A Multicenter Phase II Study of AMG 337 in Patients with MET-Amplified Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction/Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Other MET-Amplified Solid Tumors

PURPOSE: MET gene amplification is associated with poor prognosis in gastric/gastroesophageal junction/esophageal (G/GEJ/E) cancers. We determined antitumor activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the small-molecule MET inhibitor AMG 337 in MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma or other solid tumors.Patients and Methods: In this phase II, single-arm study, adults with MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma (cohort 1) or other MET-amplified solid tumors (cohort 2) received AMG 337 300 mg/day orally in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; cohort 1). Secondary endpoints included ORR (cohort 2), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 2101 patients screened for MET amplification, 132 were MET-amplified and 60 were enrolled: 45 in cohort 1, and 15 in cohort 2. Fifty-six patients (97%) had metastatic disease; 57 had prior lines of therapy (1 prior line, 29%; ≥2 prior lines, 69%). A protocol-permitted review showed efficacy that was lower-than-expected based on preliminary data from a first-in-human study, and enrollment was stopped. Fifty-eight patients received ≥1 AMG 337 dose. ORR in cohort 1 was 18% (8 partial responses). No responses were observed in cohort 2. Of 54 evaluable patients, median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 3.4 (2.2-5.0) and 7.9 (4.8-10.9) months, respectively. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were headache (60%), nausea (38%), vomiting (38%), and abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and peripheral edema (33% each); 71% had grade ≥3 AEs and 59% had serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: AMG 337 showed antitumor activity in MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma but not in MET-amplified non-small-cell lung cancer.See related commentary by Ma, p. 2375. ispartof: CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH vol:25 issue:8 pages:2414-2423 ispartof: location:United States status: publishe

Five-year analysis on the long-term effects of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T) in patients with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma

Background: First-line treatment with D+T demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. With 5 years of follow-up, we report survival and describe characteristics of patients in the phase 3 COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials with long-term benefit. Methods: Pooled 5-year landmark data for patients treated with D+T in the phase 3 COMBId (NCT01584648) and COMBI-v (NCT01597908) trials were analyzed. The trials enrolled patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E/K–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Patients received D 150 mg twice daily plus T 2 mg once daily vs either D + placebo (COMBI-d) or vemurafenib (COMBI-v). The primary endpoints were PFS in COMBI-d and OS in COMBI-v. Results: The pooled population included 563 patients who received D+T (COMBI-d, n = 211; COMBI-v, n = 352)

Characteristics of Patients with a Complete Response Treated with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib Combination Therapy: Findings from Pooled COMBI-d and COMBI-v 5-Year Analysis

Abstract not available

AMulticenter Phase II Study of AMG 337 in Patients with MET-Amplified Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction/Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Other MET-Amplified Solid Tumors

PURPOSE: MET gene amplification is associated with poor prognosis in gastric/gastroesophageal junction/esophageal (G/GEJ/E) cancers. We determined antitumor activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the small-molecule MET inhibitor AMG 337 in MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma or other solid tumors.Patients and Methods: In this phase II, single-arm study, adults with MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma (cohort 1) or other MET-amplified solid tumors (cohort 2) received AMG 337 300 mg/day orally in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; cohort 1). Secondary endpoints included ORR (cohort 2), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 2101 patients screened for MET amplification, 132 were MET-amplified and 60 were enrolled: 45 in cohort 1, and 15 in cohort 2. Fifty-six patients (97%) had metastatic disease; 57 had prior lines of therapy (1 prior line, 29%; ≥2 prior lines, 69%). A protocol-permitted review showed efficacy that was lower-than-expected based on preliminary data from a first-in-human study, and enrollment was stopped. Fifty-eight patients received ≥1 AMG 337 dose. ORR in cohort 1 was 18% (8 partial responses). No responses were observed in cohort 2. Of 54 evaluable patients, median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 3.4 (2.2-5.0) and 7.9 (4.8-10.9) months, respectively. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were headache (60%), nausea (38%), vomiting (38%), and abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and peripheral edema (33% each); 71% had grade ≥3 AEs and 59% had serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: AMG 337 showed antitumor activity in MET-amplified G/GEJ/E adenocarcinoma but not in MET-amplified non-small-cell lung cancer.See related commentary by Ma, p. 2375.status: publishe

A phase II, randomized, multicenter study evaluating the combination of lapatinib and vinorelbine in women with ErbB2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer

Lapatinib is approved in combination with capecitabine for treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have progressed on prior trastuzumab in the metastatic setting. Vinorelbine is an important chemotherapy option for MBC. We evaluated efficacy and safety of lapatinib plus vinorelbine, compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine, in women with HER2-positive MBC. In this open-label, multicenter, phase II study, eligible patients (N = 112) were randomized 2:1 to lapatinib plus vinorelbine [(N = 75) 1,250 mg orally once daily (QD) continuously plus 20 mg/m(2)/day intravenously] or lapatinib plus capecitabine [(N = 37) 1,250 mg orally QD continuously plus 2,000 mg/m(2)/day orally, 2 doses]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Other endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Patients progressing within the study were given the option of crossover to the other treatment arm; time to second progression was an exploratory endpoint. Patient demographics, stratification, and prognostic factors were well balanced between treatments. Median PFS in both arms was 6.2 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.2, 8.8 (lapatinib plus vinorelbine); 4.4, 8.3 (lapatinib plus capecitabine)]. Median OS on lapatinib plus vinorelbine was 24.3 months (95 % CI 16.4, NE) and 19.4 months (95 % CI 16.4, 27.2) on lapatinib plus capecitabine. In total, 42 patients opted to cross over; median PFS was 3.2 months (95 % CI 1.7, 5.1) on lapatinib plus vinorelbine and 4.0 months (95 % CI 2.1, 5.8) on lapatinib plus capecitabine. Lapatinib plus vinorelbine offers an effective treatment option for patients with HER2-overexpressing MBC, having displayed comparable efficacy and tolerability rates to lapatinib plus capecitabine

Final overall survival analysis of a phase II trial evaluating vinorelbine and lapatinib in women with ErbB2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer

Lapatinib plus capecitabine (lap+cap) is approved as treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), who have progressed on prior trastuzumab in the metastatic setting. We previously reported progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety results from this open-label, multicentre, phase II study (VITAL; NCT01013740) conducted in women with HER2 positive MBC, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lap plus vinorelbine (lap+vin), an important chemotherapy option for MBC, compared with lap+cap. In total, 112 patients were randomised 2:1 to treatment with lap+vin (N = 75) or lap+cap (N = 37). Results showed that the median PFS (primary endpoint) and OS (secondary endpoint) post-randomisation were comparable between treatment arms, with no new safety signals detected. Here, we assessed the final OS in this study at 40 months post-randomisation. At the time of final analyses, 24 (32%) patients were ongoing in the lap+vin arm, compared with 14 (38%) patients in the lap+cap arm (92% in both arms had discontinued treatment). Median OS in the lap+vin arm was 23.3 months (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 18.5, 31.1), compared with 20.3 months (95% CI: 16.4, 31.8) in the lap+cap arm. The median follow-up in the lap+vin arm was 18.86 months (95% CI: 10.68, 26.02), compared with 19.38 (95% CI: 25.56) months in the lap+cap arm. Similar rates of death (56-57%) were observed in both arms. The final OS was consistent with the previously reported data and suggest that lap+vin offers an effective treatment option for women with HER2-positive MBC. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Five-Year Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Programmed Death Ligand-1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 1% in the KEYNOTE-042 Study

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co‐primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We report 5-year results from the phase III KEYNOTE-042 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02220894 ). Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations and with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 1% received pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles or chemotherapy (carboplatin + paclitaxel or pemetrexed) for 4-6 cycles with optional maintenance pemetrexed. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, ≥ 20%, and ≥ 1% groups. Patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab with ≥ stable disease could begin second-course pembrolizumab upon progression. One thousand two hundred seventy‐four patients were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab, n = 637; chemotherapy, n = 637). Median follow-up time was 61.1 (range, 50.0-76.3) months. OS outcomes favored pembrolizumab ( v chemotherapy) regardless of PD-L1 TPS (hazard ratio [95% CI] for TPS ≥ 50%, 0.68 [0.57 to 0.81]; TPS ≥ 20%, 0.75 [0.64 to 0.87]; TPS ≥ 1%, 0.79 [0.70 to 0.89]), with estimated 5-year OS rates with pembrolizumab of 21.9%, 19.4%, and 16.6%, respectively. No new toxicities were identified. Objective response rate was 84.3% among 102 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab and 15.2% among 33 patients who received second-course pembrolizumab. First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to show durable clinical benefit versus chemotherapy after 5 years of follow-up in PD-L1–positive, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations and remains a standard of care

363 KEYNOTE-042 5-year survival update: pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundPrimary analysis of KEYNOTE-042 (NCT02220894), a global, randomized, phase 3 trial, showed that pembrolizumab significantly improved OS versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%, ≥20%, and ≥1% with fewer treatment-related AEs than chemotherapy. We report an updated analysis with ~5 years of follow-up.MethodsEligible adults were randomized 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (carboplatin + paclitaxel or pemetrexed) Q3W for 4–6 cycles with optional maintenance pemetrexed (nonsquamous only). Primary endpoints were OS in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, ≥20%, and ≥1%; secondary endpoints included PFS and ORR per RECIST v1.1 by central review, and safety (secondary). Eligible patients randomized to pembrolizumab who completed 35 cycles with SD or better or stopped treatment after confirmed CR could begin a second course of pembrolizumab at the time of progression.Results1274 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (n = 637 each). Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff (Apr 28, 2021) was 61.1 (50.0–76.3) months. OS outcomes favored the pembrolizumab group (vs chemotherapy alone) regardless of PD-L1 TPS (HR [95% CI] for TPS ≥50%, 0.68 [0.57–0.81]; TPS ≥20%, 0.75 [0.64–0.87]; TPS ≥1%, 0.79 [0.70–0.89]), with estimated 5-year OS rates (95% CI) of 21.9% (17.3%–26.9%), 19.4% (15.6%–23.4%) and 16.6% (13.7%–19.6%), respectively, in the pembrolizumab group (table 1). Median duration of response (DOR) was 28.1 vs 10.8 months in PD-L1 TPS ≥50% group, 27.7 vs 10.8 months in PD-L1 TPS ≥20% group and, 26.5 vs 8.4 months in PD-L1 TPS ≥1% for pembrolizumab group vs chemotherapy. Treatment-related grade 3–5 AEs occurred in 120 patients (18.9%) in the pembrolizumab group and 257 (41.8%) in the chemotherapy group. Among 102 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab: ORR was 84.3%; estimated 4-year OS rate after completion of 35 cycles of pembrolizumab (ie, approximately 6 years after randomization) was 61.8%. Among 33 patients who received second-course pembrolizumab, ORR was 15.2%.Abstract 363 Table 1Key efficacy outcomes in the KEYNOTE-042 ITT populationConclusionsWith 5 years of follow-up, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to show substantial clinical benefit with higher 5-year OS rates, and durable response over chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1–positive, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations. First-line pembrolizumab remains a standard of care in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1%, as underscored by these long-term results.AcknowledgementsMedical writing assistance was provided by Kathleen Estes, PhD, of ICON plc (North Wales, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrialsgov, NCT02220894Ethics ApprovalThe protocol and all amendments were approved by the appropriate ethics committee at each center, the study was conducted in accordance with the standards of Good Clinical Practice and in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients provided written informed consent before enrollment