Bispecific (a bispecific antibody targeting programmed cell death 1 protein and vascular endothelial growth factor) and chemotherapy … and it worked … second line after EGFR therapy failure.
For patients with non–small cell lung cancer whose disease progressed while receiving EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy, particularly third-generation TKIs, optimal treatment options remain limited.
To compare the efficacy of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for patients with relapsed advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) variant.
Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial at 55 sites in China enrolled participants from January 2022 to November 2022; a total of 322 eligible patients were enrolled.
Participants received ivonescimab (n = 161) or placebo (n = 161) plus pemetrexed and carboplatin once every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy of ivonescimab plus pemetrexed or placebo plus pemetrexed.
The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population assessed by an independent radiographic review committee (IRRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The results of the first planned interim analysis are reported.
Among 322 enrolled patients in the ivonescimab and placebo groups, the median age was 59.6 vs 59.4 years and 52.2% vs 50.9% of patients were female. As of March 10, 2023, median follow-up time was 7.89 months. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 (95% CI, 5.9-8.7) months in the ivonescimab group vs 4.8 (95% CI, 4.2-5.6) months for placebo (difference, 2.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.34-0.62]; P < .001). The prespecified subgroup analysis showed progression-free survival benefit favoring patients receiving ivonescimab over placebo across almost all subgroups, including patients whose disease progressed while receiving third-generation EGFR-TKI therapy (HR, 0.48 [95% CI 0.35-0.66]) and those with brain metastases (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22-0.73]). The objective response rate was 50.6% (95% CI, 42.6%-58.6%) with ivonescimab and 35.4% (95% CI, 28.0%-43.3%) with placebo (difference, 15.6% [95% CI, 5.3%-26.0%]; P = .006). The median overall survival data were not mature; at data cutoff, 69 patients (21.4%) had died. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 99 patients (61.5%) in the ivonescimab group vs 79 patients (49.1%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were chemotherapy-related. Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (6.2%) in the ivonescimab group vs 4 (2.5%) in the placebo group. Grade 3 or higher vascular endothelial growth factor–related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (3.1%) in the ivonescimab group vs 4 (2.5%) in the placebo group.
Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival with tolerable safety profile in TKI-treated non–small cell lung cancer.
Results showed the median event-free survival (EFS) was 54.8 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 20.9 months with chemotherapy. Three-year EFS rates were 56% vs 44%. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 73% vs 61% pathologic complete response rates were 20.4% vs 4.6%. This was three cycles of nivolumab and one dose of ipilimumab vs chemotherapy.
Dato showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 42.7% with a complete response (CR) of 4.3%. The median duration of response was 7.0 months, with a disease control rate of 86.3% and a median overall survival (OS) of 15.6 months. This could be another option for EGFR mutant patients who had multiple lines of therapy.
Patients were treated with thoracic and extrathoracic radiation to oligometastatic sites and it seems to help with improving survival, something to consider especially with SBRT now. Do our radiation oncologists have additional input?
Improved progression-free survival (PFS), now we have osimertinib and ramucirumab, amivantamab and Lazertinib (PFS 24.8 vs 23 months but NOT head to head).
Very thought-provoking review of immune checkpoint blockade therapy and strategies to possibly de-escalate therapy in the future. Could we reduce doses, extend dose intervals or diminish the duration of treatment? There is some (low-level) data supporting these ideas. However, ongoing prospective studies, mostly being done in countries with nationalized systems, will be informative on these topics. Expect interest in this topic to increase in a couple of years.
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.
