No abstract

Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study, and editorial support funded by the sponsor and provided by an independent medical writer under the guidance of the authors. Cappuzzo has been a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received a grant and nonfinancial support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche during the conduct of the study; and received editorial support funded by the sponsor and provided by an independent medical writer under the guidance of the authors. Rodríguez-Abreu has participated in speakers' bureaus for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche; received a grant and nonfinancial support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche during the conduct of the study; and received editorial support funded by the sponsor and provided by an independent medical writer under the guidance of the authors. Hussein has participated in speakers' bureaus for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, and Pfizer. Soo has received grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer-Ingelheim and personal fees from AstraZeneca,

LBA9000 Background: Atezolizumab (atezo; anti–PD-L1) demonstrated OS benefit vs docetaxel in 2L+ NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 status or tumor histology. Because cytotoxic agents can exhibit positive immunomodulatory effects, combining atezo with chemotherapy may further improve outcomes. IMpower131 (NCT02367794) was designed to evaluate atezo + carboplatin (carbo) + paclitaxel (pac) or nab-paclitaxel (nab-pac) in 1L stage IV squamous NSCLC. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo 1200 mg q3w + carbo AUC 6 q3w + pac 200 mg/m2 q3w), Arm B (atezo + carbo + nab-pac 100 mg/m2 weekly) or Arm C (carbo + nab-pac). Pts received chemotherapy for 4 or 6 cycles and atezo until loss of clinical benefit. We present the primary analysis of investigator (INV)-assessed PFS per RECIST v1.1 in the ITT population for Arm B vs Arm C. Data cutoff: 22 January 2018. Results: 338 pts (Arm A), 343 pts (Arm B) and 340 pts (Arm C) were enrolled. Minimum follow-up was 9.8 mo. INV-assessed median PFS was 6.3 mo in Arm B vs 5.6 mo in Arm C (HR, 0.715; 95% CI: 0.603, 0.848; P = 0.0001). PFS benefit was enriched in all PD-L1–positive IHC subgroups and was most pronounced in TC3 or IC3. AEs related to any treatment (TRAEs) were 91.3% (Arm A), 94.6% (Arm B) and 90.7% (Arm C); Grade 3-4 TRAEs were 42.8% (Arm A), 68.0% (Arm B) and 56.9% (Arm C); serious TRAEs were 22.3% (Arm A), 20.4% (Arm B) and 10.5% (Arm C). Preliminary OS data will be presented. Conclusions: IMpower131 met its co-primary endpoint of INV-assessed PFS in the ITT population in Arm B vs Arm C. The safety profile of atezo + carbo + nab-pac or pac was consistent with the known risks of the individual treatment components; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT02367794. [Table: see text]

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) causes multi-lineage myelosuppression. Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor in development to proactively preserve HSPC and immune system function during chemotherapy (myelopreservation). Preclinically, trilaciclib transiently maintains HSPC in G1 arrest and protects them from chemotherapy damage, leading to faster hematopoietic recovery and enhanced antitumor immunity.Patients and methodsThis was a phase Ib (open-label, dose-finding) and phase II (randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled) study of the safety, efficacy and PK of trilaciclib in combination with etoposide/carboplatin (E/P) therapy for treatment-naive extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer patients. Patients received trilaciclib or placebo before E/P on days 1–3 of each cycle. Select end points were prespecified to assess the effect of trilaciclib on myelosuppression and antitumor efficacy.ResultsA total of 122 patients were enrolled, with 19 patients in part 1 and 75 patients in part 2 receiving study drug. Improvements were seen with trilaciclib in neutrophil, RBC (red blood cell) and lymphocyte measures. Safety on trilaciclib+E/P was improved with fewer ≥G3 adverse events (AEs) in trilaciclib (50%) versus placebo (83.8%), primarily due to less hematological toxicity. No trilaciclib-related ≥G3 AEs occurred. Antitumor efficacy assessment for trilaciclib versus placebo, respectively, showed: ORR (66.7% versus 56.8%, P = 0.3831); median PFS [6.2 versus 5.0 m; hazard ratio (HR) 0.71; P = 0.1695]; and OS (10.9 versus 10.6 m; HR 0.87; P = 0.6107).ConclusionTrilaciclib demonstrated an improvement in the patient’s tolerability of chemotherapy as shown by myelopreservation across multiple hematopoietic lineages resulting in fewer supportive care interventions and dose reductions, improved safety profile, and no detriment to antitumor efficacy. These data demonstrate strong proof-of-concept for trilaciclib’s myelopreservation benefits.Clinical Trail numberNCT02499770.