1514P Randomized, Global, Phase III Study of Tislelizumab (TIS) + Chemotherapy (chemo) Vs Placebo (PBO) + Chemo As First-Line (1L) Treatment for Advanced/metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): RATIONALE-306 Update

R. Hubner,J. Xu,K. Kato,E. Raymond,Y. Shu,Y. Pan,Y. Jiang,J. Zhang,S.R. Park,T. Kojima,C-Y. Lin,E. Gotovkin,L.S. Wyrwicz,R. Ishihara,H. Wu,Y. Peng,L. Wang,L. Li,H.H. Yoon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.09.1427
IF: 51.769
2023-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:At interim analysis (IA) of RATIONALE-306 (NCT03783442), 1L TIS + chemo demonstrated a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS) vs PBO + chemo, with a manageable safety profile, in patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic ESCC. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety data with minimum (min) 2 years’ follow-up. Adults with unresectable locally advanced recurrent/metastatic ESCC and no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease were enrolled and randomized (1:1; stratified by region, prior definitive therapy, and investigator [INV]-chosen chemo) to receive TIS 200 mg (Arm A) or PBO (Arm B) IV Q3W + chemo (platinum + fluoropyrimidine or platinum + paclitaxel), until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR) per INV, and safety. 649 pts were randomized (Arm A n=326, Arm B n=323). At data cutoff (Dec 31, 2022), min study follow-up was 25.2 months; improvements in OS, PFS, ORR, and DoR in Arm A vs B (Table) were maintained relative to the IA. Similar to the IA, incidences of any-grade (96.6% vs 96.3%) or ≥grade 3 (66.7% vs 64.5%) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were comparable between Arms A and B, respectively; treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were higher in Arm A (31.8%) vs B (22.1%). In Arm A vs B, respectively, serious TRAEs occurred in 29.3% vs 19.6% of pts; TRAEs leading to death occurred in 1.9% and 1.2%. Table: 1514PArm A: TIS + chemo (n=326)Arm B: PBO + chemo (n=323)mOS, mo (95% CI) HR (95% CI)17.2 (15.8, 20.1)10.6 (9.3, 12.1)0.67 (0.56, 0.80)24-mo OS, % (95% CI)37.9 (32.5, 43.2)25.0 (20.2, 30.0)mPFS, mo (95% CI)a HR (95% CI)7.3 (6.9, 8.3)5.6 (4.9, 6.0)0.61 (0.51, 0.73)24-mo PFS, % (95% CI)18.1 (13.6, 23.1)7.2 (4.4, 11.0)ORR, % (95% CI)a63.5 (58.0, 68.7)42.4 (37.0, 48.0)mDoR, mo (95% CI)a7.1 (6.1, 8.1)5.7 (4.4, 7.1)24-mo DoR, % (95% CI)19.6 (13.9, 25.9)10.1 (5.0, 17.1)aPer INV. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; m, median; mo, months. Open table in a new tab After min 2 years’ follow-up, 1L TIS + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS and durable tumour response benefit vs PBO + chemo in pts with advanced/metastatic ESCC, with no new safety signals.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?