Jason A Chesney1, Antoni Ribas2, Georgina V Long3,4, John M Kirkwood5, Reinhard Dummer6, Igor Puzanov7, Christoph Hoeller8, Thomas F Gajewski9, Ralf Gutzmer10,11, Piotr Rutkowski12, Lev Demidov13, Petr Arenberger14, Sang Joon Shin15, Pier Francesco Ferrucci16, Andrew Haydon17, John Hyngstrom18, Johannes V van Thienen19, Sebastian Haferkamp20, Josep Malvehy Guilera21, Bernardo Leon Rapoport22,23, Ari VanderWalde24, Scott J Diede25, James R Anderson25, Sheryl Treichel26, Edward L Chan27, Sumita Bhatta27, Jennifer Gansert27, Frank Stephen Hodi28, Helen Gogas29. 1. UofL Health-Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. 2. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY. 8. Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL. 10. Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. 11. Mühlenkreiskliniken Minden, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany. 12. Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. 13. N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. 14. University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. 15. Division of Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 16. Biotherapy of Tumors Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 17. Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 18. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT. 19. Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 20. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 21. Department of Dermatology, Barcelona University, Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBER de Enfermedades Raras ISCIII, Madrid, Spain. 22. The Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa. 23. Department of Immunology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 24. Department of Hematology/Oncology, West Cancer Center & Research Institute, Memphis, TN. 25. Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ. 26. Amgen Inc, South San Francisco, CA. 27. Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. 28. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 29. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.
PURPOSE: The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.