CheckMate 026 trial fails to show benefit ...
by Dr West - http://cancergrace.org/lung/2016/08/05/checkmate-026-trial-fails-to-showbenefit-for-opdivo-nivolumab-in-first-line-treatment-of-advanced-nsclc/
CheckMate 026 trial fails to show benefit for Opdivo
(nivolumab) in first line treatment of advanced NSCLC
The transition of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibitors into the first line setting for at least some patients
with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poised to be the biggest sea change in
the management of lung cancer over the next 1-2 years. Based on the preliminary report that
the Keynote 024 trial of the PD1 inhibitor Keytruda (pembrolizumab) vs. chemotherapy as first
line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater in
their tumors (the subset of approximately 25-30% of patients who consistently demonstrate the
best probability of major tumor shrinkage and prolonged survival from Keytruda and other
PD1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors), we already knew that the ground is shifting under our
feet. But with literally dozens of first line trials with several agents and subtly different patient
populations and comparisons, we have many open questions:
1) Will immunotherapy agents provide extremely similar results in comparable populations?
2) Which patients will truly benefit from immunotherapy more than chemotherapy? All patients,
most, or only a rather selected subset with the highest predicted probability of
immuno-sensitivity?
3) Will checkpoint inhibitors be most helpful when administered as single agents in first line,
combined with chemotherapy, or potentially combined with other immunotherapy agents?
4) Do immune checkpoint inhibitors need to really be administered indefinitely, or can patients
do just as well with a limited duration of therapy followed by sustained benefit?
5) Will the lower bar of improved progression-free survival in first line treatment translate to the
more valuable prize of prolonged overall survival, particularly after patients have the benefit of
crossing over from one treatment to another? In other words, does the timing of treatment
matter significantly, so that it’s important to administer immunotherapy in the first line setting
rather than later?
The huge collection of trials testing first line immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC will test all of
these issues. There are so many that will be reported in the next few years, it’s essentially
impossible to keep track of all of them. I think of them as a “Chinese menu” where companies
can just order “family style” options they choose from the different columns to create their own
new trial with their PD1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor of choice.
page 1 / 4
CheckMate 026 trial fails to show benefit ...
by Dr West - http://cancergrace.org/lung/2016/08/05/checkmate-026-trial-fails-to-showbenefit-for-opdivo-nivolumab-in-first-line-treatment-of-advanced-nsclc/
Today, Bristol-Myers Squibb, who make the PD1 inhibitor Opdivo (nivolumab), offered a press
release that the CheckMate 026 trial comparing Opdivo to any of various chemotherapy
regimens as first line treatment of advanced NSCLC did NOT show any improvement in the
primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 541 patients with either
squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and with at least 5% of their tumor cells positive for
PD-L1 (a rather liberal cutoff point achieved in about 40-45% of cases) were randomized to
receive Opdivo at the current standard dose of 2 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks or one of several
platinum-based doublet chemotherapy options, with the choices differing a bit depending on
the tumor subtype. That’s all the information we have so far.
What does this mean? First, as I mentioned in the wake of the positive press on the Keynote
024 trial with Keytruda, the benefit seen there in first line was seen in the narrowest subset
most likely to benefit from immunotherapy (those with >50% PD-L1 expression). The
CheckMate 026 trial studies a more diluted population that includes far more patients not as
likely to benefit greatly. Though we have yet to see any progression-free survival curves, I think
there’s a great chance we’ll see a criss-crossing shape such as that seen in the IPASS trial of
EGFR inhibitor Iressa in Asian never-smokers, a shape that suggests two distinct populations
within the study. Specifically, I think the problem with CheckMate 026 may be that the study
population was too broad and that the patients with the most PD-L1 expression actually do the
page 2 / 4
CheckMate 026 trial fails to show benefit ...
by Dr West - http://cancergrace.org/lung/2016/08/05/checkmate-026-trial-fails-to-showbenefit-for-opdivo-nivolumab-in-first-line-treatment-of-advanced-nsclc/
same as the Keytruda recipients on Keynote 024, but the rest of the patients on Checkmate
026 do better with first line chemotherapy. When you mix those two populations together, you
end up with no difference overall.
It’s notable (and a bit ironic) that the more liberal enrollment criteria for Opdivo vs. Keytruda in
the second line NSCLC space has led to this setting being completed dominated by Opdivo
thus far. In the second line studies that led to FDA approval of both agents, the Opdivo trials
enrolled patients regardless of PD-L1 staining levels (including even patients with no PD-L1
expression, least likely to benefit from PD1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors); in contrast, the
studies in previously treated pateints receiving Keytruda focused on patients with higher PD-L1
expression levels and therefore led to an approval that is conditional on PD-L1 testing and is
only available for patients who test positive (with best results seen in patients with higher level
PD-L1 expression overall). BMS got away with this more liberal enrollment and accrual in the
second line setting because second line chemotherapy with docetaxel is a relatively low bar to
exceed (proven survival benefit, but relatively underwhelming). But first line doublet
chemotherapy has more meaningful activity, so it’s not at all surprising that a greater benefit
from immunotherapy, at least as a single agent strategy, is only going to be apparent in a
narrower subset most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. So BMS is now feeling the sting of
the double-edged sword of less selective use of immunotherapy in a different setting.
It’s also possible that Ketruda is simply more effective than Opdivo, but the patterns in similar
populations of patients have been so similar that I would consider that far less likely than the
differences in results being due to differences in the study populations.
The press release on CheckMate 026 doesn’t say anything about overall survival. It’s harder
to see changes in overall survival than progression-free survival (which is part of why the
preliminarily reported survival benefit from Keynote 024 is particularly impressive to me), but
overall survival could trend in the wrong direction for first line immunotherapy if many
immunotherapy zealots (patients and physicians alike) misinterpret worse-looking scans as
pseudoprogression even as patients experience a clinical decline. This could mean that
patients who aren’t benefiting from first line immunotherapy are actually being harmed by
missing the opportunity to benefit from chemotherapy in a timely way. If patients become too
debilitated to receive doublet chemotherapy while progressing through immunotherapy, it could
realistically prove to be net harmful. We have a precedent for this in the form of the European
TORCH trial from several years ago that took a patient population unselected forn EGFR
mutations (and in whom we could expect an activating EGFR mutation in 10% or less of the
population) to receive either first line chemotherapy or Tarceva (erlotinib) and then switch to
the other treatment upon progression: that trial was stopped early because of an observed far
worse progression-free survival and overall survival in patients getting first line Tarceva.
Though they crossed over to chemo upon progression, they benefited far less from the same
chemo as second line treatment. That may well prove to be the case after first line
immunotherapy for patients with less immuno-sensitive disease.
There is obviously a great deal still to learn. We don’t have any of the actual data from either
of these first line trials yet. But we now have our first hint that it’s time to pause and conclude
that immunotherapy, at least first line single agent therapy, isn’t going to be the best treatment
page 3 / 4
CheckMate 026 trial fails to show benefit ...
by Dr West - http://cancergrace.org/lung/2016/08/05/checkmate-026-trial-fails-to-showbenefit-for-opdivo-nivolumab-in-first-line-treatment-of-advanced-nsclc/
for all patients. We need to enter into an era of more nuanced discussion of the benefits of
immunotherapy and recognize that it’s not the right tool for every job in every patient with
cancer.
GRACE is supported by contributions from our membership. Be a part of the solution.
Donate Today!
This content is for personal use only and is subject to the GRACE Disclaimer terms.
All Content Copyright ©GRACE - All Rights Reserved
page 4 / 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)