Charles S Fuchs1, Toshihiko Doi2, Raymond W Jang3,4, Kei Muro5, Taroh Satoh6, Manuela Machado7, Weijing Sun8,9, Shadia I Jalal10, Manish A Shah11, Jean-Phillipe Metges12, Marcelo Garrido13, Talia Golan14,15, Mario Mandala16, Zev A Wainberg17, Daniel V Catenacci18, Atsushi Ohtsu2, Kohei Shitara2, Ravit Geva19, Jonathan Bleeker20, Andrew H Ko21, Geoffrey Ku22, Philip Philip23, Peter C Enzinger24, Yung-Jue Bang25, Diane Levitan26, Jiangdian Wang26, Minori Rosales26, Rita P Dalal26, Harry H Yoon27. 1. Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. National Cancer Center East, Chiba, Japan. 3. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan. 6. Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan. 7. Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Porto, Portugal. 8. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Now with the University of Kansas, Kansas City. 10. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. 11. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York. 12. Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire (CHRU) de Brest-Hopital Morvan, Brest, France. 13. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 14. The Oncology Institute at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel. 15. The Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 16. ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Cancer Center, Bergamo, Italy. 17. David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. 18. University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 19. Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 20. Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 21. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco. 22. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 23. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan. 24. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 25. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 26. Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey. 27. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
Importance: Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months. Intervention: Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration. Results: Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.
Importance: Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months. Intervention: Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration. Results: Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter C Thuss-Patience; Albrecht Kretzschmar; Dmitry Bichev; Tillman Deist; Axel Hinke; Kirstin Breithaupt; Yasemin Dogan; Bernhard Gebauer; Guido Schumacher; Peter Reichardt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Tanguy Y Seiwert; Barbara Burtness; Ranee Mehra; Jared Weiss; Raanan Berger; Joseph Paul Eder; Karl Heath; Terrill McClanahan; Jared Lunceford; Christine Gause; Jonathan D Cheng; Laura Q Chow Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mark Ayers; Jared Lunceford; Michael Nebozhyn; Erin Murphy; Andrey Loboda; David R Kaufman; Andrew Albright; Jonathan D Cheng; S Peter Kang; Veena Shankaran; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Jennifer Yearley; Tanguy Y Seiwert; Antoni Ribas; Terrill K McClanahan Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jung Hun Kang; Soon Il Lee; Do Hyoung Lim; Keon-Woo Park; Sung Yong Oh; Hyuk-Chan Kwon; In Gyu Hwang; Sang-Cheol Lee; Eunmi Nam; Dong Bok Shin; Jeeyun Lee; Joon Oh Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Se Hoon Park Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; Jiri Tomasek; Cho Jae Yong; Filip Dumitru; Rodolfo Passalacqua; Chanchal Goswami; Howard Safran; Lucas Vieira Dos Santos; Giuseppe Aprile; David R Ferry; Bohuslav Melichar; Mustapha Tehfe; Eldar Topuzov; John Raymond Zalcberg; Ian Chau; William Campbell; Choondal Sivanandan; Joanna Pikiel; Minori Koshiji; Yanzhi Hsu; Astra M Liepa; Ling Gao; Jonathan D Schwartz; Josep Tabernero Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sarah B Goldberg; Scott N Gettinger; Amit Mahajan; Anne C Chiang; Roy S Herbst; Mario Sznol; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Justine Cohen; Alexander Vortmeyer; Lucia Jilaveanu; James Yu; Upendra Hegde; Stephanie Speaker; Matthew Madura; Amanda Ralabate; Angel Rivera; Elin Rowen; Heather Gerrish; Xiaopan Yao; Veronica Chiang; Harriet M Kluger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Richard D Kim; Vincent Chung; Olatunji B Alese; Bassell F El-Rayes; Daneng Li; Taymeyah E Al-Toubah; Michael J Schell; Jun-Min Zhou; Amit Mahipal; Baek Hui Kim; Dae Won Kim Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: M Martín-Richard; A Carmona-Bayonas; Ana B Custodio; J Gallego; P Jiménez-Fonseca; J J Reina; P Richart; F Rivera; M Alsina; J Sastre Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mark Lee; Robert M Samstein; Cristina Valero; Timothy A Chan; Luc G T Morris Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 3.452