The EMPOWER-Lung1 study looked at patients with metastatic NSCLC and PDL1 expression >= 50%, randomized to cemiplimab vs. chemo; no surprise, the benefit was significant in the CPI therapy group. Interestingly, they allow the patients on the CPI arm to have chemo added at the time of progression, which would be a different approach. We should see more results on this as follow-up matures.
Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months’ follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression.
EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.
Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months’ follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1–31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5–16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46–0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2–8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3–6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42–0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1–9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3–18·7). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals
At 35 months’ follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
Superior to osi (23 vs 16 progression-free survival). This is more toxic though, but seems manageable. Could this be a new first line standard of care? Also, this includes brain penetration data.
Adding SBRT improves local control and disease progression in the brain but not overall survival. Do the radiation oncologists have input? Is it worth it to control symptoms?
Neoadjuvant Osimertinib did not have a significant impact on major pathologic response and there were no ypCR’s after a median of ~8 weeks of therapy. I do think this shows a measurable response, enough such that I would consider Osi in a patient with “borderline resectable” disease.
Osimertinib in adjuvant, now after chemotherapy and radiation, next… Neoadjuvant??? Trials are ongoing.
This is here till progression.
Failed? Numerical overall survival (OS) benefit for sacituzumab vs docetaxol, but not statistically significant. Better tolerated, also overall survival (OS) noticed more in patients who did not respond to antiPDL-1 therapy.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
