Stephenson Oklahoma Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Kathleen N. Moore , Antoine Angelergues , Gottfried E. Konecny , Susana N. Banerjee , Sandro Pignata , Nicoletta Colombo , John William Moroney , Casey Cosgrove , JUNG-YUN LEE , Andrzej Roszak , Jacqueline Maria Tromp , Diana Bello-Roufai , Lucy Gilbert , Rowan Miller , Tashanna K. N. Myers , Yuemei Wang , Anna Berkenblit , Domenica Lorusso , Toon Van Gorp
Background: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), an antibody drug conjugate targeting FRα, demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity in a single arm trial reported previously (Matulonis, JCO 2023). MIRASOL is a randomized phase 3 trial to confirm the efficacy of MIRV vs standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients (pts) with PROC. Methods: 453 PROC pts with high FRα expression (Roche FOLR1 Assay) with 1-3 priors were randomized 1:1 to MIRV 6 mg/kg, adjusted ideal body weight, Day 1 of a 21-day cycle or IC: paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator (INV) with key secondary endpoints ORR, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes in hierarchical order; other endpoints included safety and tolerability. Blinded independent central review (BICR) for PFS and ORR were sensitivity analyses. Results: With a data cutoff of March 6, 2023, 227 pts were randomized to the MIRV arm; 226 to the IC arm. Median follow-up was 13.1 months. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across arms; 14% of pts had one, 39% two, and 47% three prior lines of therapy; 62% received prior bev; and 55% received prior PARPi therapy. The study met its primary and key secondary endpoints with statistically significant results in PFS (INV), ORR (INV), and OS (Table). In the bev-pretreated subset (n=281), PFS HR was 0.64 (0.492, 0.842) and OS HR was 0.74 (0.535, 1.036); in the bev-naïve subset (n=172), PFS HR was 0.66 (0.459, 0.942) and OS HR was 0.51 (0.306, 0.860). The adverse event (AE) profile of MIRV was consistent with prior reports: predominantly low-grade ocular (MIRV vs IC all grade 56% vs 9%; grade 3+ 14% vs 0%) and gastrointestinal events (MIRV vs IC all grade 70% vs 66%; grade 3+ 13% vs 15%). Compared with IC, MIRV was associated with lower rates of grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs (42% vs 54%), serious AEs (24% vs 33%), and discontinuations due to TEAEs (9% vs 16%). Fourteen percent of pts on the MIRV arm remained on study drug vs 3% on the IC arm. Conclusion: MIRV is the first treatment to demonstrate a PFS and OS benefit in PROC compared to IC. The efficacy data, along with the well-characterized safety profile, position MIRV as a new, standard of care for pts with FRα positive PROC. Clinical trial information: NCT04209855.
Efficacy Endpoints | MIRV (n=227) | IC (n=226) | Hazard Ratio | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
mPFS (INV) (months, 95% CI) | 5.62 (4.34, 5.95) | 3.98 (2.86, 4.47) | 0.65 (0.52, 0.81) | <0.0001 |
mPFS (BICR) (months, 95% CI) | 5.91 (4.93, 6.97) | 4.34 (3.52, 4.99) | 0.72 (0.56, 0.92) | 0.0082 |
ORR (INV) (95% CI) | 42.3 (35.8, 49.0) | 15.9 (11.4, 21.4) | NA | <0.0001 |
Complete response % (n) | 5.3 (12) | 0 | NA | NA |
Partial response % (n) | 37.0 (84) | 15.9 (36) | NA | NA |
ORR (BICR) (95% CI) | 36.1 (29.9, 42.7) | 14.6 (10.3, 19.9) | NA | <0.0001 |
mOS (months, 95% CI) | 16.46 (14.46, 24.57) | 12.75 (10.91, 14.36) | 0.67 (0.50, 0.88) | 0.0046 |
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 Disclosures
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Gordon Taylor Moffat
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Thomas J. Herzog
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Thomas J. Herzog
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: David M. O'Malley