M Chatterjee1, D C Turner1, E Felip2, H Lena3, F Cappuzzo4, L Horn5, E B Garon6, R Hui7, H-T Arkenau8, M A Gubens9, M D Hellmann10, D Dong1, C Li1, K Mayawala1, T Freshwater1, M Ahamadi1, J Stone1, G M Lubiniecki11, J Zhang12, E Im11, D P De Alwis1, A G Kondic1, Ø Fløtten13. 1. Quantitative Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, USA. 2. Thoracic Tumors Group, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Pneumonology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rennes, Rennes, France. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Ospedale Civile, Livorno, Italy. 5. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead Hospital and the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute UK and University College London, London, UK. 9. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco. 10. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York. 11. Oncology Clinical Research, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth. 12. Biostatistics and Research Design Sciences, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, USA. 13. Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway oystein.flotten@helse-bergen.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the phase I KEYNOTE-001 study, pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We sought to characterize the relationship between pembrolizumab dose, exposure, and response to define an effective dose for these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) (n = 55), 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 238), or 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 156). Response (RECIST v1.1) was assessed every 9 weeks. The relationship between the estimated pembrolizumab area under the concentration-time curve at steady state over 6 weeks (AUCss-6weeks) and the longitudinal change in tumor size (sum of longest diameters) was analyzed by regression and non-linear mixed effects modeling. This model was simultaneously fit to all tumor size data, then used to simulate response rates, normalizing the trial data across dose for prognostic covariates (tumor PD-L1 expression and EGFR mutation status). The exposure-safety relationship was assessed by logistic regression of pembrolizumab AUCss-6weeks versus occurrence of adverse events (AEs) of interest based on their immune etiology. RESULTS:Overall response rates were 15% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7%-28%] at 2 mg/kg Q3W, 25% (18%-33%) at 10 mg/kg Q3W, and 21% (95% CI 14%-30%) at 10 mg/kg Q2W. Regression analyses of percentage change from baseline in tumor size versus AUCss-6weeks indicated a flat relationship (regression slope P > 0.05). Simulations showed the exposure-response relationship to be similarly flat, thus indicating that the lowest evaluated dose of 2 mg/kg Q3W to likely be at or near the efficacy plateau. Exposure-safety analysis showed the AE incidence to be similar among the clinically tested doses. CONCLUSIONS: No significant exposure dependency on efficacy or safety was identified for pembrolizumab across doses of 2-10 mg/kg. These results support the use of a 2 mg/kg Q3W dosage in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRY: NCT01295827.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In the phase I KEYNOTE-001 study, pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We sought to characterize the relationship between pembrolizumab dose, exposure, and response to define an effective dose for these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) (n = 55), 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 238), or 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 156). Response (RECIST v1.1) was assessed every 9 weeks. The relationship between the estimated pembrolizumab area under the concentration-time curve at steady state over 6 weeks (AUCss-6weeks) and the longitudinal change in tumor size (sum of longest diameters) was analyzed by regression and non-linear mixed effects modeling. This model was simultaneously fit to all tumor size data, then used to simulate response rates, normalizing the trial data across dose for prognostic covariates (tumorPD-L1 expression and EGFR mutation status). The exposure-safety relationship was assessed by logistic regression of pembrolizumab AUCss-6weeks versus occurrence of adverse events (AEs) of interest based on their immune etiology. RESULTS: Overall response rates were 15% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7%-28%] at 2 mg/kg Q3W, 25% (18%-33%) at 10 mg/kg Q3W, and 21% (95% CI 14%-30%) at 10 mg/kg Q2W. Regression analyses of percentage change from baseline in tumor size versus AUCss-6weeks indicated a flat relationship (regression slope P > 0.05). Simulations showed the exposure-response relationship to be similarly flat, thus indicating that the lowest evaluated dose of 2 mg/kg Q3W to likely be at or near the efficacy plateau. Exposure-safety analysis showed the AE incidence to be similar among the clinically tested doses. CONCLUSIONS: No significant exposure dependency on efficacy or safety was identified for pembrolizumab across doses of 2-10 mg/kg. These results support the use of a 2 mg/kg Q3W dosage in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRY: NCT01295827.
Authors: Amita Patnaik; S Peter Kang; Drew Rasco; Kyriakos P Papadopoulos; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Muralidhar Beeram; Ronald Drengler; Cong Chen; Lon Smith; Guillermo Espino; Kevin Gergich; Liliana Delgado; Adil Daud; Jill A Lindia; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Robert H Pierce; Jennifer H Yearley; Dianna Wu; Omar Laterza; Manfred Lehnert; Robert Iannone; Anthony W Tolcher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jeffrey R Sachs; Kapil Mayawala; Satvik Gadamsetty; Soonmo Peter Kang; Dinesh P de Alwis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi; Omid Hamid; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Anthony M Joshua; Wen-Jen Hwu; Tara C Gangadhar; Amita Patnaik; Roxana Dronca; Hassane Zarour; Richard W Joseph; Peter Boasberg; Bartosz Chmielowski; Christine Mateus; Michael A Postow; Kevin Gergich; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Robert Iannone; Scot W Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sophie Postel-Vinay; Laurence Collette; Xavier Paoletti; Elisa Rizzo; Christophe Massard; David Olmos; Camilla Fowst; Bernard Levy; Pierre Mancini; Denis Lacombe; Percy Ivy; Lesley Seymour; Christophe Le Tourneau; Lillian L Siu; Stan B Kaye; Jaap Verweij; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: B Ribba; N H Holford; P Magni; I Trocóniz; I Gueorguieva; P Girard; C Sarr; M Elishmereni; C Kloft; L E Friberg Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2014-05-07
Authors: Philippe Armand; John Kuruvilla; Jean-Marie Michot; Vincent Ribrag; Pier Luigi Zinzani; Ying Zhu; Patricia Marinello; Akash Nahar; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-06-23
Authors: Robert Chen; Pier Luigi Zinzani; Michelle A Fanale; Philippe Armand; Nathalie A Johnson; Pauline Brice; John Radford; Vincent Ribrag; Daniel Molin; Theodoros P Vassilakopoulos; Akihiro Tomita; Bastian von Tresckow; Margaret A Shipp; Yinghua Zhang; Alejandro D Ricart; Arun Balakumaran; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Corey J Langer; Shirish M Gadgeel; Hossein Borghaei; Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou; Amita Patnaik; Steven F Powell; Ryan D Gentzler; Renato G Martins; James P Stevenson; Shadia I Jalal; Amit Panwalkar; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Matthew Gubens; Lecia V Sequist; Mark M Awad; Joseph Fiore; Yang Ge; Harry Raftopoulos; Leena Gandhi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: R Hui; E B Garon; J W Goldman; N B Leighl; M D Hellmann; A Patnaik; L Gandhi; J P Eder; M-J Ahn; L Horn; E Felip; E Carcereny; R Rangwala; G M Lubiniecki; J Zhang; K Emancipator; C Roach; N A Rizvi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Daphne Day; Arta M Monjazeb; Elad Sharon; S Percy Ivy; Eric H Rubin; Gary L Rosner; Marcus O Butler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Anna Tsiara; Michalis Liontos; Maria Kaparelou; Roubini Zakopoulou; Aristotelis Bamias; Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2018-04