Annals of Oncology最新文献

Background: The primary analysis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1333/PEACE-3 study demonstrated that enzalutamide plus radium-223 (Ra223) improved radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) compared with enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The primary endpoint was rPFS, while overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint. Interim OS results were reported at the time of primary analysis. Here, we report the final OS analysis.

Patients and methods: From November 2015 to March 2023, 446 patients were randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide alone or enzalutamide combined with six cycles of Ra223. Co-administration of bone-protecting agents (BPAs) became mandatory for all patients from March 2018. Final analysis of OS was triggered on 1 May 2025.

Results: With a median follow-up of 58 months and 317 reported deaths, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.96, P = 0.0096] for OS in favor of the enzalutamide + Ra223 arm, reaching the predefined level of statistical significance of <0.0248. Median OS was 32.6 months (95% CI 29.3-38.2 months) in the enzalutamide arm (n = 224) and 38.2 months (95% CI 33.1-44.8 months) in the combination arm (n = 222). The HR for rPFS was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.89). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased from 57.6% to 69.3% in the combination arm, as did treatment-related grade ≥3 TEAEs (18.8% versus 28.9%), with the most frequent being hypertension.

Conclusions: The final analysis of this study confirmed that the combination of enzalutamide with Ra223 significantly improved not only rPFS but also OS as first-line therapy for mCRPC versus enzalutamide alone. Co-administration of a BPA is required to reduce skeletal complications.

Background: Primary results from COSMIC-313 demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab versus placebo plus nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Final efficacy and safety results, as well as data from exploratory biomarker analyses, are reported here.

Patients and methods: The design, participants, and primary-endpoint PFS outcomes have been reported previously for this phase III, double-blind, randomized (1 : 1) study of cabozantinib or placebo plus nivolumab and ipilimumab in adults with previously untreated, advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Exploratory biomarker analyses investigated the potential association between immune cell types and gene signatures with clinical outcomes.

Results: After a median follow-up of 45.0 months, the updated median PFS in the cabozantinib (triplet) arm was longer than in the placebo (doublet) arm (16.6 versus 11.2 months; hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.98). There was no significant difference in median OS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.23, P = 0.84), and the safety profile was consistent with the earlier analysis (grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75% and 43% of patients in the triplet and doublet arms, respectively). In patients with higher levels of M2-like macrophages, the triplet regimen was associated with significantly improved PFS and OS compared with the doublet regimen. Responders in the triplet arm exhibited elevated angiogenic signatures and reduced immune-related pathways, while responders in the doublet arm had robust immune activation.

Conclusions: Long-term results from COSMIC-313 continue to demonstrate a PFS benefit with the addition of cabozantinib to nivolumab and ipilimumab. There was no OS benefit and no new safety signals were observed. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggest adding cabozantinib to nivolumab and ipilimumab improves survival in patients with high levels of M2-like macrophages.

Enumeration of lines of therapy (LoT) is critical across oncology for ensuring optimal patient care, establishing uniform eligibility for clinical trial enrolment, standardising use of real-world data and pooling data for research purposes. Building on an earlier proposal for assigning LoT in oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed the ESMO adaptation of Lines of Systemic Therapy (EnLiST) framework applicable to solid tumours across the full range of common clinical settings. A Delphi process was adopted to reach a consensus between expert representatives of multiple stakeholder perspectives including medical oncologists, clinical trialists, regulators, academics, patient advocates, experts from the pharmaceutical industry and clinical research organisations, artificial intelligence professionals, funding body specialists and ethicists. EnLiST provides a set of standard definitions, the format of reporting LoT, the minimum required data to be recorded and guidelines for assigning LoT. In EnLiST, a LoT is separately assigned to systemic anticancer therapies in the early (eLoT), advanced (aLoT) and investigational (iLoT) settings; each expressed as two numerals separated by a decimal point (e.g. 1.0). A change in systemic anticancer therapy results in either a 'New' LoT, a 'Modified' LoT, or the 'Same' LoT. A New LoT results from clinical progression of disease or lack of adequate tumour response, and is recorded as the next sequential value to the left of the decimal point (e.g. following LoT 1.0, the New LoT will be LoT 2.0). If the change in treatment is for other reasons (e.g. intolerability), a Modified LoT is recorded and assigned the next sequential value to the right of the decimal point (e.g. following LoT 1.0, the Modified LoT will be LoT 1.1). EnLiST has been designed to serve the needs of a wide range of stakeholders while enhancing the quality of clinical care, clinical research and real-world data.

Background: We report efficacy and safety results from the CheckMate 649 trial after 5 years of follow-up.

Patients and methods: Adults with previously untreated, non-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, unresectable, advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 789) or chemotherapy (n = 792). Primary endpoints were met and reported previously, with nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrating superior overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥5.

Results: With a minimum follow-up of 60.1 months, the OS benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.81] and PFS benefit (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.82) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5 were sustained. Five-year OS and PFS rates were 16% versus 6% and 10% versus 6%, respectively. Objective response rate per blinded independent central review was 58% (95% CI 54% to 62%) versus 46% (95% CI 42% to 50%), and median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% CI 7.7-9.9 months) versus 6.9 months (95% CI 5.9-7.6 months), respectively. Survival and response benefits were also maintained in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥1, patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10, and all randomized patients. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 60% of patients receiving nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 45% of patients receiving chemotherapy. No new safety concerns were observed.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, these are the first reported 5-year results of a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate long-term survival benefit and acceptable safety after 5 years of follow-up, reinforcing its use as a standard first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive patients.