LUNG CANCER: Early data from an on-going study show the addition of TIGIT blockade to PD-L1 inhibition improves ORR and PFS.

Web

May 26, 2020

LUNG CANCER;  Early data from an on-going study show the addition of TIGIT blockade to PD-L1 inhibition improves ORR and PFS; phase 2 RCT of untreated NSCLC (PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%).

Primary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, phase II study of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab (tira) plus atezolizumab (atezo) versus placebo plus atezo as first-line (1L) treatment in patients with PD-L1-selected NSCLC (CITYSCAPE).

Delvys Rodriguez-Abreu et al ASCO Meeting Library

Background:

The immunomodulatory receptor TIGIT is a novel inhibitory immune checkpoint present on activated T cells and NK cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC. In a phase I study (GO30103), co-inhibition of TIGIT and PD-L1 signaling with tira plus atezo in CIT-naïve PD-L1 positive NSCLC potentially improved overall response rates (ORR) compared to historical ORR with PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors. We conducted this phase II trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of tira plus atezo (TA) compared to placebo plus atezo (PA) in 1L NSCLC (GO40290, NCT NCT03563716).

Methods:

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve PD-L1+ (TPS ≥ 1% by 22C3 IHC pharmDx Dako assay) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, ECOG PS 0-1, and without EGFR or ALK alterations. Pts were randomized 1:1 to TA (tira 600 mg IV plus atezo 1200 mg IV) or PA (placebo plus atezo 1200 mg IV) on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. Stratification factors were PD-L1 status (TPS ≥ 50% vs TPS 1-49%), histology, and tobacco history. Co-primary endpoints were investigator assessed ORR and PFS, and additional endpoints were duration of response (DOR), OS, and safety. Exploratory endpoints were the effect of PD-L1 status on ORR and PFS.

Results:

135 pts were randomized to PA (n = 68) or TA (n = 67). At primary analysis (30 Jun 2019), TA improved ORR and median PFS (mPFS) compared to PA, with median follow-up of 5.9 mo. In the safety population (68 in PA, 67 in TA), treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 72% (PA) and 80.6% (TA); Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 19.1% (PA) and 14.9% (TA). AEs leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10.3% (PA) and 7.5% (TA). Clinical trial information: NCT03563716. With an additional six months of follow-up since the primary analysis (2 Dec 2019, median follow-up of 10.9 mo), improvement in ORR and mPFS was maintained in ITT for TA (37.3% [25.0, 49.6] and 5.6 mo [4.2, 10.4]) vs PA (20.6% [10.2, 30.9] and 3.9 mo [2.7, 4.5]). The safety profile remained tolerable.

Conclusions:

Treatment with TA compared to PA showed clinically meaningful improvement in ORR and PFS in ITT. The safety profile of TA was similar to PA.