Biomarker expression and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression may help identify patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who would benefit from immunotherapy. We assessed PD-L1 expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and V-Ki-Ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations in NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Data for stage IB/II/IIIA NSCLC patients (diagnosed: 2001-2012) were retrieved from Danish population-based registries. Tumor tissue samples were tested for PD-L1 expression using VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay in tumor cells (TC) at ≥25% cutoff and immune cells (IC) at ≥1% and ≥25% cutoffs. KRAS and EGFR mutations were tested using PCR-based assays. Follow-up began 120 days after diagnosis until death/emigration/January 1, 2015, whichever came first. Using Cox proportional hazard regression, hazard ratios (HRs) were computed for overall survival (OS) for each biomarker, adjusting for age, sex, histology, comorbidities, and tissue specimen age. RESULTS: Among 391 patients identified, 40.4% had stage IIIA disease, 49.9% stage II, and 8.7% stage IB. PD-L1-TC was observed in 38% of patients, EGFR mutations in 4%, and KRAS mutations in 29%. KRAS mutations were more frequent among patients with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (37% versus 24%). OS was not associated with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (stage II: adjusted HR = 1.15 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-2.01]; stage IIIA: 0.72 [0.44-1.19]). No significant association was observed with OS and PD-L1-IC ≥1% and ≥25%. EGFR and KRAS mutations were not associated with a prognostic impact. CONCLUSION: A prognostic impact for NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with PD-L1 expression, or with EGFR and KRAS mutations.

Programmed cell death ligand-1 expression and survival in a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line through third-line therapy in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs) or immune cells (ICs) may be used as a prognostic marker for survival in patients with NSCLC. We characterized PD-L1 expression on TCs or ICs in a patient cohort with NSCLC to determine associations between PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS), according to EGFR and KRAS mutation status. METHODS: Danish patients aged >18 years diagnosed with NSCLC before 2014 on first- (N = 491), second- (N = 368), or third-line (N = 498) therapy were included. Data were extracted from population-based medical registries. Tumor samples from pathology archives were tested for biomarkers. High PD-L1 expression was defined as expression on ≥25 % of TCs or ICs based on first diagnostic biopsy or surgical resection. KRAS and EGFR mutation status were tested using PCR-based assays. Cox regression analysis was used to compute adjusted HRs and associated 95 % CIs. RESULTS: PD-L1 TC and IC ≥ 25 % were observed in 24.3 %-31.0 % and 11.7-14.7 % of patients, respectively. EGFR and KRAS mutations were detected in 4.7 %-8.8 % and 26.5 %-30.7 % of patients, respectively. PD-L1 TC ≥ 25 % was not associated with survival advantage in first- (HR = 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.75-1.22), second- (1.08, 0.81-1.42), or third-line (0.94, 0.74-1.20) therapy. PD-L1 IC ≥ 25 % was associated with survival advantage in second-line (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.36-0.86) and third-line (0.69, 0.49-0.97) but not first-line (1.00, 0.70-1.41) therapy. CONCLUSION: No association was observed between PD-L1 TC ≥ 25 % and OS in any therapy line. PD-L1 IC ≥ 25 % may confer survival benefit among some patients who reach second-line therapy.

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab vs Standard Chemotherapy in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The MYSTIC Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Objective: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. Results: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. Trial Registration: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

Impact of Patient Characteristics, Prior Therapy, and Sample Type on Tumor Cell Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Expression in Patients with Advanced NSCLC Screened for the ATLANTIC Study.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of patient characteristics, sample types, and prior non-immunotherapy treatment on tumor cell (TC) programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression using samples from patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients (N = 1590) screened for the ATLANTIC study submitted a recently acquired (≤3 months) or archival (>3 months to >3 years old) tumor sample for PD-L1 assessment using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay with a cutoff of ≥25% of TCs expressing PD-L1 (TC ≥25%). Samples were acquired either before or after the two or more treatment regimens required for study entry and sample age varied among patients. A subset of patients (n = 123) provided both recent and archival samples. RESULTS: A total of 517 of 1590 (32.5%) patients had TC greater than or equal to 25%: prevalence was greater in smokers versus nonsmokers (p = 0.0005) and those with EGFR- versus EGFR+ tumors (p = 0.0002); these effects were independent. Prevalence of TC greater than or equal to 25% was increased in recent metastatic versus primary (p = 0.005) and recent versus archival (p = 0.039) samples. Chemotherapy or radiotherapy, but not tyrosine kinase inhibition, before sampling was associated with significantly increased PD-L1 prevalence. PD-L1 status (TC ≥25% cutoff) remained unchanged in 74.0% of patients with recent and archival samples; where PD-L1 status changed, it was more likely to increase than decrease over time or with intervening treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors potentially impact PD-L1 TC greater than or equal to 25% prevalence in advanced NSCLC; however, no characteristic can be considered a surrogate for PD-L1 expression. Fresh biopsy may provide more accurate assessment of current tumoral PD-L1 expression where a low/negative result is seen in an archival sample, especially if the patient has received intervening therapy.

Analytical Validation and Clinical Utility of an Immunohistochemical Programmed Death Ligand-1 Diagnostic Assay and Combined Tumor and Immune Cell Scoring Algorithm for Durvalumab in Urothelial Carcinoma.

CONTEXT.­: Clinical responses to anti-programmed death receptor-1 and anti-programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents are generally improved in patients with high PD-L1 expression compared with those with low/negative expression across several tumor types, including urothelial carcinoma. OBJECTIVE.­: To validate a PD-L1 immunohistochemical diagnostic test in urothelial carcinoma patients treated with the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody durvalumab. DESIGN.­: The Ventana PD-L1 (SP263) assay was validated for intended use in urothelial carcinoma formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples in studies addressing sensitivity, specificity, robustness, and precision, and implemented in study CD-ON-MEDI4736-1108 (NCT01693562). Efficacy was analyzed in patients classified according to prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs: PD-L1 high (if >1% of the tumor area contained tumor-associated immune cells, ≥25% of tumor cells or ≥25% of immune cells stained for PD-L1; if ≤1% of the tumor area contained immune cells, ≥25% of tumor cells or 100% of immune cells stained for PD-L1) and PD-L1 low/negative (did not meet criteria for PD-L1 high). RESULTS.­: The assay met all predefined acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, and precision. Interreader and intrareader precision overall agreement were 93.0% and 92.4%, respectively. For intraday reproducibility and interday precision, overall agreement was 99.2% and 100%, respectively. Interlaboratory overall agreement was 92.6%. In study CD-ON-MEDI4736-1108, durvalumab demonstrated clinical activity and durable responses in both PD-L1-high and PD-L1-low/negative subgroups, although objective response rates tended to be higher in the PD-L1-high subgroup than in the PD-L1-low/negative subgroup. CONCLUSIONS.­: Determination of PD-L1 expression in urothelial carcinoma patients using the Ventana PD-L1 (SP263) assay was precise, highly reproducible, and clinically relevant.

Patient Characteristics are not Associated with Clinically Important Differential Response to Dapagliflozin: a Staged Analysis of Phase 3 Data.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine if data mining methodologies could identify reproducible predictors of dapagliflozin-specific treatment response in the phase 3 clinical program dataset. METHODS: Baseline and early treatment response variables were selected and data mining used to identify/rank all variables associated with reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 26. Generalized linear modeling was then employed using an independent dataset to identify which (if any) variables were predictive of dapagliflozin-specific treatment response as compared with treatment response in the study's control arm. The most parsimonious (i.e., simplest) model was validated by meta-analysis of nine other trials. This staged approach was used to minimize risk of type I errors. RESULTS: From the large dataset, 22 variables were selected for model generation as potentially predictive for dapagliflozin-specific reduction in HbA1c. Although baseline HbA1c was the variable most strongly associated with reduction in HbA1c at study end (i.e., the best prognostic variable), baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was the only predictive dapagliflozin-specific variable in the model. Placebo-adjusted treatment effect of dapagliflozin plus metformin vs. metformin alone for change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.65% at the average baseline FPG of 192.3 mg/dL (10.7 mmol/L). This response changed by -0.32% for every SD [57.2 mg/dL (3.2 mmol/L)] increase in baseline FPG. Effect of baseline FPG was confirmed in the meta-analysis of nine studies, but the magnitude was smaller. No other variable was independently predictive of a dapagliflozin-specific reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology successfully identified a reproducible baseline predictor of differential response to dapagliflozin. Although baseline FPG was shown to be a predictor, the effect size was not of sufficient magnitude to suggest clinical usefulness in identifying patients who would uniquely benefit from dapagliflozin treatment. The findings do support potential benefit for dapagliflozin treatment that is consistent with current recommended use.