Julien Mazieres1, Achim Rittmeyer2, Shirish Gadgeel3, Toyoaki Hida4, David R Gandara5, Diego L Cortinovis6, Fabrice Barlesi7, Wei Yu8, Christina Matheny9, Marcus Ballinger9, Keunchil Park10. 1. Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse University Hospital, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. Electronic address: mazieres.j@chu-toulouse.fr. 2. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Lungenfachklinik Immenhausen, Immenhausen, Germany. 3. Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Department of Thoracic Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California. 6. SC Oncologia Medica, SS Lung Unit Asst Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza, Italy. 7. CNRS, INSERM, CRCM, APHM, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. 8. US Medical Affairs, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California. 9. Product Development, Oncology, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California. 10. Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The phase 2 POPLAR and phase 3 OAK studies of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC revealed significant improvements in survival versus docetaxel (p = 0.04 and 0.0003, respectively). Longer follow-up permits evaluation of continued benefit of atezolizumab. This study reports the final overall survival (OS) and safety findings from both trials. METHODS: POPLAR randomized 287 patients (atezolizumab, 144; docetaxel, 143) and OAK randomized 1225 patients (atezolizumab, 613; docetaxel, 612). The patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg fixed dose) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A longer OS was observed in patients receiving atezolizumab versus docetaxel in POPLAR (median OS = 12.6 mo versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.00) and OAK (median OS = 13.3 versus 9.8 mo; hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.89). The 4-year OS rates in POPLAR were 14.8% (8.7-20.8) and 8.1% (3.2-13.0) and those in OAK were 15.5% (12.4-18.7) and 8.7% (6.2-11.3) for atezolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. Atezolizumab had improved OS benefit compared with docetaxel across all PD-L1 expression and histology groups. Most 4-year survivors in the docetaxel arms received subsequent immunotherapy (POPLAR, 50%; OAK, 65%). Of the 4-year survivors, most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and nonsquamous histological classification and approximately half were responders (POPLAR: atezolizumab, seven of 15; docetaxel, three of four; OAK: atezolizumab, 24 of 43; docetaxel, 11 of 26). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 16% of atezolizumab 4-year survivors in POPLAR and OAK, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up suggests a consistent survival benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, or subsequent immunotherapy. Atezolizumab had no new safety signals, and the safety profile was similar to that in previous studies.
INTRODUCTION: The phase 2 POPLAR and phase 3 OAK studies of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC revealed significant improvements in survival versus docetaxel (p = 0.04 and 0.0003, respectively). Longer follow-up permits evaluation of continued benefit of atezolizumab. This study reports the final overall survival (OS) and safety findings from both trials. METHODS: POPLAR randomized 287 patients (atezolizumab, 144; docetaxel, 143) and OAK randomized 1225 patients (atezolizumab, 613; docetaxel, 612). The patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg fixed dose) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A longer OS was observed in patients receiving atezolizumab versus docetaxel in POPLAR (median OS = 12.6 mo versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.00) and OAK (median OS = 13.3 versus 9.8 mo; hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.89). The 4-year OS rates in POPLAR were 14.8% (8.7-20.8) and 8.1% (3.2-13.0) and those in OAK were 15.5% (12.4-18.7) and 8.7% (6.2-11.3) for atezolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. Atezolizumab had improved OS benefit compared with docetaxel across all PD-L1 expression and histology groups. Most 4-year survivors in the docetaxel arms received subsequent immunotherapy (POPLAR, 50%; OAK, 65%). Of the 4-year survivors, most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and nonsquamous histological classification and approximately half were responders (POPLAR: atezolizumab, seven of 15; docetaxel, three of four; OAK: atezolizumab, 24 of 43; docetaxel, 11 of 26). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 16% of atezolizumab 4-year survivors in POPLAR and OAK, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up suggests a consistent survival benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, or subsequent immunotherapy. Atezolizumab had no new safety signals, and the safety profile was similar to that in previous studies.
Authors: Diego L Kaen; Nicolas Minatta; Alessandro Russo; Umberto Malapelle; Diego de Miguel-Pérez; Christian Rolfo Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2021 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: John M Varlotto; Zhuoxin Sun; Bonnie Ky; Jenica Upshaw; Sharyn I Katz; Thomas J Fitzgerald; Heather Wakelee; Maximilian Diehn; David A Mankoff; Christine Lovely; Chandra Belani; Kurt Oettel; Gregory Masters; Suresh Ramalingam; Nathan A Pennell Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Javier Luna; Juan Zafra; Mª Carmen Areses Manrique; Aurora Rodríguez; Amalia Sotoca; Jose Luis Fírvida; Rodolfo Chicas-Sett; Xabier Mielgo; Juan Carlos Trujillo Reyes; Felipe Couñago Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-11-24