Immunotherapy first line without driver alterations
Two interesting studies (update on
CheckMate 227 and IMpower110) were presented, using PD-L1 expression as a biomarker to guide immunotherapy in the first-line setting [
1,
2].
At the current ESMO meeting, Peters et al. [
1] presented the OS data of the PD-L1 ≥1% population and the study met its primary endpoint. Median OS was 17.1 versus 14.9 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm compared to chemotherapy alone (HR for nivolumab/ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy, 0.79; 97.72% CI, 0.65–0.96). Moreover, median OS was 17.1 months with the combination therapy and 13.9 months with chemotherapy in patients regardless of PD-L1 expression status (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64–0.84). Results also showed that in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, the 1‑ and 2‑year OS rates were 63 and 40% with nivolumab/ipilimumab and 56 and 33% with chemotherapy, respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) by blinded independent central review was 23.2 and 6.2 months for nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy, respectively.
In part 1b, patients with PD-L1-negative NSCLC also had a numeric advantage of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination, showing a median OS of 17.2 months for nivolumab/ipilimumab versus 12.2 months with chemotherapy (HR for nivolumab/ipilimumab vs chemotherapy, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.78; HR for nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60–1.02).
In regards of tolerability, no new safety findings for the combination were reported within longer follow-up. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 33 and 36% of patients in the nivolumab/ipilimumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively.
In conclusion, this study could show an OS benefit for the ICI combination therapy compared to chemotherapy, independent of PD-L1 expression. Clinically meaningful benefits were documented in the two subgroups of PD-L1 high (>50%) and PD-L1 negative NSCLC. However, clinical utility in the PD-L1 high group is limited as pembrolizumab monotherapy is an already well-established therapy option with more favorable toxicity profile compared to the ICI combo. Although not evaluated as a study endpoint, the advantage of ICI combination in a PD-L1 negative setting is worth being discussed as a good treatment alternative for patients who do not want to be treated with chemotherapy.
At ESMO 2019 D. Spigel [
2] presented an interim OS analysis of the TC3 and IC3 subgroup, showing an improved OS for atezolizumab monotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in patients with wild-type NSCLC. At a median follow-up of 15.7 months (range, 0–35 months), median OS was 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.5–not evaluable) for the atezolizumab arm, compared to 13.1 months (95% CI, 7.4–16.5) in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.89;
P = 0.0106). The OS testing boundary was not crossed in the TC2/3 or IC2/3 wild-type population; therefore, OS was not formally tested in this population as well as in the TC1/2/3 and IC1/2/3 populations. Median PFS was 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.8–11.0) in the atezolizumab arm versus 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.2–5.7) in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.88;
P = 0.007) in the TC3/IC3 wild-type population; the confirmed ORR was 38.3% vs. 28.6%, respectively; the median DOR was not reached versus 6.7 months, respectively.
The authors of the study concluded that atezolizumab represents a promising first-line treatment option in NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression. Interestingly, this study showed for the first time that PD-L1 expression on immune cells plays an important role in therapy stratification and can also be used as predictive biomarker. However, we have to await how these data will be integrated into our common treatment approach of PD-L1 high patients. Lastly, IMpower 110 could show the applicability of the less commonly used PD-L1 score TC3/IC3 (IHC antibody Ventana SP142) in this patient setting. Due to the widespread use of the PD-L1 TPS score (IHC antibody Dako 22C3) it would be beneficial for clinical practice to validate the study results with the latter biomarker.