In the phase III CheckMate 227 study, first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (co-primary end-point) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high tumour mutational burden (TMB; ≥10 mutations/megabase).To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this population.Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using the validated PRO questionnaires Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D, respectively. LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) and three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) scores and changes from baseline were analysed descriptively. Longitudinal changes were assessed by mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRMs) and time to first deterioration/improvement analyses.In the high TMB population, PRO questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% at baseline and >80% for most on-treatment assessments. During treatment, mean changes from baseline with nivolumab + ipilimumab showed early, clinically meaningful improvements in LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D VAS/UI; with chemotherapy, symptoms and health-related quality of life remained stable (LCSS ASBI/3-IGI, EQ-5D UI) or improved following induction (EQ-5D VAS). MMRM-assessed changes in symptom burden were improved with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. Symptom deterioration by week 12 was lower with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (22.3% versus 35.0%; absolute risk reduction: 12.7% [95% confidence interval 2.4-22.5]), irrespective of discontinuation. Time to first deterioration was delayed with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS and EQ-5D summary measures.First-line nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated early, sustained improvements in PROs versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high TMB.NCT02477826.
262 Background: This analysis evaluated HRQoL as exploratory endpoints in CheckMate 648, a randomized, open-label, global Phase 3 study, evaluating treatment with N+I, N+CT and CT alone in inoperable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Methods: The effects of N+I vs N+CT vs CT on HRQoL were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) (including the GP5 item to assess impact of side effects) and EQ-5D-3L. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate longitudinal changes from baseline (BL) and differences between treatment groups. Comparison of the risk of being bothered by the side effects of treatment was estimated for the GP5 using generalized estimating equation (GEE). Time to confirmed deterioration (TTCD) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots along with Cox proportional hazard models. Analyses were conducted on both the all-randomized population and the subset of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Results: 970 pts were randomized 1:1:1 to N+I (n=325), N+CT (n=321), or CT (n=324). 90% of pts completed both a BL and at least one on-treatment assessment and were included in the PRO analysis population. FACT-E (all randomized pts). Study showed similar BL scores across all 3 treatment groups. Changes from BL showed a trend towards better HRQoL for pts treated with N+I and N+CT compared to CT alone, however these results were not statistically significant. Patients treated with N+I had significantly decreased risk of experiencing bother associated with the side effects of treatment than patients treated with either N+CT or CT. TTCD analysis demonstrated delayed deterioration for pts treated with N+CT vs CT. Findings for PD-L1 ≥1% subpopulation were similar to all randomized pts. Conclusions: In pts with inoperable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC, HRQoL is maintained throughout treatment with N+I and N+CT. Trends towards better HRQoL and decreased risk of deterioration were observed with N+I and N+CT compared to CT alone. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]
4535 Background: NIVO IV has improved outcomes in multiple tumor types. Evolving treatment paradigms have created a need for administration options that address treatment burden and improve efficiencies of healthcare systems. In a phase 1/2 study (CheckMate 8KX), pts were highly satisfied with NIVO SC and preferred it over NIVO IV [Lonardi et al, ESMO 2022; Lonardi et al, SITC 2023]. CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study that demonstrated pharmacokinetic and objective response rate noninferiority of NIVO SC vs IV in pts with locally advanced or metastatic ccRCC [George et al, ASCO-GU 2024]. This exploratory analysis assessed non-inferiority of HRQoL between pts randomized to NIVO SC (n=248) vs NIVO IV (n=247) in CheckMate 67T. Methods: HRQoL was measured using patient-reported outcomes (PROs), FKSI-19 (kidney cancer-related HRQoL) and the EQ-5D-5L (pt’s health status). FKSI-19 total score (range 0-76, higher score better HRQoL)and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) (range 0-100, higher score better health HRQoL) scores were evaluated longitudinally on-treatment visits with ≥10 pts per arm included in model [week 57]) using linear mixed models (constrained longitudinal data analysis), with least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline and differences in the LS mean between NIVO SC and NIVO IV assessed; non-inferiority of NIVO SC vs NIVO IV was evaluated by examining overall treatment differences for on-treatment visits relative to prespecified thresholds. Results: PRO data were available for 247 pts (99.6%) for NIVO SC and 245 pts (99.2%) for NIVO IV, with completion rates >87% across instruments up to week 57 for both treatment arms. HRQoL was maintained over time for both NIVO arms for FKSI-19 total score and subscales and EQ-5D-5L VAS. NIVO SC was non-inferior to NIVO IV across FKSI-19 total score and subscales and EQ-5D-5L VAS (Table). Conclusions: These results demonstrate maintenance of HRQoL for pts with advanced or metastatic ccRCC while on treatment with NIVO, regardless of the mode of administration (SC or IV), supporting the use of NIVO SC as a new option to align with patient preferences. Clinical trial information: NCT04810078 . [Table: see text]
The platelet P2Y12 receptor is the target of clopidogrel therapy, which has been shown to reduce thromboembolic complications of atherosclerotic disease but has limitations in terms of variability of response and irreversibility of effect. This receptor is also a target for ticagrelor (AZD6140), the first reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist that does not require metabolic activation and yields more consistent inhibition of platelet aggregation than clopidogrel therapy. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been described in the gene for this receptor (P2RY12), some of which have been associated with variability in platelet reactivity. SNPs in P2RY1 and ITGB3 have also been reported by some groups to affect platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate (ADP). We assessed whether SNPs in these genes influenced the pharmacodynamic response to ticagrelor in patients enrolled in both the DISPERSE study (stable atherosclerotic disease) and the DISPERSE2 study (non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes). Platelet aggregation data (at baseline and 4 weeks) and DNA samples from clopidogrel-naive Caucasian patients treated with ticagrelor were available for 151 patients. Seventy four SNPs within three genes were genotyped. After adjustment for multiple comparisons, none of these SNPs were found to significantly influence inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation by ticagrelor.
Purpose Third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated potent activity against TKI resistance mediated by EGFR T790M. We studied whether noninvasive genotyping of cell-free plasma DNA (cfDNA) is a useful biomarker for prediction of outcome from a third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib. Methods Plasma was collected from all patients in the first-in-man study of osimertinib. Patients who were included had acquired EGFR-TKI resistance and evidence of a common EGFR-sensitizing mutation. Genotyping of cell-free plasma DNA was performed by using BEAMing. Plasma genotyping accuracy was assessed by using tumor genotyping from a central laboratory as reference. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in all T790M-positive or T790M-negative patients. Results Sensitivity of plasma genotyping for detection of T790M was 70%. Of 58 patients with T790M-negative tumors, T790M was detected in plasma of 18 (31%). ORR and median PFS were similar in patients with T790M-positive plasma (ORR, 63%; PFS, 9.7 months) or T790M-positive tumor (ORR, 62%; PFS, 9.7 months) results. Although patients with T790M-negative plasma had overall favorable outcomes (ORR, 46%; median PFS, 8.2 months), tumor genotyping distinguished a subset of patients positive for T790M who had better outcomes (ORR, 69%; PFS, 16.5 months) as well as a subset of patients negative for T790M with poor outcomes (ORR, 25%; PFS, 2.8 months). Conclusion In this retrospective analysis, patients positive for T790M in plasma have outcomes with osimertinib that are equivalent to patients positive by a tissue-based assay. This study suggests that, upon availability of validated plasma T790M assays, some patients could avoid a tumor biopsy for T790M genotyping. As a result of the 30% false-negative rate of plasma genotyping, those with T790M-negative plasma results still need a tumor biopsy to determine presence or absence of T790M.
Abstract Background Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients’ health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds. Methods Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3–4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Results NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores. Conclusion This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(23.036 .093 25.536)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(45.87 1.273 16.18)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(69.945 .996 12.078)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(20.66 -19.689 31.932)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)