ImportanceProgrammed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy has changed the approach to first-line treatment in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). It remained unknown whether adding a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor to chemotherapy provided similar or better benefits in patients with extensive-stage SCLC, which would add evidence on the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse event profile of the PD-1 inhibitor serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared with placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with extensive-stage SCLC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis international, double-blind, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (ASTRUM-005) enrolled patients at 114 hospital sites in 6 countries between September 12, 2019, and April 27, 2021. Of 894 patients who were screened, 585 with extensive-stage SCLC who had not previously received systemic therapy were randomized. Patients were followed up through October 22, 2021.InterventionsPatients were randomized 2:1 to receive either 4.5 mg/kg of serplulimab (n = 389) or placebo (n = 196) intravenously every 3 weeks. All patients received intravenous carboplatin and etoposide every 3 weeks for up to 12 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was overall survival (prespecified significance threshold at the interim analysis, 2-sided P < .012). There were 13 secondary outcomes, including progression-free survival and adverse events.ResultsAmong the 585 patients who were randomized (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 8.67] years; 104 [17.8%] women), 246 (42.1%) completed the trial and 465 (79.5%) discontinued study treatment. All patients received study treatment and were included in the primary analyses. As of the data cutoff (October 22, 2021) for this interim analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 12.3 months (range, 0.2-24.8 months). The median overall survival was significantly longer in the serplulimab group (15.4 months [95% CI, 13.3 months-not evaluable]) than in the placebo group (10.9 months [95% CI, 10.0-14.3 months]) (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.82]; P < .001). The median progression-free survival (assessed by an independent radiology review committee) also was longer in the serplulimab group (5.7 months [95% CI, 5.5-6.9 months]) than in the placebo group (4.3 months [95% CI, 4.2-4.5 months]) (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.38-0.59]). Treatment-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher occurred in 129 patients (33.2%) in the serplulimab group and in 54 patients (27.6%) in the placebo group.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC, serplulimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone, supporting the use of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for this patient population.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04063163

Background NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5‐HT3RA, palonosetron] offers 5‐day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion‐site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. Materials and Methods This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double‐blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30‐minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. Results A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment‐related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment‐related injection‐site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0–120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. Conclusion IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection‐site reactions in patients receiving AC. Implications for Practice As a combination of a neurokinin‐1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5‐HT3RA, NEPA offers 5‐day chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection‐site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Background Camizestrant (C), a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist and degrader (ngSERD) has shown promising clinical activity in ER+ breast cancer (BC) in the Phase 1 SERENA-1 study1,2 with a dose-dependent safety profile. The Phase 2 randomized SERENA-2 study (NCT04214288) initially assessed three doses of C vs fulvestrant (F) in post-menopausal women with ER+ HER2˗ BC with disease recurrence or progression after ≤1 endocrine therapy (ET) in the advanced setting. Methods SERENA-2 evaluated efficacy and safety of C 75, 150 or 300 mg monotherapy QD vs F (per label). Eligible patients were randomized 1:1:1:1. The Primary objective was to determine clinical efficacy of C vs F by investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, response duration, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, overall survival and safety. Patients had no prior F or oral SERD and ≤1 ET and ≤1 chemotherapy (CTX) in the advanced setting. To assess the impact of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) treatment, randomization was stratified so that 50% of patients had prior CDK4/6i. Planned enrolment of 288 patients began in April 2020. The C 300 arm was closed after 20 patients were enrolled, changing target enrolment to 236. By August 2021, 240 patients had been randomized. Primary analysis was triggered when 108 progression events (75% maturity) had occurred in the best performing pair (C vs F) in August 2022. Efficacy analyses compared C 75 and 150 mg doses with F, with no formal analyses of C 300 vs F. 108 events for pairwise comparison vs F gave 86% power at the 2-sided 10% significance level. Primary analyses used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare PFS, adjusting for prior CDK4/6i and lung/liver metastases. ESR1 mutations (ESR1m) were detected in plasma samples using next-generation sequencing. Results 119/240 (49.6%) patients had had prior CDK4/6i therapy. At baseline, 88 (36.7%) patients had detectable ESR1m and 140 (58.3%) had lung/liver metastases. Prior CTX or ET rates in the advanced setting were 19.2 and 65.4%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥3) occurred in 77.0 (12.2), 90.4 (21.9) and 68.5 (13.7) % of patients in the C 75, C 150 and F arms. AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 2.7, 0 and 0% of patients in the C 75, C 150 and F arms. The most common AEs considered by the investigator to be causally related to study drug were photopsia (18.4%) and (sinus) bradycardia (13.6%) – all were grade 1 or 2. Hot flush (2.7%) and myalgia (2.7%) were the most common AEs related to F. Conclusions SERENA-2 is the first Phase 2 trial investigating multiple dose levels of an ngSERD vs F in post-menopausal women with advanced ER+ HER2˗ BC with disease recurrence or progression after ≤1 ET in the advanced setting. C at both 75 and 150 mg dose levels showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in PFS vs F in the overall study population, and was well tolerated. The results of SERENA-2 support the further development of C in ER+ HER2- BC. Acknowledgements AstraZeneca sponsored this trial and funded medical writing support from Helen Heffron (InterComm International). References 1. Baird R, Oliveira M, Ciruelos Gil EM, et al. SABCS 2020 Virtual Meeting. Abstract PS11-05; 2. Oliveira M, Hamilton EP, Incorvati J et al. ASCO 2022 Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA. Abstract 1032. Citation Format: Mafalda Oliveira, Denys Pominchuck, Zbigniew Nowecki, Erika Hamilton, Yaroslav Kulyaba, Timur Andabekov, Yevhen Hotko, Tamar Melkadze, Gia Nemsadze, Patrick Neven, Yuriy Semegen, Vladmir Vladmirov, Claudio Zamagni, Hannelore Denys, Frederic Forget, Zsolt Horvath, Alfiya Nesterova, Maxine Bennett, Bistra Kirova, Teresa Klinowska, Justin Lindemann, Delphine Lissa, Alastair Mathewson, Christopher Morrow, Zuzana Traugottova, Ruaan Van Zyl, Ekaterine Arkania. GS3-02 Camizestrant, a next generation oral SERD vs fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with advanced ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: Results of the randomized, multi-dose Phase 2 SERENA-2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-02.

1066 Background: Camizestrant, a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor antagonist and degrader (ngSERD), was compared at two dose levels to fulvestrant 500 mg (F) in post-menopausal women with advanced ER+, HER2˗ breast cancer with disease recurrence or progression after ≤1 endocrine therapy in the advanced setting in the Phase 2 randomized SERENA-2 study (NCT04214288). Camizestrant demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit vs F in progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall study population (Oliveira M et al. SABCS 2022 Annual Meeting. Abstract GS3-02.). Methods: Baseline circulating tumour DNA was collected at screening and/or Cycle 1 Day 1 and analysed by next-generation sequencing. A post hoc exploratory analysis compared investigator assessed PFS with camizestrant (data from 75 and 150 mg combined) vs F in patients with detectable baseline ESR1 (the gene that encodes ERα) hotspot mutations ( ESR1m). Patients were divided into subgroups based on whether 1 or >1 ESR1m variants were detected, the specific ESR1m, and whether mutations were detected in BRCA1/2 or the MAPK pathway. The most prevalent mutations are presented. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PFS. Results: 48/147 (32.7%) patients treated with camizestrant and 35/73 (47.9%) treated with F had a detectable ESR1m in at least 1 baseline sample. ESR1m were detected in 6/9 (67%) patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation and 5/26 (19%) with a MAPK pathway alteration; however, the numbers were too small to analyse efficacy in these subgroups. Conclusions: Camizestrant showed improved outcome vs F in patients with a detectable ESR1m at baseline and in the subgroups tested. The greatest median PFS improvement was seen in patients where a single ESR1m variant was detected, suggesting that early intervention upon detection of an ESR1m may provide the maximum patient benefit for camizestrant, a hypothesis that is being tested in the SERENA-6 clinical trial (NCT04964934). Clinical trial information: NCT04214288 . [Table: see text]

No abstract