Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12-17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months [IQR 10·2-18·7] in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months [10·1-18·7] in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·46-0·92]; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months [16·7-25·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months [16·6-25·3] in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·82]). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse events in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational prospective study.

BACKGROUND: In ambulatory patients with cancer with asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the safety of targeted therapies (TTs), chemotherapy (CT) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy is still unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the start of the first epidemic wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Bergamo, Italy, we have prospectively screened all consecutive outpatients who presented for treatment to the Oncology Division of the Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo for SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression. We identified patients treated with ICIs and compared these to patients with the same cancer subtypes treated with TTs or CT. RESULTS: Between March 5 and May 18, 293 consecutive patients (49% melanoma, 34% non-small cell lung cancer, 9% renal cell carcinoma, 8% other) were included in this study: 159 (54%), 50 (17%) and 84 (29%) received ICIs, CT or TTs, respectively. Overall 89 patients (30.0%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Mortality of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was statistically significantly higher compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (8/89 vs 3/204, respectively, Fisher's exact test p=0.004). All deaths were due to COVID-19. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were more frequent in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative cases (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test p=0.0008). The incidence of SAEs in SARS-CoV-2 positive compared with SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was similar in ICI and CT patients (17.3% and 3.7% for positive and negative patients in ICIs and 15.4% and 2.7% in CT, Breslow-Day test p=0.891). No COVID-19-related SAEs were observed in the TTs patients. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SAEs was higher for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated with ICIs and CT, mostly in advanced disease. No SAEs were observed in patients treated with TTs. SAEs were COVID-19 related rather than treatment related. Treatment with ICIs does not appear to significantly increase risk of SAEs compared with CT. This information should be considered when determining treatment options for patients.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to develop severe illness and die compared with those without cancer. The impact of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) on the severity of COVID-19 illness is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ICI confers an additional risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer. METHODS: We analyzed data from 110 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 while on treatment with ICI without chemotherapy in 19 hospitals in North America, Europe and Australia. The primary objective was to describe the clinical course and to identify factors associated with hospital and intensive care (ICU) admission and mortality. FINDINGS: Thirty-five (32%) patients were admitted to hospital and 18 (16%) died. All patients who died had advanced cancer, and only four were admitted to ICU. COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in 8 (7%) patients. Factors independently associated with an increased risk for hospital admission were ECOG ≥2 (OR 39.25, 95% CI 4.17 to 369.2, p=0.0013), treatment with combination ICI (OR 5.68, 95% CI 1.58 to 20.36, p=0.0273) and presence of COVID-19 symptoms (OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.57 to 17.89, p=0.0073). Seventy-six (73%) patients interrupted ICI due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43 (57%) of whom had resumed at data cut-off. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19-related mortality in the ICI-treated population does not appear to be higher than previously published mortality rates for patients with cancer. Inpatient mortality of patients with cancer treated with ICI was high in comparison with previously reported rates for hospitalized patients with cancer and was due to COVID-19 in almost half of the cases. We identified factors associated with adverse outcomes in ICI-treated patients with COVID-19.

Prevalence and Clinical Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Silent Carriers Among Actively Treated Patients with Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In Europe, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicenter in Italy. Despite a significant mortality rate, the severity of most cases of COVID-19 infection ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and silent infection affects a still-unknown proportion of the general population. No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection among patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 1, 2020, to the end of the same month, 560 consecutive patients with cancer, asymptomatic for COVID-19 and on anticancer treatment at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2. We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including the rapid serological immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM and the nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in case of seropositivity to identify SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. RESULTS: In 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of different type of cancer, stage, and treatment. The Ig-seropositive patients were then tested with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs, and 38% proved to be SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. At an early follow-up, in the 97 SARS-CoV-2-seropositive/RT-PCR-negative patients who continued their anticancer therapies, only one developed symptomatic COVID-19 illness. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cancer, the two-step diagnostics is feasible and effective for SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers detection and might support optimal cancer treatment strategies at both the individual and the population level. The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in cases of RT-PCR-negative patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study evaluating the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection in actively treated patients with cancer, during the epidemic peak in one of the worst areas of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lacking national and international recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a pragmatic and effective two-step diagnostics was implemented to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. In this series, consisting of consecutive and unselected patients with cancer, the prevalence of both SARS-CoV-2-seropositive patients and silent carriers is substantial (31% and 10%, respectively). The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in case of RT-PCR-negative patients.