Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases.

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

Meta-Analysis of 49 Roche Oncology Trials Comparing Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) and Local Evaluation to Assess the Value of BICR.

BACKGROUND: Blinded independent central review (BICR) of radiographic images is frequently conducted in oncology trials to address the potential bias of local evaluation (LE) of endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Given that BICR is a complex and costly process, we evaluated the agreement between LE- and BICR-based treatment effect results and the impact of BICR on regulatory decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Meta-analyses were performed using hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and odds ratios (ORs) for ORR from all randomized Roche-supported oncology clinical trials during 2006-2020 that had both LE and BICR results (49 studies with a total of over 32 000 patients). RESULTS: Overall, the evaluation bias of LE overestimating the treatment effect compared with BICR based on PFS was numerically small and not clinically meaningful, especially for double-blind studies (HR ratio between BICR and LE: 1.044). A larger bias is more likely to occur in studies with open-label design, smaller sample sizes, or an unequal randomization ratio. The majority (87%) of the PFS comparisons led to the same statistical inference by BICR and LE. For ORR, a high degree of agreement between BICR and LE results was also observed (OR ratio of 1.065), although the agreement was slightly lower than for PFS. CONCLUSION: BICR did not notably impact the study interpretation nor drive the sponsor's regulatory submission decisions. Hence, if bias can be diminished by appropriate means, LE is deemed as reliable as BICR for certain study settings.

Advancing drug development in pediatric oncology, a focus on cancer biology and targeted therapies: iMATRIX platform.

With the development of novel treatment therapies as well as evolving and innovative approaches to conduct clinical trials, the landscape of pediatric oncology drug development has dramatically changed in recent years. Despite this change, approvals for new drugs and labeling updates to ensure availability of proper treatment for pediatric patients with cancer remain slow. The context of drug development in pediatric tumors has also changed with regulatory initiatives in the US and Europe, creating a great need for faster development of novel drugs. Today, conventional study designs have been replaced or complemented by novel clinical trial designs, such as master protocols and platform trials, to optimize cancer drug development and enable faster regulatory approval. The iMATRIX platform is a mechanism-of-action (MOA)-based phase 1/2 trial framework for concurrently studying multiple molecules across a range of relevant pediatric tumor types, taking into account the biology of each pediatric tumor type. Six studies have been conducted, ongoing, or planned on the iMATRIX platform - investigating atezolizumab, cobimetinib, entrectinib, idasanutlin, alectinib, and glofitamab. A brief overview of study designs and characteristics are shared in this article, along with learnings from them.

Concordance Between Tissue ALK Detection by Immunohistochemistry and Plasma ALK Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing in the Randomized Phase 3 ALEX Study in Patients With Treatment-Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC.

Introduction: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial revealed the clinical applicability of blood-based next-generation sequencing to identify patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for alectinib treatment. To understand the relationship between tissue-based versus blood-based testing, we retrospectively investigated concordance between VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx immunohistochemistry and the FoundationACT (FACT; Foundation Medicine, Inc.) plasma assay, and compared clinical efficacy between phase 3 ALEX study subpopulations. Methods: Patients with advanced ALK-positive (by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg, twice daily. Assessable baseline plasma samples were analyzed for ALK positivity by FACT; positive percent agreement with immunohistochemistry was evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and objective response rate were compared between intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-evaluable populations, and plasma ALK-positive and plasma ALK-negative subpopulations. Results: In the ITT population (303 patients; alectinib, 152; crizotinib, 151), all patients had ALK-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. In the biomarker-evaluable population (149 patients; alectinib, 76; crizotinib, 73), 105 had plasma ALK-positive and 44 had plasma ALK-negative tumors. Positive percent agreement between immunohistochemistry and FACT was 70.5% (105 of 149; 95% confidence interval: 62.5-77.7). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, with some exceptions, notably tumor burden. Median PFS in plasma ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients was 22.4 months and not estimable with alectinib and 7.3 months and 12.9 months with crizotinib, respectively; median duration of response was 25.9 months and not estimable with alectinib and 5.6 months and 11.5 months with crizotinib, respectively. Conclusions: Reasonable concordance between FACT and immunohistochemistry was observed; both methods are valuable in identifying ALK-positive patients, separately or concurrently. Alectinib was found to have superior PFS in the plasma ALK-positive population, as in the ITT population.

Open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase II study of the EpSSG and the ITCC evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in childhood and adolescent patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (the BERNIE study).

PURPOSE: We evaluated the role of bevacizumab as part of the multi-modality treatment of children and adolescents with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) or non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients aged ≥6 months to <18 years were randomised to receive induction chemotherapy (four cycles of IVADo + five cycles of IVA, ±bevacizumab), surgery and/or radiotherapy, followed by maintenance chemotherapy (12 cycles of low-dose cyclophosphamide + vinorelbine, ±bevacizumab). The primary objective was event-free survival (EFS) evaluated by an independent radiological review committee. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four patients were randomised to receive chemotherapy alone (n = 80) or with bevacizumab (n = 74). At the data cut-off for the primary efficacy analysis, median EFS was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8-35.9) with chemotherapy and 20.6 months (95% CI: 15.2-24.9) with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.61-1.41; P = 0.72). The HR for EFS in patients with RMS (n = 103) was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.73-2.09) versus 0.64 (95% CI: 0.32-1.26) for those with NRSTS (n = 49). Objective response rate was 36.0% (95% CI: 25.2-47.9) with chemotherapy and 54.0% (95% CI: 40.9-66.6) with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (difference of 18.0%; 95% CI: 0.6-35.3). There were no treatment-related deaths and no increased incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities with bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy appeared tolerable in children and adolescents with metastatic RMS/NRSTS, but the primary end-point of EFS did not show statistically significant improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00643565.

Health-Related Quality of Life in a Randomized Phase III Study of Bevacizumab, Temozolomide, and Radiotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: As glioblastoma progresses, patients experience a decline in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Delaying this decline is an important treatment goal. In newly diagnosed glioblastoma, progression-free survival was prolonged when bevacizumab was added to radiotherapy plus temozolomide (RT/TMZ) versus placebo plus RT/TMZ (phase III AVAglio study; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.74; P < .001). To ensure that addition of bevacizumab to standard-of-care therapy was not associated with HRQoL detriment, HRQoL assessment was a secondary objective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BN20 at each tumor assessment (Appendix Table A1, online only). Raw scores were converted to a 100-point scale and mean changes from baseline scores were evaluated (stable: < 10-point change; clinically relevant deterioration/improvement: ≥ 10-point change). Deterioration-free survival was the time to deterioration/progression/death; time to deterioration was the time to deterioration/death. RESULTS: Most evaluable patients who had not progressed (> 74%) completed all HRQoL assessments for at least 1 year of treatment, and almost all completed at least one HRQoL assessment at baseline (98.3% and 97.6%, bevacizumab and placebo arms, respectively). Mean changes from baseline did not reach a clinically relevant difference between arms for most items. HRQoL declined at progression in both arms. The addition of bevacizumab to RT/TMZ resulted in statistically longer (P < .001) deterioration-free survival across all items. Time to deterioration was not statistically longer in the placebo plus RT/TMZ arm (v bevacizumab) for any HRQoL item. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to standard-of-care treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma had no impact on HRQoL during the progression-free period.

Clinical genotyping and efficacy outcomes: exploratory biomarker data from the phase II ABIGAIL study of first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: ABIGAIL, a phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the correlation between biomarkers and best overall response (BOR) to bevacizumab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exploratory analyses of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) clinical genotyping data are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 303 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg or 15mg/kg until progression or unacceptable toxicity (plus six cycles of chemotherapy). Patients provided blood samples for biomarker analysis. Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess whether genetic variants in VEGF-A or VEGFR-1/-2 act as efficacy or safety biomarkers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were determined using individual genotyping assays. DNA analysis for 12 SNPs across three genes is reported: VEGF-A (five SNPs), VEGFR-1 (three SNPs), and VEGFR-2 (four SNPs). RESULTS VEGF-A: c.+405/c.-634 (CG), VEGF-A: c.-460 >C; c-1498 >C (CT), and VEGF-A: c.-2578 C>A were associated with >50% higher odds of responding to treatment. VEGFR-1: rs9554316 (GT) was associated with >30% higher risk of progression and >40% higher risk of death. VEGF-A: c.+936 C>T was associated with higher incidence of hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Four genetic variants of VEGF-A and VEGFR-1 were associated with bevacizumab treatment outcome. Three variants in VEGF-A were associated with increased BOR, one variant in VEGFR-1 was associated with worse progression-free survival/overall survival. These associations were not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. No genetic variant was associated with significantly higher risk of hypertension. Replication in additional studies may provide insight into the use of these variants to predict response to bevacizumab.

A correlative biomarker analysis of the combination of bevacizumab and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase II randomized ABIGAIL study (BO21015).

INTRODUCTION: Avastin Biomarkers In lunG And 3D Innovative anaLysis (ABIGAIL), which is a phase II, open-label, randomized study, investigated correlations between biomarkers and best overall response to bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg, 3-weekly until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity) plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel (maximum six cycles). Plasma samples (baseline/throughout treatment) were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A (baseline only), VEGF receptors (VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2), basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and placental growth factor (baseline only). Tumor samples (primary specimen) were analyzed for VEGF-A, VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2, neuropilin (NRP), and CD31. Response was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus 7.5 mg/kg (n =154) or 15 mg/kg (n =149) bevacizumab. For the primary analysis, none of the baseline plasma biomarkers correlated with best overall response. Exploratory analyses showed that low VEGF-A levels were associated with longer progression-free survival (7.4 versus 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence intervals, 1.17 to 2.09; p = 0.002) and overall survival (19.8 versus 11.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.13; p = 0.004) compared with these in high baseline plasma VEGF-A levels. No plasma biomarkers changed significantly over time. No significant correlations were observed between tumor biomarkers and clinical outcomes. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Baseline and/or dynamic changes in plasma basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, placental growth factor, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, and tumor biomarkers did not correlate statistically with treatment outcomes for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Only baseline plasma VEGF-A was significantly correlated with progression-free survival/overall survival.

Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is radiotherapy plus temozolomide. In this phase 3 study, we evaluated the effect of the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with supratentorial glioblastoma to receive intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus radiotherapy (2 Gy 5 days a week; maximum, 60 Gy) and oral temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day) for 6 weeks. After a 28-day treatment break, maintenance bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter per day for 5 days), was continued for six 4-week cycles, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (15 mg per kilogram intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo until the disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects developed. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 458 patients were assigned to the bevacizumab group, and 463 patients to the placebo group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group (10.6 months vs. 6.2 months; stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.74; P<0.001). The benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed across subgroups. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P=0.10). The respective overall survival rates with bevacizumab and placebo were 72.4% and 66.3% at 1 year (P=0.049) and 33.9% and 30.1% at 2 years (P=0.24). Baseline health-related quality of life and performance status were maintained longer in the bevacizumab group, and the glucocorticoid requirement was lower. More patients in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group had grade 3 or higher adverse events (66.8% vs. 51.3%) and grade 3 or higher adverse events often associated with bevacizumab (32.5% vs. 15.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide did not improve survival in patients with glioblastoma. Improved progression-free survival and maintenance of baseline quality of life and performance status were observed with bevacizumab; however, the rate of adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than with placebo. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00943826.).