Dataset Information

First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: CASPIAN Japan subgroup analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the phase 3 CASPIAN study (NCT03043872), first-line durvalumab plus etoposide and cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved OS versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage (ES)-SCLC (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.59-0.91; p = 0.0047]). Here we report results for a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients recruited in Japan.

Methods

Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received either 4 cycles of durvalumab 1500 mg plus EP q3w followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg q4w until disease progression or up to 6 cycles of EP q3w. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability.

Results

In the Japan subgroup, 18 patients were randomized to durvalumab plus EP and 16 patients to EP. At the interim analysis with a median follow-up of 12.5 months in the subgroup, OS numerically favored durvalumab plus EP versus EP (HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.26‒2.26]; median not reached vs 15.2 months). PFS was similar for durvalumab plus EP versus EP (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.43‒1.89]). Confirmed ORR was 89% with durvalumab plus EP versus 69% with EP. Adverse events (AEs) of CTCAE grade 3 or 4 were reported in 78% versus 94% of patients in the durvalumab plus EP versus EP arms. There were no AEs leading to treatment discontinuation or death in the Japan subgroup.

Conclusion

First-line durvalumab plus EP was effective and well tolerated in Japanese patients with ES-SCLC. Despite the small size of the Japan subgroup, results were generally consistent with the global study population.

SUBMITTER: Hotta K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe latest published CASPIAN trial demonstrated that adding durvalumab to etoposide and platinum (EP) improved survival dramatically for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Considering the high cost of durvalumab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP (DEP) in the first-line setting for treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC from the U.S. payer perspective.Materials and methodsWe developed a three-state Markov model to simulate the disease course and source consumption of ES-SCLC over a lifetime horizon. Pseudo-individual patient-level data were generated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. Direct medical costs, including drug and administration costs, disease management and adverse events treatment fees, best supportive care and terminal care costs were obtained from sources including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and relevant literature. Health state utility values were derived from published literature. Main outcomes considered were total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $150,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty of model assumptions.ResultsCompared with EP, DEP was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.86 LYs (1.73 vs. 0.87) and 0.44 QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.49). The incremental treatment cost was $95,907, and the corresponding ICER was $216,953/QALY. The result was most sensitive to the variation of durvalumab acquisition cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of DEP over EP regimen to be cost-effective was 9.4% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the case of reducing the price of durvalumab by 30.7%, DEP was more cost-effective than EP.ConclusionFrom the perspective of the U.S. payer, adding durvalumab to EP is estimated to be not cost-effective compared with EP alone for patients with untreated ES-SCLC.Implications for practiceThe information provided by this analysis serves as a reference for decision makers. Lowering the price of durvalumab would be a potential measure to improve the economics of durvalumab plus etoposide and platinum (DEP), and the inclusion of durvalumab in the Medicare pharmacopeia could make DEP more economically available. These results may also guide physicians and patients to choose the most economically feasible treatment.

Project description:IntroductionThe real-world data evaluating treatment outcomes of atezolizumab plus carboplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (atezolizumab) for extensive-stage SCLC (ESCLC) are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate real-world outcomes of ESCLC treated with atezolizumab.MethodsA retrospective analysis of provincial patients with ESCLC who started first-line (1L) systemic treatment was conducted. We primarily evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes in association with atezolizumab compared with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy (chemotherapy) while adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical factors. Adverse events (AEs) during 1L were evaluated.ResultsA total of 67 patients were identified. Of the 34 patients who received atezolizumab, 24% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than or equal to 2, approximately 50% were more than or equal to 65 years, 21% received cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy before atezolizumab, and 12% had thoracic radiation (tRT).Within the atezolizumab versus chemotherapy group, the median PFS equals to 6.0 versus 4.3 months (p = 0.03) whereas OS = 12.8 versus 7.1 months (p = 0.01). Relative to chemotherapy, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for PFS was 0.53 (0.28-1.02) and OS was 0.42 (0.20-0.88) with atezolizumab. tRT compared with no tRT receipt correlated with reduced death risk (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.33 [0.13-0.88]).AE-related treatment withdrawal with atezolizumab was 32% and 15% with chemotherapy (p = 0.02). Within the tRT subgroup, 25% versus 20% in atezolizumab versus chemotherapy group, respectively, discontinued 1L owing to AE.ConclusionsThis is the first real-world study revealing comparable survival with that in the IMpower133 trial. Treatment discontinuation from AEs was higher with atezolizumab among Canadian patients with ESCLC. Our data suggest safe use of tRT and chemoimmunotherapy, but its efficacy for ESCLC warrants further study.

Project description:BackgroundImmunotherapy in combination with platinum-etoposide (EP) chemotherapy has been approved as a first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, real-world (RW) data regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in ES-SCLC are lacking. We aimed to assess the differences between programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, both in conjunction with EP chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for ES SCLC.MethodsWe conducted a real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort, controlled study to compare the prognosis, efficacy, and safety of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in ES-SCLC patients when used along with chemotherapy. Each patient received up to six cycles of etoposide, carboplatin, or cisplatin combined with ICI drugs, including PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1).ResultsBetween January 2017 and December 2021, 194 patients with ES-SCLC from three clinical centers in a PLA general hospital were included in our study, including 93 patients in the PD-1 group and 101 patients in the PD-L1 group. At the time of data cutoff, progression-free survival in the PD-1 group (median PFS, 6.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3-8.1) was similar to that in the PD-L1 group (median PFS, 6.4 months; 95% CI, 5.5-7.5); the stratified hazard ratio for PFS was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.83-1.53; P = 0.452). The median OS was similar in the PD-1 and PD-L1 groups (15.8 m vs. 17.7 m, P = 0.566); the hazard ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.62-1.30, P = 0.566). The two groups had comparable investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rates (ORR) (76.3% vs. 76.2%). Adverse effect (AE)-related discontinuation occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients in the PD-1 group and 2 (2.0%) patients in the PD-L1 group. Deaths due to AEs of any cause occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients in the PD-1 inhibitor group and 1 (1.0%) patient in the PD-L1 inhibitor group.ConclusionsOur research revealed that there were no significant differences in efficacy or prognosis between PD-1 inhibitor + EP chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitor + EP chemotherapy. The two groups seemed to have comparable safety profiles, but the number of discontinuation or death events was too small to draw a firm conclusion.