1031P Tislelizumab (TIS) Versus Docetaxel (TAX) As Second- or Third-Line Therapy in Previously Treated Patients (pts) with Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Asian Versus Non-Asian Subgroup Analysis of the RATIONALE-303 Study

C. Zhou,D. Huang,Y. Fan,X. Yu,Y. Liu,Y. Shu,Z. Ma,Z. Wang,Y. Cheng,J. Wang,S. Hu,E. Poddubskaya,U. Disel,A. Akopov,M. Dvorkin,Y. Wang,S. Ghassemifar,S. Li,G. Rivalland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1157

IF: 51.769

2022-01-01

Annals of Oncology

Abstract:In RATIONALE-303 (NCT03358875), TIS significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs TAX in the intent-to-treat population (ITT) at the interim analysis (IA). TIS was later approved in China for advanced or metastatic NSCLC after progression on prior platinum-based chemotherapy. At the final analysis (FA), the co-primary endpoint of OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1, VENTANA SP263 assay) tumor cell ≥ 25% population was met, and TIS continued to improve OS compared with TAX in the ITT. Here we report FA results from the Asian vs non-Asian subgroups. A total of 805 pts with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that progressed during or following treatment with ≥ 1 platinum-based regimen were randomized 2:1 to receive TIS 200 mg or TAX 75 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Dual primary endpoints were OS in the ITT and PD-L1 ≥ 25% populations. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and safety. A prespecified IA was conducted in ITT after ≈426 deaths (76% of planned events). In total, 643 Asian and 162 non-Asian pts were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms in both subgroups. Both subgroups demonstrated favorable OS, PFS, DoR, and ORR with TIS vs TAX (Table). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of ≥ Grade 3 with TIS vs TAX were experienced by 41.1% vs 75.2% of Asian pts and 45.9% vs 72.9% of non-Asian pts, respectively. Serious TEAEs with TIS vs TAX were experienced by 35.7% vs 31.4% of Asian pts and 29.7% vs 37.5% of non-Asian pts, respectively.Table: 1031PITT analysis setAsianNon-AsianTIS (n=424)TAX (n=219)TIS (n=111)TAX (n=51)Median study follow-up, months17.210.714.310.4Deaths, n (%)293 (69.1)169 (77.2)72 (64.9)37 (72.5)mOS, months17.812.214.911.9HR* (95% CI)0.65 (0.54, 0.79); p < 0.00010.73 (0.48, 1.11); p=0.0674mPFS, months4.12.46.34.1HR* (95% CI)0.62 (0.51, 0.75); p < 0.00010.67 (0.45, 1.00); p=0.0241ORR, %21.55.927.011.8Odds ratio (95% CI)4.41 (2.41, 8.07); p < 0.00012.84 (1.12, 7.20); p=0.0226mDoR, months13.84.210.36.1p values are descriptive. *Stratified by histology, lines of therapy, and PD-L1 expressionCI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; m, median Open table in a new tab p values are descriptive. *Stratified by histology, lines of therapy, and PD-L1 expression CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; m, median In both Asian and non-Asian pts, TIS demonstrated favorable efficacy benefits compared with TAX and was generally well tolerated.