Cemiplimab monotherapy in Japanese patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
cemiplimab
cervical cancer
chemotherapy
immunotherapy
programmed cell death‐1
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
30
08
2024
received:
23
11
2023
accepted:
02
09
2024
medline:
26
9
2024
pubmed:
26
9
2024
entrez:
26
9
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the phase 3 EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 study, cemiplimab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in Japan. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed cell death-ligand 1 status and randomized 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice single-agent chemotherapy for up to 96 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 608 patients were randomized, of whom 56 (9.2%) were in Japan (cemiplimab, n = 29; chemotherapy, n = 27). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.6 (6.0-25.3) versus 18.2 (6.0-38.2) months for patients in Japan and for the overall population, respectively. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.4 (7.0-not evaluable) and 9.4 (5.4-14.9) months for cemiplimab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.68). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.0 (1.4-8.2) versus 3.7 (1.8-4.2) months with cemiplimab and chemotherapy (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.61), respectively. ORR was 17.2% for cemiplimab and 7.4% for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.44-13.99). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at any grade was 79.3% for cemiplimab and 100% for chemotherapy. Grade ≥3 adverse events were 37.9% versus 66.7% with cemiplimab and chemotherapy, respectively. While acknowledging limitations inherent to a small subgroup analysis, the HR of 0.86 observed in Japanese patients suggests an emerging survival benefit despite a 4.6-month shorter median duration of follow-up versus the overall study population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the phase 3 EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 study, cemiplimab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in Japan.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed cell death-ligand 1 status and randomized 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice single-agent chemotherapy for up to 96 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 608 patients were randomized, of whom 56 (9.2%) were in Japan (cemiplimab, n = 29; chemotherapy, n = 27). The median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.6 (6.0-25.3) versus 18.2 (6.0-38.2) months for patients in Japan and for the overall population, respectively. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.4 (7.0-not evaluable) and 9.4 (5.4-14.9) months for cemiplimab versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.68). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.0 (1.4-8.2) versus 3.7 (1.8-4.2) months with cemiplimab and chemotherapy (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.61), respectively. ORR was 17.2% for cemiplimab and 7.4% for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.44-13.99). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at any grade was 79.3% for cemiplimab and 100% for chemotherapy. Grade ≥3 adverse events were 37.9% versus 66.7% with cemiplimab and chemotherapy, respectively.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
While acknowledging limitations inherent to a small subgroup analysis, the HR of 0.86 observed in Japanese patients suggests an emerging survival benefit despite a 4.6-month shorter median duration of follow-up versus the overall study population.
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
cemiplimab
6QVL057INT
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e70236Subventions
Organisme : Sanofi
Organisme : Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209‐249.
ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer. Human papillomavirus and related diseases report 2022. https://hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/JPN.pdf
Yagi A, Ueda Y, Kakuda M, et al. Epidemiologic and clinical analysis of cervical cancer using data from the population‐based Osaka cancer registry. Cancer Res. 2019;79(6):1252‐1259.
Katanoda K, Ito Y, Sobue T. International comparison of trends in cancer mortality: Japan has fallen behind in screening‐related cancers. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2021;51(11):1680‐1686.
Okunade KS. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;40(5):602‐608.
Rimel BJ, Kunos CA, Macioce N, Temkin SM. Current gaps and opportunities in screening, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. Cancer. 2022;128(23):4063‐4073.
Silver MI, Kobrin S. Exacerbating disparities?: cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination. Prev Med. 2020;130:105902.
Mix JM, Van Dyne EA, Saraiya M, Hallowell BD, Thomas CC. Assessing impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer incidence among women aged 15‐29 years in the United States, 1999‐2017: an ecologic study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(1):30‐37.
Spayne J, Hesketh T. Estimate of global human papillomavirus vaccination coverage: analysis of country‐level indicators. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e052016.
Drolet M, Bénard É, Pérez N, et al. Population‐level impact and herd effects following the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet. 2019;394(10197):497‐509.
Nishio S, Yonemori K, Usami T, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in Japanese patients with persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: results from KEYNOTE‐826. Cancer Sci. 2022;113(11):3877‐3887.
Yagi A, Ueda Y, Kakuda M, et al. Cervical cancer protection in Japan: where are we? Vaccine. 2021;9(11):1263.
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129‐135.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer (version 1.2023). 2023. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf
Tewari KS, Monk BJ. Evidence‐based treatment paradigms for management of invasive cervical carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(27):2472‐2489.
Monk BJ, Sill MW, McMeekin DS, et al. Phase III trial of four cisplatin‐containing doublet combinations in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4649‐4655.
Kitagawa R, Katsumata N, Shibata T, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open‐label randomized phase III trial JCOG0505. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(19):2129‐2135.
Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ III, et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):734‐743.
Mabuchi S, Yokoi E, Shimura K, et al. A phase II study of irinotecan combined with S‐1 in patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer previously treated with platinum based chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(3):474‐479.
Yamaguchi S, Nishimura R, Yaegashi N, et al. Phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with irinotecan hydrochloride and nedaplatin followed by radical hysterectomy for bulky stage Ib2 to IIb, cervical squamous cell carcinoma: Japanese gynecologic oncology group study (JGOG 1065). Oncol Rep. 2012;28(2):487‐493.
Tadokoro J‐i, Kakihata K, Shimazaki M, et al. Post‐marketing surveillance (PMS) of all patients treated with Irinotecan in Japan: clinical experience and ADR profile of 13 935 patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011;41(9):1101‐1111.
European Medicines Agency. Keytruda INN‐pembrolizumab. Annex I. Summary of product characteristics 2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product‐information/keytruda‐epar‐product‐information_en.pdf
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pembrolizumab combination for the first‐line treatment of cervical cancer: 2023. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources‐information‐approved‐drugs/fda‐approves‐pembrolizumab‐combination‐first‐line‐treatment‐cervical‐cancer
Merck & Co. Inc. Keytruda® intravenous infusion 100 mg [Japan prescribing information]. 2022. https://www.msdconnect.jp/wp‐content/uploads/sites/5/2022/10/pi_keytruda_inf.pdf
Merck & Co. Inc. Merck's Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) receives four new approvals in Japan, including in high‐risk early‐stage triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). 2022. https://www.merck.com/news/mercks‐keytruda‐pembrolizumab‐receives‐four‐new‐approvals‐in‐japan‐including‐in‐high‐risk‐early‐stage‐triple‐negative‐breast‐cancer‐tnbc
Colombo N, Dubot C, Lorusso D, et al. Pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(20):1856‐1867.
Burova E, Hermann A, Waite J, et al. Characterization of the anti‐PD‐1 antibody REGN2810 and its antitumor activity in human PD‐1 knock‐in mice. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16(5):861‐870.
Macdonald LE, Karow M, Stevens S, et al. Precise and in situ genetic humanization of 6 Mb of mouse immunoglobulin genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(14):5147‐5152.
Murphy AJ, Macdonald LE, Stevens S, et al. Mice with megabase humanization of their immunoglobulin genes generate antibodies as efficiently as normal mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(14):5153‐5158.
Tewari KS, Monk BJ, Vergote I, et al. Survival with cemiplimab in recurrent cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(6):544‐555.
European Medicines Agency. Libtayo INN‐cemiplimab. Annex I. Summary of product characteristics. 2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product‐information/libtayo‐epar‐product‐information_en.pdf
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. Libtayo® intravenous infusion 350 mg. 2023. https://www.info.pmda.go.jp/go/pdf/780069_4291466A1024_1_01
Health Canada. Libtayo™ injection solution for infusion, 50 mg/mL. Product Monograph. 2023:1‐79. https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00070427.PDF
Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa). Libtayo® solução para diluição para infusão 350 mg/7 mL 50 mg/mL. 2022. https://consultas.anvisa.gov.br/#/bulario/q/?numeroRegistro=183260303
Soo RA, Kawaguchi T, Loh M, et al. Differences in outcome and toxicity between Asian and caucasian patients with lung cancer treated with systemic therapy. Future Oncol. 2012;8(4):451‐462.
Peng L, Qin BD, Xiao K, et al. A meta‐analysis comparing responses of Asian versus non‐Asian cancer patients to PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitor‐based therapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;9(1):1781333.
Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin‐paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(10):947‐957.
Saka H, Nishio M, Hida T, et al. Five‐year follow‐up results from phase II studies of nivolumab in Japanese patients with previously treated advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: pooled analysis of the ONO‐4538‐05 and ONO‐4538‐06 studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2021;51(1):106‐113.
Liu Y, Li C, Lu Y, Liu C, Yang W. Tumor microenvironment‐mediated immune tolerance in development and treatment of gastric cancer. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1016817.
Wu YL, Lu S, Cheng Y, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced NSCLC: CheckMate 078 randomized phase III clinical trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(5):867‐875.
Hida T, Nishio M, Nogami N, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in Japanese patients with advanced or recurrent squamous non‐small cell lung cancer. Cancer Sci. 2017;108(5):1000‐1006.
Chang E, Gong Y, Vallejo JJ, et al. FDA analysis of outcomes in Asian patients (pts) with metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):e20690.
Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous‐cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856‐1867.
Vergote I, Coleman RL, Pignata S, et al. Joint ENGOT and GOG foundation requirements for trials with industry partners. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(7):1094‐1097.
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649‐655.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228‐247.
National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 4.03. 2010. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_4.03.xlsx
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457‐481.
Cox DR. Regression models and life‐tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 1972;34(2):187‐202.
Cochran WG. Some methods for strengthening the common χ 2 tests. Biometrics. 1954;10(4):417.
Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719‐748.
Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26(4):404‐413.
Feng Y, Wang X, Bajaj G, et al. Nivolumab exposure‐response analyses of efficacy and safety in previously treated squamous or nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(18):5394‐5405.
Patnaik A, Kang SP, Rasco D, et al. Phase I study of pembrolizumab (MK‐3475; anti‐PD‐1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(19):4286‐4293.
Nguyen JH, Epling D, Dolphin N, et al. Population pharmacokinetics modeling and exposure‐response analyses of cemiplimab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2022;11(11):1458‐1471.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) injection, for intravenous use [US prescribing information]. 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/125514s096lbl.pdf