No abstract

PURPOSE Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this open-label, phase III study, we randomly assigned (1:1) 628 patients with advanced/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, that progressed after one prior therapy, to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and in all patients (one-sided α 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.8%, respectively). RESULTS At final analysis, conducted 16 months after the last patient was randomly assigned, OS was prolonged with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with CPS ≥ 10 (median, 9.3 v 6.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93]; P = .0074). Estimated 12-month OS rate was 43% (95% CI, 33.5% to 52.1%) with pembrolizumab versus 20% (95% CI, 13.5% to 28.3%) with chemotherapy. Median OS was 8.2 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96]; P = .0095) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.05]; P = .0560) in all patients. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients with pembrolizumab versus 40.9% in those who underwent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.