60 CONTACT-01: Efficacy and Safety from a Phase III Study of Atezolizumab (atezo) + Cabozantinib (cabo) Vs Docetaxel (doc) Monotherapy in Patients (pts) with Metastatic NSCLC (mnsclc) Previously Treated with Checkpoint Inhibitors and Chemotherapy
J. Neal,N. Pavlakis,S-W. Kim,Y. Goto,S.M. Lim,G. Mountzios,E. Fountzilas,A. Mochalova,D.C.C. Christoph,A. Bearz,X. Quantin,R. Palmero,V. Antic,E. Chun,T. Rao Edubilli,Y-C. Lin,M. Huseni,C. Scheffold,P. Vervaet,T. Newsom-Davis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1556-0864(23)00260-5
IF: 20.121
2023-01-01
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Abstract:Despite treatment (tx) with anti–PD-L1/PD-1 (αPD-(L)1) and platinum-based chemo, mNSCLC often progresses, suggesting a need for new second/third-line tx options. The TKI cabo may enhance αPD-(L)1 efficacy by promoting an immune-permissive environment. CONTACT-01 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label Ph3 study of atezo (anti–PD-L1) + cabo vs doc in pts with mNSCLC previously treated with αPD-(L)1 + chemo. Eligible pts had ECOG PS 0-1, histologically or cytologically confirmed mNSCLC with progression after αPD-(L)1 + chemo (concurrent or sequential; regardless of response to prior αPD-(L)1) and any known PD-L1 status (or available tissue for central testing). Pts were randomised 1:1 to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w + cabo 40 mg PO qd or doc 75 mg/m2 IV q3w. Stratification factors were sq vs nsq histology and sequence of prior NSCLC regimens. The primary EP was OS (ITT). Key secondary EPs were PFS, ORR, DOR and safety. Of 366 pts assigned to either atezo + cabo (n = 186) or doc (n = 180), 61% and 71% had ECOG PS 1, and 74% and 76% had nsq histology, respectively; median age was 64 and 66 y. At data cutoff 28 Sep 2022, minimum follow-up was 10.9 mo. No statistically significant OS benefit was seen with atezo + cabo vs doc (table). Median tx duration was 4.2 mo (range, 0–20; atezo), 3.9 mo (0–21; cabo) and 2.1 mo (0–19; doc). All-cause AEs occurred in 98% (G3-4, 48%) of safety-evaluable pts in the atezo + cabo arm and 94% (G3-4, 45%) in the doc arm and led to discontinuation in 17% and 14% of pts, respectively. G3-4 AEs of special interest for atezo were seen in 15% and 4% (G5 in 1% and 0%) and for cabo in 14% and 2% (G5 in 2% and 2%), respectively. G5 tx-related AEs occurred in 4 pts (2%) in the atezo + cabo arm and 1 pt (<1%) in the doc arm. Table 6OEndpointAtezo + cabo (n = 186)Doc (n = 180)OS events, n (%)114 (61)106 (59)Median OS, months (95% CI)10.7 (8.8, 12.3)10.5 (8.6,13.0)Stratified HR (95% CI)0.88 (0.68, 1.16)P value0.3668PFS events, n (%)162 (87)150 (83)Median PFS, months (95% CI)4.6 (4.1, 5.6)4.0 (3.1, 4.4)Stratified HR (95% CI)0.74 (0.59, 0.92)ORR, % (95% CI)11.8 (7.6, 17.4)13.3 (8.7, 19.2)DOR, months (95% CI)5.6 (3.1, 10.3)4.3 (3.3, 5.6)AE, adverse event; DOR, duration of response; EP, endpoint; G, Grade; HR, hazard ratio; ITT population, intent-to-treat population; nsq, nonsquamous; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; sq, squamous; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Open table in a new tab AE, adverse event; DOR, duration of response; EP, endpoint; G, Grade; HR, hazard ratio; ITT population, intent-to-treat population; nsq, nonsquamous; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; sq, squamous; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In this final OS analysis of CONTACT-01, atezo + cabo was not superior to doc in the ITT population. No new safety signals arose.