Back
KEYNOTE-048: Progression after the next line of therapy following pembrolizumab (P) or P plus chemotherapy (P+C) vs EXTREME (E) as first-line (1L) therapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
Journal article

KEYNOTE-048: Progression after the next line of therapy following pembrolizumab (P) or P plus chemotherapy (P+C) vs EXTREME (E) as first-line (1L) therapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Show more…
Published in:
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology. - American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). - 2020, vol. 38, no. 15_suppl, p. 6505-6505
Cancer Research
Oncology
English 6505 Background: 1L P vs E improved OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥20 and CPS ≥1 populations, and led to noninferior OS in the total population, with favorable safety; 1L P+C vs E had superior OS in CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, and total populations with comparable safety in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 study (NCT02358031) in patients with R/M HNSCC. Neither P vs E nor P+C vs E improved PFS in the PD-L1 CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, or total populations. Here, we present the progression after the next line of therapy (PFS2) to assess the effect of 1L P or P+C and subsequent anticancer therapy on patient outcomes. Methods: Patients with locally incurable R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy in the R/M setting were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to P, P+C, or E. PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line therapy or death from any cause. PFS2 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method as an exploratory outcome confined to those receiving subsequent therapy after 1L P. HR and 95% CIs were based on a Cox regression model with Efron’s method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate (stratified by ECOG performance status [PS], HPV status, and PD-L1 for CPS ≥1 and total populations; by ECOG PS and HPV status for CPS ≥20 population). Data cutoff: Feb 25, 2019. Results: Of 882 (301 [P]; 281 [P+C]; 300 [E]) treated patients,422 (P: 148 [49.2%]; P+C: 115 [40.9%]; E: 159 [53.0%]) received subsequent anticancer therapy after 1L P, most commonly C (P: 135 [44.9%]; P+C: 88 [31.3%]; E: 102 [34.0%]); EGFR inhibitor (P: 59 [19.6%]; P+C: 37 [13.2%]; E: 19 [6.3%]); and immune checkpoint inhibitor (P: 6 [2.0%]; P+C: 12 [4.3%]; E: 50 [16.7%]); patients may have received more than one type of subsequent therapy. Median PFS2 is reported in Table. Conclusions: In patients with R/M HNSCC, longer median PFS2 was observed in the CPS ≥20 and CPS ≥1 populations for P vs E, and in the CPS ≥20, CPS ≥1, and total populations for P+C vs E. These data further support use of 1L P or P+C in patients with R/M HNSCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02358031 . [Table: see text]
Language
  • English
Open access status
closed
Identifiers
Persistent URL
https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/197341
Statistics
Document views: 50 File downloads: