103O_PR - Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Monotherapy in Elderly Patients (Pts) With PD-L1–positive Advanced NSCLC: Pooled Analysis from KEYNOT...

Date 11 April 2019
Event European Lung Cancer Congress 2019
Session ESMO-IASLC Best Abstracts
Topics Immunotherapy
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Presenter Kaname Nosaki
Citation Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_2): ii38-ii68. 10.1093/annonc/mdz063
Authors K. Nosaki1, Y. Hosomi2, H. Saka3, P. Baas4, G. de Castro Jr5, M. Reck6, Y. Wu7, J.R. Brahmer8, E. Felip9, T. Sawada10, K. Noguchi10, S.R. Han10, B. Piperdi11, D.A. Kush11, G. Lopes12
  • 1National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center, 811-1395 - Fukuoka/JP
  • 2Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, 113-0021 - Tokyo/JP
  • 3National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya/JP
  • 4The Netherlands Cancer Institute and The Academic Medical Hospital Amsterdam, Amsterdam/NL
  • 5Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo/BR
  • 6Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Grosshansdorf/DE
  • 7Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangdong/CN
  • 8Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore/US
  • 9Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona/ES
  • 10MSD K.K., Tokyo/JP
  • 11Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth/US
  • 12Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Miami/US

Abstract

Background

Approximately 70% of newly-diagnosed NSCLC cases occur in the elderly, and more than half are locally advanced/metastatic. We present a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety in elderly pts (aged ≥75 y) enrolled in 3 randomized controlled trials of pembro monotherapy vs standard chemotherapy (chemo) for PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC.

Methods

Pts were aged ≥18 y with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1% (KEYNOTE-010, -042) or TPS ≥50% (KEYNOTE-024). In KEYNOTE-010, pts were randomized to pembro 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel, as second- or later-line therapy. In KEYNOTE-024 and -042, pts were randomized to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W or platinum-based chemo. OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The 3 trials included 264 pts aged ≥75 (range, 75–90) y with TPS ≥1%; 132 pts had TPS ≥50%. Independent of line of treatment, HRs (95% CI) for OS favored pembro vs chemo: 0.76 (0.56–1.02) in pts with TPS ≥1% and 0.40 (0.25–0.64) in pts with TPS ≥50%. Pembro also improved OS vs chemo in the pooled analysis of pts with TPS ≥50% who received first-line therapy (KEYNOTE-024 and -042): HR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23–0.73). Overall, fewer treatment-related AEs across various categories were observed with pembro vs chemo, in particular, grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs in pts aged ≥75 y (Table). Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions were more frequent with pembro vs chemo, with similar frequency in pts receiving pembro aged ≥75 y and <75 y (Table).

Conclusions

In this pooled analysis of pts aged ≥75 y with PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, pembro monotherapy improved OS vs chemo, both in pts with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% and PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. The safety profile of pembro was similar in pts aged ≥75 y and <75 y, with lower rates of grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs vs chemo.

Clinical trial identification

NCT01905657 (KEYNOTE-010); NCT02142738 (KEYNOTE-024); NCT02220894 (KEYNOTE-042).

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Michael S. McNamara, MS, of C4 MedSolutions, LLC (Yardley, PA), a CHC Group company and funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Funding

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Disclosure

K. Nosaki: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, MSD; Institutional research funding: MSD. Y. Hosomi: Personal fees: MSD, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly Japan, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb. H. Saka: Grants/research support: AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical; Honoraria: AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyorin Pharmaceutical. P. Baas: Consulting role: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer; Research support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck. G. de Castro Jr: Consulting/advisory role: AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim; Speakers’ bureau: MSD, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca; Travel/accommodation expenses: MSD, BMS, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca. M. Reck: Personal fees: Amgen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie. Y-L. Wu: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi; Consulting/advisory role: AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research funding to institution: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. J.R. Brahmer: Grant, personal fees, Advisory boards, consulting: Merck; Uncompensated advisor and consultant: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Grants: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MedImmune/AstraZeneca; Personal fees: Amgen, Celgene, Lilly. E. Felip: Consulting, advisory role, speaker’s bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; Research funding: Fundación Merck Salud; Grant for Oncology Innovation EMD Serono. T. Sawada, K. Noguchi, S.R. Han: Employee: MSD K.K., Tokyo, Japan. B. Piperdi, D.A. Kush: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. G. Lopes: Research funding to institution: Merck & Co., Inc., EMD Serono, AstraZeneca.