Horn, Leora

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579 ), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m 2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Abstract Background: IMpower133 (NCT02763579), a global Phase I/III, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial, showed that the addition of atezo (anti-PD-L1) to CE for 1L ES-SCLC led to statistically and clinically significant OS and PFS improvement vs CE alone. Here we report updated OS and exploratory analyses. Methods: Pts with untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of E (100 mg/m2 IV, days 1-3) + C (AUC 5 mg/mL/min IV, day 1) with atezo (1200 mg IV, day 1) or PBO, followed by maintenance therapy with atezo or PBO until intolerable toxicity, progression or loss of clinical benefit. PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS (RECIST 1.1) and OS. Interim and final OS analyses were planned for ≈240 and ≈306 events, respectively. OS was significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS, exploratory biomarkers and patterns of disease progression were analyzed. Results: 201 and 202 pts were randomized to receive atezo+CE and PBO+CE, respectively. The median follow-up was 22.9 mo and 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS for the atezo and PBO arms was 12.3 and 10.3 mo, respectively (HR, 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.95]; descriptive P = 0.0154). At the 18-mo landmark, the OS rate was 13% higher with atezo+CE than with PBO+CE (Table). Exploratory analyses showed treatment benefit with atezo+CE regardless of biomarker status. 181 (90.0%) And 194 (96.0%) pts in the atezo+CE and PBO+CE arms, respectively, had RECIST-defined disease progression. Progression at existing, new or existing and new lesions was numerically lower with atezo+CE than with PBO+CE. Common sites of new lesions included the CNS, lung, lymph node and liver, with similar incidences between arms. Conclusion: Adding atezo to CE continued to provide OS improvement for 1L ES-SCLC in an all-comer population. The updated results of IMpower133 further support this regimen for untreated ES-SCLC. Landmark OSAtezo + CE, n = 201PBO + CE, n = 20212 Mo, n (%)93 (51.9)74 (39.0)18 Mo, n (%)61 (34.0)39(21.0)Median OS in biomarker subgroupsAtezo + CEPBO + CEITT (N = 403), mo12.310.3HR (95% CI)0.76 (0.61, 0.96)aITT-BEP (n = 137), mo9.98.9HR (95% CI)0.70 (0.48, 1.02)Non-BEP (n = 266), mo14.611.2HR (95% CI)0.81 (0.61, 1.08)PD-L1 expression, 1% TC or IC< 1% (n = 65), mo10.28.3HR (95% CI)0.51 (0.30, 0.89)≥ 1% (n = 72), mo9.710.6HR (95% CI)0.87 (0.51, 1.49)PD-L1 expression, 5% TC or IC< 5% (n = 108), mo9.28.9HR (95% CI)0.77 (0.51, 1.17)≥ 5% (n = 29), mo21.69.2HR (95% CI)0.60 (0.25, 1.46)Disease progression at sites, n (%)Atezo + CEPBO + CEExisting116 (57.7)131 (64.9)New86 (42.8)99 (49.0)Existing and new42 (20.9)57 (28.2)BEP, biomarker-evaluable population; ITT, intention-to-treat population.a Stratified HR. BEP included pts evaluable by PD-L1 IHC using the VENTANA SP263 assay. Citation Format: Leora Horn, Stephen V. Liu, Aaron S. Mansfield, Tony Mok, Arnaud Scherpereel, Niels Reinmuth, Marina Chiara Garassino, Javier De Castro Carpeno, Raffaele Califano, Makoto Nishio, Francisco Orlandi, Jorge Arturo Alatorre Alexander, Ticiana Leal, Ying Cheng, Jong-Seok Lee, Sivuonthanh Lam, Mark McCleland, Yu Deng, See Phan, Martin Reck. IMpower133: Updated OS and exploratory analyses of first-line (1L) atezolizumab (atezo) + carboplatin (C) + etoposide (E) in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT220.

Abstract Background Platinum chemotherapy (carboplatin or cisplatin) + etoposide is the current 1L standard of care treatment (tx) for ES-SCLC. Despite high response rates on this regimen, patient (pt) outcomes remain poor. IMpower133 is a Ph1/3, double-blind, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial that is evaluating the efficacy and safety of adding PD-L1-inhibitor atezo or PBO to 1L tx for ES-SCLC (NCT02763579). Methods IMpower133 enrolled pts without prior tx for ES-SCLC; PD-L1 testing was not required. Pts were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL/min IV, Day 1) + etoposide (100 mg/m2 IV, Days 1-3) with either atezo (1200 mg IV, Day 1) or PBO, then maintenance atezo or PBO until PD, unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Maintenance prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) was allowed per protocol, while definitive thoracic radiation (TR) was not. Coprimary endpoints were OS and investigator-assessed PFS. A key exploratory endpoint was outcomes by blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) analyzed at prespecified cutoffs (≥ 16 vs < 16 and ≥ 10 vs < 10 mutations/Mb). Results Adding atezo to carboplatin + etoposide demonstrated significant improvement in efficacy (OS and PFS) in 1L ES-SCLC (Table). Survival benefits were consistent across key subgroups and prespecified bTMB cutoffs. 44 pts (22 in each arm [per ITT]) received PCI, and 7 (3 in atezo arm, 4 in PBO arm) received TR. Gr 3-4 tx-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 57% of atezo pts vs 56% of PBO pts; serious tx-related AEs occurred in 23% vs 19%. Occurrence of CNS-related AEs in pts who had PCI are shown in the Table. Conclusion Adding atezo to carboplatin + etoposide resulted in a significant improvement in survival in this 1L ES-SCLC all-comers population. There were no new safety signals, including in pts who received PCI or TR. Atezo + carboplatin + etoposide may represent a new standard regimen for untreated ES-SCLC. Atezo + carboplatin + etoposiden = 201PBO + carboplatin + etoposiden = 202Co-primary endpointsMedian OS, mo12.310.3HR 0.70 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.91); P = 0.0069Median PFS, mo5.24.3HR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.96) P = 0.017Secondary efficacy endpointsInvestigator-assessed confirmed ORR, %60.264.4Median DoR, mo4.23.9CNS-related AEs in pts who had PCI, n (%)a,bn = 23n = 21Headache8 (34.8)4 (19.0)Asthenia5 (21.7)2 (9.5)Dizziness2 (8.7)0Insomnia2 (8.7)1 (4.8)Fall2 (8.7)1 (4.8)aSafety population; safety analyses conducted according to tx received (1 pt randomized to the control arm received a dose of atezo).bIncludes AEs occurring in ≥ 2 patients. Citation Format: Aaron S. Mansfield, Stephen V. Liu, Aleksandra Szczęsna, Libor Havel, Maciej Kzrakowski, Maximilian J. Hochmair, Florian Huemer, György Losonczy, Melissa L. Johnson, Makoto Nishio, Martin Reck, Tony S. Mok, Sivuonthanh Lam, David S. Shames, Juan Liu, Fairooz Kabbinavar, Alan Sandler, Leora Horn. IMpower133: Primary efficacy and safety + CNS-related adverse events in a Ph1/3 study of first-line (1L) atezolizumab (atezo) + carboplatin + etoposide in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT199.

Background Platinum and etoposide with thoracic radiation followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation constitute the standard treatment for limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC). Many patients with LS‐SCLC are elderly with comorbidities. Methods Individual patient data were collected from 11 phase 2 or 3 trials for LS‐SCLC conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network and activated from 1990 to 2010. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS), the rate of severe adverse events, and off‐treatment reasons. The outcomes were compared for patients 70 years old or older (elderly patients) and patients younger than 70 years (younger patients). Results Individual patient data from 1049 younger patients (81%) and 254 elderly patients (19%) were analyzed. In the multivariate model, elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18‐1.63; median OS for elderly patients, 17.8 months; OS for younger patients, 23.5 months) and worse PFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.39; median PFS for elderly patients, 10.6 months; median PFS for younger patients, 12.3 months). Elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, experienced more grade 5 adverse events (8% vs 3%; P < .01) and more grade 3 or higher dyspnea (11% vs 7%; P = .03) but less grade 3 or higher esophagitis/dysphagia (14% vs 19%; P = .04) and less grade 3 or higher vomiting (11% vs 17%; P = .01). Elderly patients completed treatment less often, discontinued treatment because of adverse events and patient refusal more frequently, and died during treatment more frequently. Conclusions Elderly patients with LS‐SCLC have worse PFS and OS and more difficulty in tolerating therapy. Future trials should incorporate assessments of elderly patients, novel monitoring of adverse events, and more tolerable radiation and systemic therapies.

TPS8584 Background: The first-line standard of care for the majority of patients (pts) with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is platinum-based chemotherapy with etoposide, but survival outcomes remain poor (median OS, < 1 year) despite initial response rates ranging from 50-70%. Atezolizumab (atezo), an anti–PD-L1 mAb, prevents the binding of PD-L1 with its receptors PD-1 and B7.1 and restores anticancer T-cell activity. Tolerable safety with promising durability of response has been shown with atezo in pts with ES-SCLC: confirmed ORR was 6% (n = 1/17 [partial response]; DOR of 7 mo) by RECIST v1.1 and 24% by immune-related response criteria (irRC; n = 4/17, with 2 pts on atezo for ≥ 12 mo). Preliminary data also indicate the potential synergy between atezo and platinum-based chemotherapy in NSCLC, whereby durable responses may translate into improved survival over atezo alone. IMpower133 (NCT02763579), a global, Phase I/III, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1L atezo + carboplatin + etoposide compared with placebo + carboplatin + etoposide in treatment-naive pts with ES-SCLC. Methods: Pts with measurable (RECIST v1.1) ES-SCLC, who have ECOG PS 0-1 and no prior systemic anticancer treatment, are eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria include untreated CNS metastases and history of autoimmune disease. The study requires submission of tumor tissue, but pts will be enrolled regardless of biomarker status. Pts will be stratified by sex, ECOG PS and presence of treated brain metastases. Eligible pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of atezo (1200 mg IV) or placebo in combination with carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL/min IV, d 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2 IV, d 1-3), followed by maintenance therapy with atezo or placebo until PD per RECIST v1.1. Pts can continue with treatment until persistent radiographic PD, symptomatic deterioration or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints are investigator-assessed PFS per RECIST v1.1 and OS. Secondary efficacy endpoints include investigator-assessed ORR and DOR. Safety and tolerability will also be assessed. Approximately 400 pts will be enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT02763579.

Abstract Lessons Learned Targeted therapy options for SCLC patients are limited; no agent, thus far, has resulted in a strategy promising enough to progress to phase III trials. Linsitinib, a potent insulin growth factor-1-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may be one agent with activity against SCLC. Despite lack of a reliable predictive biomarker in this disease, which may have partly contributed to the negative outcome reported here, linsitinib, although safe, showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients. Background. Treatment of relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains suboptimal. Insulin growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) signaling plays a role in growth, survival, and chemoresistance in SCLC. Linsitinib is a potent IGF-1R tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potentially may be active against SCLC. Methods. In this phase II study, 8 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 intravenously or 2.3 mg/m2 orally, daily for 5 days for 4 cycles) or linsitinib (150 mg orally twice daily until progression). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Patients with relapsed SCLC, platinum sensitive or resistant, performance status (PS) 0–2, and adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function were enrolled. Patients with diabetes, cirrhosis, and those taking insulinotropic agents were excluded. Crossover to linsitinib was allowed at progression. Results. Fifteen patients received topotecan (8 resistant, 3 with PS 2) and 29 received linsitinib (16 resistant, 5 with PS 2). Two partial responses were observed with topotecan. Only 4 of 15 patients with topotecan and 1 of 29 with linsitinib achieved stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–3.6) and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1–1.4) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .0001). Median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2–7.6) and 3.4 (95% CI, 1.8–5.6) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .71). Grade 3/4 adverse events (&gt;5% incidence) included anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia/leukopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, dehydration, and hypokalemia for topotecan; and thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations for linsitinib. Conclusion. Linsitinib was safe but showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients.

Purpose To evaluate the career plans, professional expectations, and well-being of oncology fellows compared with actual experiences of practicing oncologists. Methods US oncology fellows taking the 2013 Medical Oncology In-Training Examination (MedOnc ITE) were invited to participate in an optional postexamination survey. The survey evaluated fellows' career plans and professional expectations and measured burnout, quality of life (QOL), fatigue, and satisfaction with work-life balance (WLB) using standardized instruments. Fellows' professional expectations and well-being were compared with actual experiences of US oncologists assessed simultaneously. Results Of the 1,637 oncology fellows in the United States, 1,373 (83.9%) took the 2013 MedOnc ITE. Among these, 1,345 (97.9%) completed the postexamination survey. The frequency of burnout among fellows decreased from 43.3% in year 1 to 31.7% in year 2 and 28.1% in year 3 (P < .001). Overall, the rate of burnout among fellows and practicing oncologists was similar (34.1% v 33.7%; P = .86). With respect to other dimensions of well-being, practicing oncologists had lower fatigue (P < .001) and better overall QOL scores (P < .001) than fellows but were less satisfied with WLB (P = .0031) and specialty choice (P < .001). Fellows' expectations regarding future work hours were 5 to 6 hours per week fewer than oncologists' actual reported work hours. Levels of burnout (P = .02) and educational debt (P ≤ .004) were inversely associated with ITE scores. Fellows with greater educational debt were more likely to pursue private practice and less likely to plan an academic career. Conclusion Oncology fellows entering practice trade one set of challenges for another. Unrealized expectations regarding work hours may contribute to future professional dissatisfaction, burnout, and challenges with WLB.

Purpose To evaluate the personal and professional characteristics associated with career satisfaction and burnout among US oncologists. Methods Between October 2012 and March 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conducted a survey of US oncologists evaluating burnout and career satisfaction. The survey sample included equal numbers of men and women and represented all career stages. Results Of 2,998 oncologists contacted, 1,490 (49.7%) returned surveys (median age of respondents, 52 years; 49.6% women). Among the 1,117 oncologists (37.3% of overall sample) who completed full-length surveys, 377 (33.8%) were in academic practice (AP) and 482 (43.2%) in private practice (PP), with the remainder in other settings. Oncologists worked an average of 57.6 hours per week (AP, 58.6 hours per week; PP, 62.9 hours per week) and saw a mean of 52 outpatients per week. Overall, 484 oncologists (44.7%) were burned out on the emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization domain of Maslach Burnout Inventory (AP, 45.9%; PP, 50.5%; P = .18). Hours per week devoted to direct patient care was the dominant professional predictor of burnout for both PP and AP oncologists on univariable and multivariable analyses. Although a majority of oncologists were satisfied with their career (82.5%) and specialty (80.4%) choices, both measures of career satisfaction were lower for those in PP relative to AP (all P < .006). Conclusion Overall career satisfaction is high among US oncologists, albeit lower for those in PP relative to AP. Burnout rates among oncologists seem similar to those described in recent studies of US physicians in general. Those oncologists who devote the greatest amount of their professional time to patient care seem to be at greatest risk for burnout.