Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Sandler
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): A. Sandler
- 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.
-
+
MA 10 - Immunotherapy I (ID 664)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:S. Wang, Robert Pirker
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 303 + 304
-
+
MA 10.03 - 3-Year Survival and Duration of Response in Randomized Phase II Study of Atezolizumab vs Docetaxel in 2L/3L NSCLC (POPLAR) (ID 8703)
11:10 - 11:15 | Author(s): A. Sandler
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) has demonstrated OS benefit over docetaxel in a randomized Phase II study, POPLAR, in patients with advanced NSCLC. This benefit has been confirmed in the randomized Phase III study OAK (Rittmeyer, 2017). The 3-year survival analysis of the POPLAR study presented here describes the longest survival follow-up reported to date of an all-comer randomized PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapy trial in 2L+ NSCLC.
Method:
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or docetaxel (75 mg/m[2]) IV q3w. Tumors were prospectively evaluated for tumor cell (TC) or tumor-infiltrating immune cell (IC) PD-L1 expression using the VENTANA SP142 IHC assay. Landmark OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Data cutoff, April 7, 2017; minimum follow-up, 3 years.
Result:
The 2-year and 3-year survival with atezolizumab vs docetaxel were 32.2% vs 16.6% and 18.7% vs 10.0%, respectively. The long-term OS benefit of atezolizumab vs docetaxel was observed across histology and PD-L1 expression subgroups (Table). While the TC3 or IC3 subgroup derived the greatest OS benefit, the TC0 and IC0 subgroup also had improved long-term OS with atezolizumab vs docetaxel. The ITT ORR was 15% in both atezolizumab and docetaxel arms, but the median duration of response was 3 times longer with atezolizumab (22.3 months [95% CI: 11.6, 31.1] vs 7.2 months [95% CI: 5.8, 12.2] with docetaxel). Seven of the 11 docetaxel-arm 3-year survivors received subsequent non-protocol therapy with anti–PD-L1/PD-1 agents. Atezolizumab had a favorable safety profile compared with docetaxel that was consistent with previous reports.
Conclusion:
Atezolizumab demonstrates superior 2-year and 3-year OS benefit compared with docetaxel, and this benefit is observed across histology and PD-L1 expression subgroups (including TC0 and IC0). Atezolizumab is well tolerated, and responses are highly durable. These results are consistent with long-term OS results from OAK, presented separately.Table. Landmark OS in the ITT, PD-L1 expression, and histology subgroups in POPLAR Population (n, atezolizumab vs docetaxel) 2-year OS rate, % 3-year OS rate, % Atezolizumab Docetaxel P value[a] Atezolizumab Docetaxel P value[a] ITT (144 vs 143) 32.2% 16.6% 0.0027 18.7% 10.0% 0.0419 PD-L1 Expression Subgroups TC3 or IC3 (24 vs 23) 41.7% 19.9% 0.1003 37.5% 14.9% 0.0724 TC2/3 or IC2/3 (50 vs 55) 36.1% 13.8% 0.0082 21.2% 9.9% 0.1166 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (93 vs 102) 36.0% 19.8% 0.0124 18.0% 11.0% 0.1759 TC0 and IC0 (51 vs 41) 25.0% 6.8% 0.0202 20.5% 6.8% 0.0693 Histology Subgroups Non-squamous (95 vs 95) 32.2% 21.1% 0.0960 23.3% 12.4% 0.0585 Squamous (49 vs 48) 32.7% 7.8% 0.0020 9.4% 5.2% 0.4603 [a ]For descriptive purpose only. TC3 or IC3 = PD-L1 ≥ 50% TC or 10% IC; TC2/3 or IC2/3 = PD-L1 ≥ 5% TC or 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. NCT01903993.
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 17.02 - Updated Efficacy Results From the BIRCH Study: First-Line Atezolizumab Therapy in PD-L1–Selected Patients With Advanced NSCLC (ID 8006)
14:40 - 14:50 | Author(s): A. Sandler
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
The anti–PD-L1 mAb atezolizumab blocks the interactions between PD-L1 and its receptors, PD-1 and B7.1, thus restoring anti-tumor immunity. A Phase II study of atezolizumab monotherapy was conducted across multiple lines of therapy in PD-L1–selected patients with advanced NSCLC (BIRCH; NCT02031458). The primary analyses showed meaningful and durable clinical benefit with atezolizumab monotherapy in 1L and 2L+ NSCLC. Here we present updated survival data (median follow-up, 29.7 months) in patients receiving 1L atezolizumab.
Method:
Eligible patients had chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC without CNS metastases. Prior TKI therapy was required in patients with EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement. PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) was centrally evaluated (VENTANA SP142 IHC assay). Patients who were TC2/3 or IC2/3 (PD-L1 expression on ≥ 5% of TC or IC) were enrolled. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was administered IV q3w until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was independent review facility (IRF)–assessed ORR. Secondary endpoints included investigator (INV)-assessed ORR, DOR, PFS (RECIST v1.1) and OS.
Result:
With a median follow-up of 29.7 months, median OS was 26.9 months (TC3 or IC3 subgroup) and 24.0 months (all treated patients); INV-assessed ORR was 35% (TC3 or IC3 subgroup) and 26% (all treated patients; Table). Among evaluable patients, the ORR was 31% for mutant EGFR (4/13) vs 23% for wild-type EGFR patients (24/103), and 31% for mutant KRAS (10/32) vs 24% for wild-type KRAS patients (16/66). No new safety signals were observed.
Conclusion:
With more than 2 years of follow-up, atezolizumab continued to demonstrate durable clinical activity in 1L NSCLC, regardless of EGFR and KRAS mutational status. These data suggest that atezolizumab monotherapy has promising activity as a frontline therapy. Ongoing Phase III trials are evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens vs chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.Endpoint (95% CI) TC3 or IC3[a ](n = 65) TC2 or IC2[b] (n = 73) All Treated Patients (N = 138) INV-assessed ORR, % 35% (23.9, 48.2) 18% (9.8, 28.5) 26% (19.0, 34.2) EGFR mutant/wild-type, % 25%/33% 33%/15% 31%/23% KRAS mutant/wild-type, % 38%/33% 25%/15% 31%/24% mDOR, mo 16.5 (8.5, NE) 12.5 (8.3, 17.9) 13.1 (9.9, NE) mOS, mo 26.9 (12.0. NE) 23.5 (18.1, NE) 24.0 (18.1, 31.9) 12-mo OS rate, % 61% (49.0, 74.0) 71% (59.8, 81.5) 66% (58.1, 74.6) 24-mo OS rate, % 52% (39.3, 65.2) 49% (37.0, 61.1) 50% (41.5, 59.2) 30-mo OS rate, % 48% (35.3, 61.5) 39% (27.2, 51.2) 43% (34.3, 52.1) mPFS, mo 7.3 (4.9, 12.0) 7.6 (4.0, 9.7) 7.6 (5.7, 9.7) 12-mo PFS rate, % 38% (25.1, 49.9) 30% (19.2, 41.2) 34% (25.3, 41.9) 24-mo PFS rate, % 28% (16.5, 40.0) 13% (4.5, 21.5) 20% (12.9, 27.5) 30-mo PFS rate, % 19% (5.4, 33.5) 9% (1.4, 16.4) 14% (6.5, 21.9) NE, not estimable. [a ]TC ≥ 50% or IC ≥ 10% PD-L1–expressing cells.[b ]TC2/3 or IC2/3 excluding TC3 or IC3.
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.
-
+
P1.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 757)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.01-052 - Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in OAK: A Phase III Study of Atezolizumab vs Docetaxel in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 9903)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Sandler
- Abstract
Background:
The phase III OAK study in NSCLC (NCT02008227) demonstrated prolonged overall survival with atezolizumab (an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody) versus docetaxel (median 13.8 vs 9.6 months; HR:0.73, 95% CI 0.62–0.87; p=0.0003). PROs were collected to support documentation of clinical benefit. We report data regarding symptom burden, functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
Method:
Patients (n=850) with squamous/non-squamous, previously treated NSCLC, ≥18 years, with measurable disease (RECIST), and ECOG PS 0–1 were randomized to receive atezolizumab 1200mg or docetaxel 75mg/m[2] q3w. PROs were collected using two questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30 and its lung module, QLQ-LC13. Analyses included time-to-confirmed-deterioration (TTD) in lung cancer symptoms, physical and role function, HRQoL, longitudinal analyses of mean scores change from baseline to Cycles 5 and 6, proportion of patients with clinically meaningful worsening (≥10-point change from baseline) by Cycles 5 and 6.
Result:
High completion rates were observed throughout treatment (>80% for most cycles). Atezolizumab delayed TTD in physical (HR:0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.98) and role function (HR:0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.00). Prolonged TTD in chest pain (HR:0.71, 95% CI 0.49–1.05) was observed with atezolizumab; no differences in TTD were seen for other lung cancer symptoms and HRQoL. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated average changes from baseline in favor of atezolizumab for lung cancer symptoms (Cycle 6: dyspnea, fatigue), domains of functioning (Cycle 6: physical function, social function), HRQoL (Cycle 5); see Table. Fewer atezolizumab-treated patients experienced clinically meaningful worsening in possible treatment-related symptoms during treatment (Cycle 6: diarrhea [OR:0.51, p<0.0001], sore mouth [OR:0.40, p<0.0001], dysphagia [OR:0.61; p=0.0052], peripheral neuropathy [OR:0.50, p<0.0001], alopecia [OR:0.02; p<0.0001]).
Conclusion:
In OAK, atezolizumab delayed the time until NSCLC patients experience limitations in physical and role functioning versus docetaxel. Patient-reported data indicate atezolizumab maintained/improved lung cancer symptom burden and HRQoL compared with baseline, while demonstrating improved tolerability, versus docetaxel.By Cycle 5 By Cycle 6 LS means difference between treatment arms (average change from baseline) P value LS means difference between treatment arms (average change from baseline) P value EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status and Function Scales (positive values indicate greater improvement with atezolizumab over docetaxel) Global Health Status 4.32* p=0.0151 3.08 p=0.1257 Physical Function 3.33* p=0.0290 6.64* p<0.0001 Role Function 2.93 p=0.1959 4.72 p=0.0542 Emotional Function 2.66 p=0.1110 1.92 p=0.2868 Cognitive Function -0.67 p=0.6790 -1.08 p=0.5309 Social Function 3.25 p=0.1159 4.68* p=0.0319 EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scales (negative values indicate greater improvement with atezolizumab over docetaxel) Fatigue -6.27* p=0.0015 -7.66* p=0.0003 Nausea/Vomiting -0.37 p=0.7824 -0.18 p=0.9040 Pain 1.44 p=0.5132 -1.67 p=0.4727 Dyspnea -4.70* p=0.0317 -5.92* p=0.0138 Insomnia 3.50 p=0.1675 0.83 p=0.7564 Appetite Loss -2.94 p=0.1994 -4.49 p=0.0586 Constipation -0.31 p=0.8772 -0.33 p=0.8816 Diarrhea -3.14* p=0.0482 -2.05 p=0.1748 EORTC QLQ-LC13 Symptom Scales (negative values indicate greater improvement with atezolizumab over docetaxel) Dyspnea -1.66 p=0.3146 -4.80* p=0.0140 Coughing -2.60 p=0.2572 -1.38 p=0.5772 Sore Mouth -7.29* p<0.0001 -9.23* p<0.0001 Dysphagia -0.08 p=0.9595 -2.01 p=0.1575 Peripheral Neuropathy -12.98* p<0.0001 -15.71* p<0.0001 Hemoptysis -0.24 p=0.7365 -0.91 p=0.2080 Alopecia -50.59* p<0.0001 -47.04* p<0.0001 Chest Pain -0.91 p=0.6064 -0.58 p=0.7779 Arm/Shoulder Pain -2.27 p=0.3177 -0.58 p=0.8109 Pain in Other Parts 0.94 p=0.7197 -1.05 p=0.7034 *Values that are significantly in favor of atezolizumab versus docetaxel
-
+
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)
-
+
P2.04-004 - IMpower010: A Phase III Study of Atezolizumab vs Best Supportive Care Following Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Completely Resected NSCLC (ID 8896)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): A. Sandler
- Abstract
Background:
Atezolizumab is an anti–PD-L1 mAb that blocks PD-L1 from interacting with its receptors PD-1 and B7.1 and restores anti-cancer immunity. In patients with 2L/3L advanced NSCLC, the OAK trial showed improved mOS in the atezolizumab arm (13.8 mo) vs the docetaxel arm (9.6 mo), with survival benefit observed across all PD-L1 expression levels on tumor cells (TC) or tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC). In patients with fully resected NSCLC (stages IB [tumors ≥ 4 cm]-IIIA), adjuvant chemotherapy remains the standard of care, but survival benefit is limited. Therefore, more effective therapies are still needed for patients with early-stage NSCLC. IMpower010 (NCT02486718) is a global Phase III, randomized, open-label trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab vs best supportive care (BSC) following adjuvant cisplatin–based chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC.
Method:
Eligibility criteria include complete tumor resection 4-12 weeks prior to enrollment for pathological stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC, adequate recovery from surgery, ability to receive cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy and ECOG PS 0-1. Patients with other malignancies, autoimmune disease, hormonal cancer or radiation therapy within 5 years and prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy will be excluded. Approximately 1127 patients will be enrolled regardless of PD-L1 status. Patients will receive up to four 21-day cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m[2] IV, day 1] + vinorelbine [30 mg/m[2] IV, days 1, 8], docetaxel [75 mg/m[2] IV, day 1] or gemcitabine [1250 mg/m[2] IV, days 1, 8], or pemetrexed [500 mg/m[2] IV, day 1; only non-squamous NSCLC]). Adjuvant radiation therapy is not permitted. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive 16 cycles of atezolizumab 1200 mg q3w or BSC post-adjuvant chemotherapy. Stratification factors include sex, histology (squamous vs non-squamous), disease stage (IB vs II vs IIA) and PD-L1 status by IHC (TC2/3 [≥ 5% expressing PD-L1] and any IC vs TC0/1 [< 5%], and IC2/3 vs TC0/1 and IC0/1 [< 5%]). The primary endpoint is disease-free survival, and secondary endpoints include OS and safety. Exploratory biomarkers will be evaluated, including PD-L1 expression and immune- and tumor-related biomarkers before, during and after treatment with atezolizumab and at radiographic disease recurrence or confirmation of new primary NSCLC.
Result:
Section not applicable
Conclusion:
Section not applicable
