A Necchi1, R W Joseph2, Y Loriot3, J Hoffman-Censits4, J L Perez-Gracia5, D P Petrylak6, C L Derleth7, D Tayama7, Q Zhu7, B Ding7, C Kaiser7, J E Rosenberg8. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA. 3. Department of Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 4. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 6. Smilow Cancer Center, Yale University, New Haven, USA. 7. Department of Oncology, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, USA. 8. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional criteria for tumor progression may not fully reflect the clinical benefit of immunotherapy or appropriately guide treatment decisions. The phase II IMvigor210 study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, a programmed death-ligand 1-directed antibody, in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients could continue atezolizumab beyond Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 progression at the investigator's discretion: this analysis assessed post-progression outcomes in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit. Efficacy and safety outcomes in patients who experienced RECIST v1.1 progression and did, or did not, continue atezolizumab were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 220 patients who experienced progression from the overall cohort (n = 310) were analyzed: 137 continued atezolizumab for ≥ 1 dose after progression, 19 received other systemic therapy, and 64 received no further systemic therapy. Compared with those who discontinued, patients continuing atezolizumab beyond progression were more likely to have had a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (43.1% versus 31.3%), less likely to have had baseline liver metastases (27.0% versus 41.0%), and more likely to have had an initial response to atezolizumab (responses in 11.7% versus 1.2%). Five patients (3.6%) continuing atezolizumab after progression had subsequent responses compared with baseline measurements. Median post-progression overall survival was 8.6 months in patients continuing atezolizumab, 6.8 months in those receiving another treatment, and 1.2 months in those receiving no further treatment. Atezolizumab exposure-adjusted adverse event frequencies were generally similar before and following progression. CONCLUSION: In this single-arm study, patients who continued atezolizumab beyond RECIST v1.1 progression derived prolonged clinical benefit without additional safety signals. Identification of patients most likely to benefit from atezolizumab beyond progression remains an important challenge in the management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02108652.
BACKGROUND: Conventional criteria for tumor progression may not fully reflect the clinical benefit of immunotherapy or appropriately guide treatment decisions. The phase II IMvigor210 study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, a programmed death-ligand 1-directed antibody, in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients could continue atezolizumab beyond Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 progression at the investigator's discretion: this analysis assessed post-progression outcomes in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit. Efficacy and safety outcomes in patients who experienced RECIST v1.1 progression and did, or did not, continue atezolizumab were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 220 patients who experienced progression from the overall cohort (n = 310) were analyzed: 137 continued atezolizumab for ≥ 1 dose after progression, 19 received other systemic therapy, and 64 received no further systemic therapy. Compared with those who discontinued, patients continuing atezolizumab beyond progression were more likely to have had a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (43.1% versus 31.3%), less likely to have had baseline liver metastases (27.0% versus 41.0%), and more likely to have had an initial response to atezolizumab (responses in 11.7% versus 1.2%). Five patients (3.6%) continuing atezolizumab after progression had subsequent responses compared with baseline measurements. Median post-progression overall survival was 8.6 months in patients continuing atezolizumab, 6.8 months in those receiving another treatment, and 1.2 months in those receiving no further treatment. Atezolizumab exposure-adjusted adverse event frequencies were generally similar before and following progression. CONCLUSION: In this single-arm study, patients who continued atezolizumab beyond RECIST v1.1 progression derived prolonged clinical benefit without additional safety signals. Identification of patients most likely to benefit from atezolizumab beyond progression remains an important challenge in the management of metastatic urothelial carcinoma. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02108652.
Authors: D Raggi; R Miceli; G Sonpavde; P Giannatempo; L Mariani; M D Galsky; J Bellmunt; A Necchi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lesley Seymour; Jan Bogaerts; Andrea Perrone; Robert Ford; Lawrence H Schwartz; Sumithra Mandrekar; Nancy U Lin; Saskia Litière; Janet Dancey; Alice Chen; F Stephen Hodi; Patrick Therasse; Otto S Hoekstra; Lalitha K Shankar; Jedd D Wolchok; Marcus Ballinger; Caroline Caramella; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joaquim Bellmunt; Toni K Choueiri; Ronan Fougeray; Fabio A B Schutz; Yacine Salhi; Eric Winquist; Stéphane Culine; Hans von der Maase; David J Vaughn; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Jean-Charles Soria; Marcin Kowanetz; Gregg D Fine; Omid Hamid; Michael S Gordon; Jeffery A Sosman; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Scott N Gettinger; Holbrook E K Kohrt; Leora Horn; Donald P Lawrence; Sandra Rost; Maya Leabman; Yuanyuan Xiao; Ahmad Mokatrin; Hartmut Koeppen; Priti S Hegde; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Andrea Necchi; Guru Sonpavde; Salvatore Lo Vullo; Daniele Giardiello; Aristotelis Bamias; Simon J Crabb; Lauren C Harshman; Joaquim Bellmunt; Ugo De Giorgi; Cora N Sternberg; Linda Cerbone; Sylvain Ladoire; Yu-Ning Wong; Evan Y Yu; Simon Chowdhury; Gunter Niegisch; Sandy Srinivas; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Sumanta K Pal; Neeraj Agarwal; Ajjai Alva; Jack Baniel; Ali-Reza Golshayan; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Daniel W Bowles; Matthew I Milowsky; Christine Theodore; Dominik R Berthold; Gedske Daugaard; Srikala S Sridhar; Thomas Powles; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Matthew D Galsky; Luigi Mariani Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Arjun V Balar; Matthew D Galsky; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Thomas Powles; Daniel P Petrylak; Joaquim Bellmunt; Yohann Loriot; Andrea Necchi; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Nancy A Dawson; Michiel S van der Heijden; Robert Dreicer; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Richard W Joseph; Alexandra Drakaki; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Srikala S Sridhar; David I Quinn; Ignacio Durán; David R Shaffer; Bernhard J Eigl; Petros D Grivas; Evan Y Yu; Shi Li; Edward E Kadel; Zachary Boyd; Richard Bourgon; Priti S Hegde; Sanjeev Mariathasan; AnnChristine Thåström; Oyewale O Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Dean F Bajorin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Georgina V Long; Jeffrey S Weber; James Larkin; Victoria Atkinson; Jean-Jacques Grob; Dirk Schadendorf; Reinhard Dummer; Caroline Robert; Ivan Márquez-Rodas; Catriona McNeil; Henrik Schmidt; Karen Briscoe; Jean-François Baurain; F Stephen Hodi; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Padmanee Sharma; Margaret K Callahan; Petri Bono; Joseph Kim; Pavlina Spiliopoulou; Emiliano Calvo; Rathi N Pillai; Patrick A Ott; Filippo de Braud; Michael Morse; Dung T Le; Dirk Jaeger; Emily Chan; Chris Harbison; Chen-Sheng Lin; Marina Tschaika; Alex Azrilevich; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-10-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pedro C Barata; Dhrmesh Gopalakrishnan; Vadim S Koshkin; Prateek Mendiratta; Matt Karafa; Kimberly Allman; Allison Martin; Jennifer Beach; Pam Profusek; Allison Tyler; Laura Wood; Moshe Ornstein; Timothy Gilligan; Brian I Rini; Jorge A Garcia; Petros Grivas Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Amin H Nassar; Kevin Lundgren; Jaegil Kim; Toni K Choueiri; Guru P Sonpavde; David J Kwiatkowski; Joaquim Bellmunt Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-07-24