Randomized Phase 2 Studies of Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Pegilodecakin in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2).


Journal

Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
ISSN: 1556-1380
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101274235

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
received: 10 07 2020
revised: 10 08 2020
accepted: 02 10 2020
pubmed: 10 11 2020
medline: 22 4 2021
entrez: 9 11 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33166722
pii: S1556-0864(20)30805-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.10.001
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors 0
pegilodecakin 0
Interleukin-10 130068-27-8
Polyethylene Glycols 3WJQ0SDW1A

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03382899', 'NCT03382912']

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase II Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

327-333

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

David Spigel (D)

Sarah Cannon Research Institute and Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: david.spigel@sarahcannon.com.

Robert Jotte (R)

U.S. Oncology Research, Houston, Texas; Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Denver, Colorado.

John Nemunaitis (J)

Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, Ohio.

Merrill Shum (M)

The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation, Whittier, California.

Jeffrey Schneider (J)

New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, New York.

Jerome Goldschmidt (J)

Oncology and Hematology Association of SW Virginia, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Jennifer Eisenstein (J)

Colorado Permanente Medical Group/Kaiser Lafayette, Denver, Colorado.

David Berz (D)

Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, California.

Lasika Seneviratne (L)

Los Angeles Hematology Oncology Medical Group, Los Angeles, California.

Matei Socoteanu (M)

Texas Oncology-Longview Cancer Center, Longview, Texas.

Viralkumar Bhanderi (V)

Florida Cancer Specialist, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kartik Konduri (K)

Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Texas Oncology PA, Dallas, Texas.

Meng Xia (M)

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Hong Wang (H)

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Rebecca R Hozak (RR)

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Ivelina Gueorguieva (I)

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

David Ferry (D)

Eli Lilly and Company, New York, New York.

Leena Gandhi (L)

Eli Lilly and Company, New York, New York.

Bo H Chao (BH)

Eli Lilly and Company, New York, New York.

Igor Rybkin (I)

Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH