 ﴾95%CI 6.8‐8.7﴿ months, and did not differ based on histology or treatment line.
Conclusion:
Efficacy and safety of nivolumab was in line with available data. Post‐nivolumab treatment may be delivered in many pts, including pts with PS2 and brain metastases, with favorable impact on response and OS. Data on the whole cohort of 900 pts enrolled in the EAP will be presented.
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.
-
+
P1.15 - SCLC/Neuroendocrine Tumors (ID 701)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: SCLC/Neuroendocrine Tumors
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.15-004 - An Open-Label, Multitumor Phase II Basket Study of Olaparib and Durvalumab (MEDIOLA): Results in Patients with Relapsed SCLC (ID 9388)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
Background:
The prognosis of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains poor and there is a high unmet need for effective therapies. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and immunotherapies hold promise due to expression of PARP and high mutational burden in SCLC. PARP inhibition leads to upregulation of anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and enhanced cancer immunosuppression. This led us to investigate the combination of olaparib and the PD-L1 inhibitor, durvalumab in SCLC (NCT02734004).
Method:
Individuals with relapsed SCLC at least 12 weeks after platinum-based therapy were eligible. Patients received olaparib tablets 300 mg PO BID for a 4-week run-in, followed by a combination of olaparib 300 mg PO BID and durvalumab 1.5 g IV q 4 weeks. The combination was continued until progressive disease by RECIST 1.1. Tumor assessments were done at baseline, 4 weeks and every 8 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks, as well as safety and tolerability. The secondary endpoints included DCR at 28 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Biomarker endpoints included PD-L1 expression and evaluation of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). A target DCR of 60% was used to calculate the sample size in a Bayesian predictive probability design.
Result:
Among the 38 patients, the median age was 63 years (range 44-76) and median line of prior chemotherapies 1 (range 1-3). At the time of analysis, each patient was followed up for at least 12 weeks. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs included anemia (34.2%), hyponatremia (10.5%), lymphopenia (10.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.3%), increased GGT (5.3%) and increased lipase (5.3%). DCR at 12 weeks was 29%. Confirmed responses included one partial response and one complete response. Three additional patients had unconfirmed responses. The updated primary and secondary endpoints, as well as biomarker and PK data will be presented.
Conclusion:
Although AEs of all grades were seen commonly, the combination of olaparib and durvalumab was relatively well tolerated, as most of the AEs were attributed to underlying disease. While efficacy of the combination in this SCLC population did not reach the target DCR and is below the futility boundary (<40%), a minority of patients obtained significant benefit and will be followed up for further clinical and translational analyses.
-
+
P2.04 - Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials (ID 705)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.04-013 - ElevatION:NSCLC-101 – A Phase 1b Study of PDR001 Combined with Chemotherapy in PD-L1 Unselected, Metastatic NSCLC Patients (ID 8936)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
Background:
PDR001 is a high-affinity, humanized antiprogramed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody that blocks interaction with programmed cell death ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2. Results from phase 1/2 study have shown that PDR001 has a manageable safety profile and preliminary antitumor activity in advanced solid tumors. ElevatION:NSCLC-101 is the first study to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of PDR001 plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 unselected, advanced NSCLC.
Method:
ElevatION:NSCLC-101 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study (NCT03064854) of PDR001 plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients (≥18 years) with squamous or nonsquamous, stage IIIB (not a candidate for definitive multimodality therapy) or stage IV or relapsed locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, lacking EGFR-sensitizing mutation and/or ALK- or ROS1-rearrangements. Other inclusion criteria: ECOG PS 0-1, ≥1 measurable lesion (per RECIST v1.1), relapse for >12 months from the end of neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. PD-L1 expression will be assessed but will not be used to determine eligibility. This study comprises 2 parts (dose-confirmation and dose-expansion) and 4 treatment groups (A, B, C, and D). Groups A, B, and C (dose-confirmation and dose-expansion parts) will include treatment-naïve patients. Group D (dose-expansion part) will include second line patients – those who have received only 1 prior systemic therapy consisting of a PD-1 and/or PD-L1 inhibitor ± CTLA-4 inhibitor (last dose of prior immunotherapy, ≥6 weeks prior to start of study treatment). The treatment-naïve patients will receive gemcitabine/cisplatin (group A) or pemetrexed/cisplatin (group B) or paclitaxel/carboplatin (group C) plus PDR001 (initially 300 mg q3w; if intolerable, a provisional dose level (−1) of 300 mg q6w will be explored) for up to 4 cycles followed by maintenance with PDR001 ± pemetrexed (group B). The second-line patients (group D) will be randomized (1:1) to either platinum-doublet chemotherapy (pemetrexed/cisplatin or pemetrexed/carboplatin) alone/combined with PDR001. Primary endpoints: dose-confirmation part – MTD and/or recommended dose for expansion (DLTs during first 6 weeks of therapy; for groups A, B, and C); dose-expansion part – investigator-assessed ORR per RECIST v1.1 (for groups A, B, and C). Secondary endpoints: ORR (for group D); PFS, DCR, DOR, TTR (for groups A, B, C, and D); OS, PK, and safety. The study enrollment is still ongoing. Approximately 6 to 20 treatment-naïve patients will be assigned to each group (A, B, C) and once MTD/RDE is established, ~20 additional patients will be enrolled in each treatment group; ~60 pretreated patients will be enrolled in group D.
Result:
Not-applicable.
Conclusion:
Not-applicable.
-
+
P3.07 - Immunology and Immunotherapy (ID 723)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P3.07-012 - Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Liver Metastases (ID 8484)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): Fabrice Barlesi
- Abstract
Background:
Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have metastasis to the liver have poor prognosis. The phase 3 trials CheckMate 017 and 057 demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with nivolumab, an anti-programmed death-1 antibody, versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, respectively. A prior subgroup analysis from these trials evaluated and demonstrated efficacy and safety with nivolumab in patients with asymptomatic central nervous system metastases (Goldman J. ASCO 2016). Here we report subgroup analyses from these trials of patients with baseline liver metastases.
Method:
In both trials, patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m[2] every 3 weeks until progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint of each study was OS. Patients from CheckMate 017 and 057 with baseline liver metastases reported as either target or non-target lesions were identified and pooled across studies by treatment.
Result:
Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with liver metastases randomized to nivolumab (n=99) and docetaxel (n=94). In the nivolumab group, 26% of patients had squamous and 74% had non-squamous NSCLC; in the docetaxel group, 36% had squamous and 64% had non-squamous NSCLC. The minimum follow-up was 24.2 months (Feb 2016 database locks). Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio [HR]=0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50, 0.91), similar to findings from the ITT group (HR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.84). Median OS in patients with liver metastases was 6.83 months with nivolumab versus 5.93 months with docetaxel, both of which were lower than those observed in the overall pooled intent-to-treat (ITT) population (11.14 months vs 8.11 months). Two-year OS rates were 18% with nivolumab versus 6% with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases. Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events in patients with liver metastases were lower with nivolumab compared with docetaxel (7% vs 53%), and similar to those in the ITT population (10% vs 55%).
Conclusion:
The lower median OS observed in this subgroup of patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC and baseline liver metastases corroborates previous findings that metastasis to the liver is an unfavorable prognostic factor. However, nivolumab demonstrated sustained OS benefit versus docetaxel in these patients, similar to the ITT population. The safety profile of nivolumab was favorable versus docetaxel in this subgroup, with no new safety concerns identified.
