Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Patients and methods

Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib.

Results

Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions.

Conclusion

PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

SUBMITTER: Pal SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8415097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Bevacizumab, a VEGF-A inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy, has proven to increase progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in multiple lines of therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The angiogenic factor angiopoetin-2 (Ang-2) is associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including mCRC. Preclinical models demonstrate improved activity when inhibiting both VEGF-A and Ang-2, suggesting that the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 blocker vanucizumab (RO5520985 or RG-7221) may improve clinical outcomes. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vanucizumab plus modified (m)FOLFOX-6 (folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin) versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6 for first-line mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS:All patients received mFOLFOX-6 and were randomized 1:1 to also receive vanucizumab 2,000 mg or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every other week. Oxaliplatin was given for eight cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. RESULTS:One hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized (vanucizumab, n =?94; bevacizumab, n =?95). The number of PFS events was comparable (vanucizumab, n = 39; bevacizumab, n =?43). The hazard ratio was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.58; p = .98) in a stratified analysis based on number of metastatic sites and region. Objective response rate was 52.1% and 57.9% in the vanucizumab and bevacizumab arm, respectively. Baseline plasma Ang-2 levels were prognostic in both arms but not predictive for treatment effects on PFS of vanucizumab. The incidence of adverse events of grade ?3 was similar between treatment arms (83.9% vs. 82.1%); gastrointestinal perforations (10.8% vs. 8.4%) exceeded previously reported rates in this setting. Hypertension and peripheral edema were more frequent in the vanucizumab arm. CONCLUSION:Vanucizumab/mFOLFOX-6 did not improve PFS and was associated with increased rates of antiangiogenic toxicity compared with bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6. Our results suggest that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in first-line mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This randomized phase II study demonstrates that additional angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) inhibition does not result in superior benefit over anti-VEGF-A blockade alone when each added to standard chemotherapy. Moreover, the performed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis revealed that vanucizumab was bioavailable and affected its intended target, thereby strongly suggesting that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in the clinical setting of treatment-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer. As a result, the further clinical development of the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 inhibitor vanucizumab was discontinued.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. METHODS:AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8?cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12?months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. DISCUSSION:The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. TRIAL REGISTRATION:AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017-000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017.