Dataset Information

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase II Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Anti-programmed cell death-1 monotherapy is part of standard therapy for cutaneous melanoma but has low efficacy in mucosal melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced mucosal melanoma.

Patients and methods

This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase II study used a Simon's two-stage design. Atezolizumab (fixed-dose, 1,200 mg) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) were administered by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), determined per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and safety, with adverse events (AE) summarized using NCI-CTCAE v5.0.

Results

Overall, 43 patients were enrolled, including 20 (46.5%) with unresectable and 23 (53.5%) with metastatic mucosal melanoma. Median follow-up was 13.4 months at data cutoff (July 30, 2021). Forty patients were evaluable for response: ORR was 45.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 29.3%-61.5%; one complete response, 17 partial responses]. Median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 2.7-9.6); 6- and 12-month PFS rates were 53.4% (95% CI, 36.6%-67.6%) and 28.1% (95% CI, 14.2%-43.9%), respectively. Median OS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 14.4-NR). Six- and 12-month OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 78.5%-97.5%) and 76.0% (95% CI, 57.1%-87.5%), respectively. Median DOR was 12.5 months (95% CI, 5.5-NR). Overall, 90.7% (39/43) of patients experienced treatment-related AEs; 25.6% (11/43) experienced grade ≥3 events.

Conclusions

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab showed promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma.

SUBMITTER: Mao L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9623232 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase II Study.

Mao Lili L Fang Meiyu M Chen Yu Y Wei Xiaoting X Cao Jun J Lin Jing J Zhang Peng P Chen Ling L Cao Xiao X Chen Yujun Y Guo Jun J Si Lu L

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20221101 21

<h4>Purpose</h4>Anti-programmed cell death-1 monotherapy is part of standard therapy for cutaneous melanoma but has low efficacy in mucosal melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced mucosal melanoma.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase II study used a Simon's two-stage design. Atezolizumab (fixed-dose, 1,200 mg) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) were administered by intravenous infusion eve ...[more]

PMID: 36044526

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in IMbrave150. Efficacy and safety data from the Chinese subpopulation are reported.MethodsIMbrave150, a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study in patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC, included an extension phase that enrolled additional patients from mainland China. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks or sorafenib 400 mg twice a day until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Co-primary endpoints were OS and independent review facility-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsOf 194 Chinese patients enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 8, 2019 (137 in the global study and 57 in the China extension phase), 133 received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 61 received sorafenib. At the data cutoff (August 29, 2019), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.76) and for PFS was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40-0.90). The respective median OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were not reached (NR; 95% CI, 13.5 months to NR) and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.3) versus 11.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to NR) and 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.8) with sorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78 of 132 (59.1%) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab-treated and 27 of 58 (46.6%) sorafenib-treated patients. The most common grade 3-4 AE with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was hypertension, occurring in 15.2% of patients; however, other high-grade AEs were infrequent.ConclusionClinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib suggest that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may become a practice-changing treatment for Chinese patients with unresectable HCC.

Project description:BackgroundMicrosatellite stable (MSS) and RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are characterized by an immunosuppressive microenvironment and a low response rate to immunotherapy. Chemotherapy and anti-angiogenesis therapy have been reported to potentially promote immunotherapy response. This study aims to assess the preliminary anti-tumor activity and safety of sintilimab plus bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as a treatment option for patients with RAS-mutant MSS mCRC.MethodsThis study was an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial in China. Patients with unresectable, RAS-mutant and MSS metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma received treatment by intravenous sintilimab (200 mg, day 1) plus bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg, day 1), oxaliplatin (135 mg/m2, day 1) and oral capecitabine (1 g/m2, day 1-14) in each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Biomarker analysis was performed to identify potential predictors of good response to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04194359.FindingsBetween April 2021 and December 2021, 25 patients were enrolled. Two (8%) patients showed complete response (CR), 19 (76%) had partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) presented with stable disease. ORR reached 84% (95% CI, 63.9-95.5) and the disease control rate was 100% (95% CI, 86.3-100). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.2 months for the full analysis set. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in all grades were anemia (21/25, 84%), neutropenia (20/25, 80%), and hand-foot syndrome (14/25, 56%). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were neutropenia (3/25, 12%) and increased alanine transaminase (2/25, 8%). No grade 5 adverse events occurred. In the exploration of biomarkers, 5 patients could be characterized as TTN/OBSCN "double-hit" after treatment, and the copy number variants burden was significantly decreased in tumor tissues after treatment compared with the baseline. Nanostring panel RNA sequencing analysis indicated a better tumor immune microenvironment cell infiltration in CR/PR patients compared with non-CR/PR patients as well as the PFS-long (≥12.5 months) group compared with the PFS-short group.InterpretationCombination treatment with sintilimab plus bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as first-line treatment demonstrated a promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in RAS-mutant, MSS and unresectable mCRC. Exploratory biomarker assessment analysis showed that some RAS-mutant and MSS patients changed into "immune-hot" subtype after the treatment.FundingThis study was supported by the Key R&D Program of Zhejiang Province (2021C03125 to Ying Yuan), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81872481 to Ying Yuan, 82072624 to Kefeng Ding), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 226-2022-00009 to Kefeng Ding), and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LY22H160024 to Hanguang Hu).

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:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Project description:BackgroundThe anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).Patients and methodsPhase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME).ResultsOverall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with ≤48.5% being grade ≥3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME.ConclusionsIsa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, their response rates are generally low. Preclinical and early phase clinical data suggest that MEK inhibition may sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors by upregulating tumor antigen expression, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and tumor T-cell infiltration. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors in the open-label, multicohort phase II COTEST study.Patients and methodsThis analysis of the COTEST trial included patients from cohorts 1-4 [1-3: anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 treatment-naive patients; 4: patients with disease progression on anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatment] who received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for the first 21 days and intravenous infusions of atezolizumab 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate.ResultsOverall, 77 patients were enrolled in cohorts 1-4 (78% male; median age 62.8 years). Objective response rate was 20% in cohort 1 [squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)], 30% in cohort 2 (urothelial carcinoma), and 18% in cohort 3 (renal cell carcinoma); there were no responders among 20 patients in cohort 4 (SCCHN). The disease control rates in cohorts 1-4 were 50%, 40%, 24%, and 25%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.5, 3.4, 3.4, and 3.6 months in cohorts 1-4, respectively, and the median overall survival was 16.8, 18.7, 21.7, and 7.7 months, respectively. Most adverse events were of grade 1/2 and were manageable.ConclusionsCobimetinib plus atezolizumab had moderate activity in patients with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive SCCHN and urothelial carcinoma, and weak activity in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive renal cell carcinoma, and no activity in checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients.

Dataset Information

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase II Study.

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase II Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets