Durvalumab 120mg/2.4ml solution for infusion vials

BACKGROUND: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for OS. Results reported herein are from a 4-year updated OS analysis of HIMALAYA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with uHCC and no previous systemic treatment were randomized to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The updated data cut-off was 23 January 2023. OS and serious adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Additionally, baseline characteristics and subsequent therapies were analyzed in long-term survivors (≥36 months beyond randomization). RESULTS: For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interval (CI)] follow-up was 49.12 months (46.95-50.17 months), 48.46 months (46.82-49.81 months), and 47.31 months (45.08-49.15 months), respectively. OS hazard ratio (95% CI) for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). The 36-month OS rate for STRIDE was 30.7% versus 19.8% for sorafenib. The 48-month OS rate remained higher for STRIDE at 25.2%, versus 15.1% for sorafenib. The long-term OS benefit of STRIDE was observed across clinically relevant subgroups and was further improved in participants who achieved disease control. Long-term survivors with STRIDE (n = 103) included participants across clinically relevant subgroups, and 57.3% (59/103) had no reported subsequent anticancer therapy. No new serious treatment-related AEs occurred with STRIDE from the primary analysis (17.5%; 68/388). Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and no late-onset safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the longest follow-up to date in phase III studies in uHCC. The unprecedented 3- and 4-year OS rates reinforce the sustained long-term OS benefit of STRIDE versus sorafenib. STRIDE maintained a tolerable yet differentiated safety profile from other current uHCC therapies. Results continue to support the long-term benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)–deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1–positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> Management of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) when cisplatin is contraindicated is controversial. We aimed to assess whether radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant durvalumab would improve outcomes compared with radiotherapy with cetuximab. <h3>Methods</h3> NRG-HN004 was designed as an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial with safety lead-in conducted at 89 academic and community medical centres in North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition stage III–IVB p16-negative HNSCC or unfavourable stage I–III p16-positive oropharyngeal or unknown primary carcinoma, who had a contraindication to cisplatin (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 2, renal or hearing impairment, peripheral neuropathy, aged at least 70 years with moderate or severe comorbidity, or aged younger than 70 years with severe comorbidity). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by permuted block randomisation (multiples of 6) to intravenous durvalumab 1500 mg starting 2 weeks before radiotherapy then every 4 weeks starting week 2 of radiotherapy (seven cycles) or intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before radiotherapy then 250 mg/m² weekly beginning week 1 of radiotherapy (eight cycles), with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks). Stratification factors were tumour and nodal stage, ECOG performance status and comorbidity, and primary site and p16 status. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. There was one prespecified interim futility analysis at 50% of progression-free survival information. If the observed hazard ratio was 1·0 or more, favouring cetuximab, early stopping would be considered. Extended follow-up analysis was post hoc. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03258554, and is closed to enrolment. <h3>Findings</h3> Following a ten-patient safety lead-in, the phase 2 trial enrolled 190 patients from March 12, 2019, to July 30, 2021, 186 of whom were randomly assigned (123 to durvalumab and 63 to cetuximab). Median age was 72 years (IQR 64–77), 30 (16%) patients were women and 156 (84%) were men. Phase 2 accrual was suspended in July 30, 2021, following an interim futility analysis, and permanently closed in Sept 1, 2022. The phase 3 part of the trial was not conducted. At a median follow-up of 2·3 years (IQR 1·9–3·1) for the extended follow-up (data cutoff July 31, 2023; post-hoc analysis), 2-year progression-free survival was 50·6% (95% CI 41·5–59·8) in the durvalumab group versus 63·7% (51·3–76·1) in the cetuximab group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·84–2·12]; p=0·89). Adverse events were similar in both groups. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were dysphagia (26 [22%] of 119 patients in the durvalumab group <i>vs</i> 18 [30%] of 61 patients in the cetuximab group), lymphopenia (33 [28%] <i>vs</i> 20 [33%]), and oral mucositis (13 [11%] <i>vs</i> 11 [18%]). Four (3%) patients in the durvalumab group and one (2%) in the cetuximab group died from treatment-related adverse events (death not otherwise specified, laryngeal oedema, lung infection, and respiratory failure in the durvalumab group and sudden death not otherwise specified in the cetuximab group). <h3>Interpretation</h3> Our findings suggest that durvalumab did not improve outcomes compared with cetuximab in patients with HNSCC with contraindications to cisplatin. Further trials are needed to define the standard of care for this population. <h3>Funding</h3> US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca.

Abstract licence: CC BY