Factors associated with better overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated, PD-L1–expressing, advanced NSCLC: Multivariate analysis of KEYNOTE-010.
9090 Background: We identified factors associated with better OS for previously treated, PD-L1–expressing advanced NSCLC using data from KEYNOTE-010 (NCT01905657; Herbst et al. Lancet. 2016;387:1540-50), in which pembrolizumab had superior OS over docetaxel. Methods: 1033 patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review. Multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model on OS in the pembrolizumab arms. A set of variable selection methods was applied to 19 baseline demographic and disease characteristics, including smoking status, and identified 7 factors that contributed to OS. Data cut was September 30, 2016. Results: Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the factors in the pembrolizumab arm from the model are shown in the Table. Updated OS with an additional 6 months of follow-up from this data lock for KEYNOTE-010 will be presented. Conclusions: While the overall result of KEYNOTE-010 revealed improved OS with pembrolizumab compared with docetaxel in previously treated patients with PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, exploratory, post hoc multivariate analyses showed that some laboratory and tumor characteristics such as nonsquamous histology, normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, and wild-type EGFR mutation status were associated with better OS among patients treated with pembrolizumab. Clinical trial information: NCT01905657. [Table: see text]
Pembrolizumab vs docetaxel for previously treated advanced NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) 1%-49%: Results from KEYNOTE-010.
Enhancing Insights into Pulmonary Vascular Disease Through a Precision Medicine Approach. A Joint NHLBI–Cardiovascular Medical Research and Education Fund Workshop Report
Abstract The Division of Lung Diseases of the NHLBI and the Cardiovascular Medical Education and Research Fund held a workshop to discuss how to leverage the anticipated scientific output from the recently launched “Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics” (PVDOMICS) program to develop newer approaches to pulmonary vascular disease. PVDOMICS is a collaborative, protocol-driven network to analyze all patient populations with pulmonary hypertension to define novel pulmonary vascular disease (PVD) phenotypes. Stakeholders, including basic, translational, and clinical investigators; clinicians; patient advocacy organizations; regulatory agencies; and pharmaceutical industry experts, joined to discuss the application of precision medicine to PVD clinical trials. Recommendations were generated for discussion of research priorities in line with NHLBI Strategic Vision Goals that include: (1) A national effort, involving all the stakeholders, should seek to coordinate biosamples and biodata from all funded programs to a web-based repository so that information can be shared and correlated with other research projects. Example programs sponsored by NHLBI include PVDOMICS, Pulmonary Hypertension Breakthrough Initiative, the National Biological Sample and Data Repository for PAH, and the National Precision Medicine Initiative. (2) A task force to develop a master clinical trials protocol for PVD to apply precision medicine principles to future clinical trials. Specific features include: (a) adoption of smaller clinical trials that incorporate biomarker-guided enrichment strategies, using adaptive and innovative statistical designs; and (b) development of newer endpoints that reflect well-defined and clinically meaningful changes. (3) Development of updated and systematic variables in imaging, hemodynamic, cellular, genomic, and metabolic tests that will help precisely identify individual and shared features of PVD and serve as the basis of novel phenotypes for therapeutic interventions.
Research Priorities, Measures, and Recommendations for Assessment of Tobacco Use in Clinical Cancer Research
Abstract 5049: Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers
Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncologists' preferences for methods to increase delivery of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients. Methods: An email list of 6844 physicians at NCI Designated Cancer Centers was generated using publically available online resources. An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2013 to assess tobacco assessment and cessation practices by physicians, barriers to providing cessation support, and methods to improve access to cessation services for cancer patients. Results of this survey are compared to similar survey findings by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Results: Of 6844 electronically delivered survey invitations, we received 887 responses (13%). Consistent with previously published ASCO and IASLC surveys, 90% of physicians agreed that tobacco use by patients affects cancer treatment outcomes (vs. 87-92% in ASCO/IASLC), 90% of respondents reported that they ask patients about their tobacco use (vs. 90% in ASCO/IASLC), and 83% routinely advise tobacco users to quit (vs. 80-82% in ASCO/IASLC). However, only 37% of respondents regularly discussed medications, and 35% actively treated patients (vs. 39-44% in ASCO/IASLC). Most (71%) responding oncologists preferred cessation support be provided at the initial patient consult, and few (11%) were concerned about the use of tobacco cessation medications. Lack of time and lack of available resources were the dominant barriers to the administration of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients by oncologists. Only 10% of oncologists believed they were adequately trained to counsel patients on smoking cessation, but 55% reported that training for someone else in their clinic would increase tobacco cessation support. When asked what provider they prefer to administer cessation support to cancer patients, 16% reported a primary care physician, 18% reported a mid-level (nurse practitioner or physician assistant), 50% reported any other clinical staff, and only 1% preferred to personally provide cessation support. Whereas most (58%) oncologists preferred to have dedicated cessation services within their institution, 38% reported they would use dedicated services either within, or outside their institution. Conclusions: Most oncologists at NCI Designated Cancer Centers recognize the importance of tobacco cessation, but prefer to have tobacco cessation support for cancer patients provided by another trained professional. Citation Format: Alix Pommerenke, Anthony Alberg, Thomas H. Brandon, Ivana Croghan, Michael K. Cummings, Carolyn Dresler, Ellen R. Gritz, Roy Herbst, Scott Leischow, James R. Marshall, Benjamin Toll, Graham Warren. Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5049. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5049
American Society of Clinical Oncology Perspective: Raising the Bar for Clinical Trials by Defining Clinically Meaningful Outcomes