Neoadjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) + platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo for resectable (IB–IIIA) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Association of pathological regression with event-free survival (EFS) in CheckMate 816.

Authors

null

Mariano Provencio-Pulla

Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain

Mariano Provencio-Pulla , Jonathan Spicer , Janis M. Taube , Claudio Martin , David R. Spigel , Changli Wang , Nicolas Girard , Shun Lu , Tetsuya Mitsudomi , Mark M. Awad , Enriqueta Felip , Julie R. Brahmer , Stephen Broderick , Scott Swanson , Keith Kerr , Li Li , Junliang Cai , Judith Bushong , Phuong Tran , Patrick M. Forde

Organizations

Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain, McGill University Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada, Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, Instituto Alexander Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN, Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China, Institut du Thorax Curie-Montsouris, Institut Curie, Paris, France, Shanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osakasayama, Japan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Several studies have shown an association of pathological response, a common efficacy endpoint in neoadjuvant therapy trials, with survival for chemo in various cancers including resectable NSCLC. However, the association between pathological complete response (pCR) and survival as well as the degree of pathological regression that may be predictive of EFS for neoadjuvant immunotherapy has not been rigorously studied. CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528), a randomized phase 3 study of neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo vs chemo in resectable NSCLC, met both of its primary endpoints with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS and pCR. Here, we report a post hoc analysis from CheckMate 816, characterizing the association between pathological regression and EFS. Methods: Adults with resectable NSCLC were randomized to NIVO 360 mg + platinum-doublet chemo Q3W or chemo alone Q3W for 3 cycles. Primary endpoints were EFS and pCR (0% residual viable tumor [RVT] in the primary tumor [PT] and lymph nodes [LN] based on immune-related pathological response criteria), both assessed by blinded independent review. Major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% RVT in the PT and LN) was a secondary endpoint. In this post hoc analysis, EFS was assessed based on depth of pathological regression (measured by %RVT) in the PT only. Also, a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis assessed the predictive ability of %RVT (PT only) for EFS outcome at 2 years, using area under the curve (AUC) to summarize the overall diagnostic accuracy (0.5 = random chance; 1 = perfect accuracy). Results: Baseline characteristics in patients (pts) with pathologically evaluable samples were well balanced between the NIVO + chemo and chemo arms, similar to the overall population. In both treatment arms, EFS (minimum follow-up, 21 months) was improved in pts with vs without pCR or MPR (Table). %RVT appeared to be predictive of EFS at 2 years for NIVO + chemo (AUC = 0.74) but an association was not clear for chemo (AUC = 0.54). 2-year EFS rates for NIVO + chemo were 90%, 60%, 57%, and 39% for pts with 0–5%, >5–30%, >30–80%, and >80% RVT, respectively. Conclusions: In CheckMate 816, pathological response (pCR and MPR) in the PT was associated with improved EFS with neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo. Additionally, depth of pathological regression appeared to be predictive of improved EFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02998528.

Summary of EFS by pCR and MPR (primary tumor only).

NIVO + chemo (n = 141)Chemo (n = 126)
pCR (n) vs no pCR (n)46 vs 955 vs 121
Median EFS, monthsNR vs 27.8NR vs 26.2
HR (95% CI)0.18 (0.07–0.46)NCa
MPR (n) vs no MPR (n)72 vs 6922 vs 104
Median EFS, monthsNR vs 25.1NR vs 24.9
HR (95% CI)0.26 (0.14–0.50)0.48 (0.22–1.05)

aHR was NC for the chemo arm due to only 5 pts having a pCR. NC, not computed; NR, not reached.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Discussion Session

Session Title

Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Local-Regional/Small Cell/Other Thoracic Cancers

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Local-Regional Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02998528

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 17; abstr LBA8511)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.17_suppl.LBA8511

Abstract #

LBA8511

Poster Bd #

138

Abstract Disclosures