121O RATIONALE 309: A Randomized, Global, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Tislelizumab (TIS) Vs Placebo, Plus Gemcitabine + Cisplatin (GP), As First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/metastatic Nasopharyngeal Cancer (RM-NPC)

Y. Yang,J. Pan,H. Wang,S. Qu,N. Chen,X. Chen,Y. Sun,X. He,C. Hu,L. Lin,Q. Yu,S. Wang,G. Wang,F. Lei,J. Wen,K. Yang,Z. Lin,Y. Wu,W. Fang,L. Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.10.140

IF: 51.769

2021-01-01

Annals of Oncology

Abstract:BackgroundTIS is an anti-PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize FcγR binding, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti-PD-1 resistance. TIS demonstrated antitumor activity in NPC as a single agent in a Phase I/II study (CTR20160872). This randomized, double-blind, Phase III study evaluated TIS + GP vs placebo + GP as 1L treatment for RM-NPC (NCT03924986).MethodsEligible pts with RM-NPC were randomized 1:1 to receive TIS (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B) (200 mg IV D1) plus G (1 g/m2 IV D1, D8) and P (80 mg/m2 D1) every three weeks (Q3W) for 4–6 cycles followed by TIS or placebo Q3W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. After disease progression, patients in Arm B could crossover to receive TIS monotherapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFSIRC). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORRIRC), duration of response (DoRIRC), investigator-assessed PFS (PFSINV), and safety.ResultsTable: 121OSummary of TEAEs%Arm A (n=131)Arm B (n=132)≥ 1 TEAE100.099.2≥ Grade 3 TEAE80.981.8Serious TEAE27.533.3TEAE leading to discontinuation of TIS/placebo5.33.8≥ Grade 3 immune-mediated TEAE2.3-TEAE, treatment emergent adverse event; TIS, tislelizumab. Open table in a new tab ConclusionsTIS + GP significantly prolonged PFS vs GP alone as 1L therapy for RM-NPC. ORR and DoR were increased for TIS + GP vs GP alone. The safety profile of TIS + GP was manageable and consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified.Clinical trial identificationNCT03924986.Editorial acknowledgementEditorial writing support for the development of this abstract, under direction of the authors, was provided by Jenny Feehan, BSc, of Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company, and was funded by BeiGene Ltd.Legal entity responsible for the studyBeiGene Ltd.FundingBeiGene Ltd.DisclosureY. Wu: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: BeiGene. L. Zhang: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Hengrui Pharm; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Hengrui Pharm; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Novartis; Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Proprietary Information: Hengrui Pharm. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. BackgroundTIS is an anti-PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize FcγR binding, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti-PD-1 resistance. TIS demonstrated antitumor activity in NPC as a single agent in a Phase I/II study (CTR20160872). This randomized, double-blind, Phase III study evaluated TIS + GP vs placebo + GP as 1L treatment for RM-NPC (NCT03924986). TIS is an anti-PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize FcγR binding, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti-PD-1 resistance. TIS demonstrated antitumor activity in NPC as a single agent in a Phase I/II study (CTR20160872). This randomized, double-blind, Phase III study evaluated TIS + GP vs placebo + GP as 1L treatment for RM-NPC (NCT03924986). MethodsEligible pts with RM-NPC were randomized 1:1 to receive TIS (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B) (200 mg IV D1) plus G (1 g/m2 IV D1, D8) and P (80 mg/m2 D1) every three weeks (Q3W) for 4–6 cycles followed by TIS or placebo Q3W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. After disease progression, patients in Arm B could crossover to receive TIS monotherapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFSIRC). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORRIRC), duration of response (DoRIRC), investigator-assessed PFS (PFSINV), and safety. Eligible pts with RM-NPC were randomized 1:1 to receive TIS (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B) (200 mg IV D1) plus G (1 g/m2 IV D1, D8) and P (80 mg/m2 D1) every three weeks (Q3W) for 4–6 cycles followed by TIS or placebo Q3W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. After disease progression, patients in Arm B could crossover to receive TIS monotherapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFSIRC). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORRIRC), duration of response (DoRIRC), investigator-assessed PFS (PFSINV), and safety. ResultsTable: 121OSummary of TEAEs%Arm A (n=131)Arm B (n=132)≥ 1 TEAE100.099.2≥ Grade 3 TEAE80.981.8Serious TEAE27.533.3TEAE leading to discontinuation of TIS/placebo5.33.8≥ Grade 3 immune-mediated TEAE2.3-TEAE, treatment emergent adverse event; TIS, tislelizumab. Open table in a new tab TEAE, treatment emergent adverse event; TIS, tislelizumab. ConclusionsTIS + GP significantly prolonged PFS vs GP alone as 1L therapy for RM-NPC. ORR and DoR were increased for TIS + GP vs GP alone. The safety profile of TIS + GP was manageable and consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified. TIS + GP significantly prolonged PFS vs GP alone as 1L therapy for RM-NPC. ORR and DoR were increased for TIS + GP vs GP alone. The safety profile of TIS + GP was manageable and consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified.