The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up.

PurposeTo determine the exposure–response (ER) relationships between atezolizumab exposure and efficacy or safety in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or urothelial carcinoma (UC) and to identify alternative dosing regimens.MethodsER analyses were conducted using pooled NSCLC and UC data from phase 1 and 3 studies (PCD4989g, OAK, IMvigor211; ClinicalTrials.gov IDs, NCT01375842, NCT02008227, and NCT02302807, respectively). Objective response rate, overall survival, and adverse events were evaluated vs pharmacokinetic (PK) metrics. Population PK-simulated exposures for regimens of 840 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) were compared with the approved regimen of 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) and the maximum assessed dose (MAD; 20 mg/kg q3w). Phase 3 IMpassion130 (NCT02425891) data were used to validate the PK simulations for 840 mg q2w. Observed safety data were evaluated by exposure and body weight subgroups.ResultsNo significant ER relationships were observed for safety or efficacy. Predicted exposures for 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w were comparable to 1200 mg q3w and the MAD and consistent with observed PK data from IMpassion130. Observed safety was similar between patients with a Cmax above and below the predicted Cmax for 1680 mg q4w and between patients in the lowest and upper 3 body weight quartiles.ConclusionAtezolizumab regimens of 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w are expected to have comparable efficacy and safety as the approved regimen of 1200 mg q3w, supporting their interchangeable use and offering patients greater flexibility.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00280-019-03954-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE Atezolizumab, bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) demonstrated survival benefit versus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naïve nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to provide additional information on the relative impact of adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ACP), ABCP, or BCP. Coprimary end points were overall survival and investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The incidence, nature, and severity of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. PROs, a secondary end point, were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-Core 30 and EORTC QLQ-Lung Cancer 13. RESULTS Overall, 400 (ACP), 393 (ABCP), and 394 (BCP) patients were safety evaluable (ie, intention-to-treat population that received one or more doses of any study treatment). More patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs during the induction versus maintenance phase (ACP, 40.5% v 8.2%; ABCP, 48.6% v 21.2%; BCP, 44.7% v 11.1%). During induction, the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs) was 28.3%, 28.5%, and 26.4% in the ACP, ABCP, and BCP arms, respectively. During maintenance, SAE incidences were 20.0%, 26.3%, and 13.0%, respectively. Completion rates of the PRO questionnaires were > 88% at baseline and remained ≥ 70% throughout most study visits. Across arms, patients on average reported no clinically meaningful worsening of global health status or physical functioning scores through cycle 13. Patients across arms rated common symptoms with chemotherapy and immunotherapy similarly. CONCLUSION ABCP seems tolerable and manageable versus ACP and BCP in first-line nonsquamous NSCLC. Treatment tolerability differed between induction and maintenance phases across treatment arms. PROs reflect a minimal treatment burden (eg, health-related quality of life, symptoms) with each regimen.