Tislelizumab (TIS) + chemotherapy (CT) vs placebo (PBO) + CT as first-line treatment for locally advanced (LA), unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): PD-L1 tumor area positivity (TAP) score ≥1% subgroup analysis of RATIONALE-306.
Abstract
381 Background: In RATIONALE-306 (NCT03783442), patients (pts) with LA unresectable or metastatic ESCC who received TIS (intravenously, 200 mg, every 3 weeks) + CT (platinum + fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel) had longer median overall survival (OS) than pts who received PBO + CT at the interim analysis; improvement was maintained after a ≥3-year follow-up. Post hoc analyses in the PD-L1 TAP ≥1% subgroup showed clinically meaningful improvement with TIS + CT. These data supported the US FDA approval for unresectable or metastatic ESCC. Here we report the subgroup analysis of pts who had LA ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1%. Methods: Pts who had LA unresectable ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1% were included in this post hoc analysis. Efficacy outcomes (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DoR]) and safety were analyzed. Results: At data cutoff (Feb 28, 2022), of 649 pts randomized, 63 had LA ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1% (TIS + CT n=31; PBO + CT n=32; median age 67.0 years; 85.7% male). At median follow-up (TIS + CT 24.4 months; PBO + CT 24.5 months), efficacy with TIS + CT was improved vs PBO + CT (Table) and was consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Efficacy was maintained after a ≥3-year follow-up (data cutoff: Nov 24, 2023; Table). Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis, the median OS for pts receiving TIS + CT exceeded two years. The regimen was well tolerated. While the findings require validation in future clinical trials, first-line TIS + CT is an encouraging option for pts who have LA unresectable ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1%. Clinical trial information: NCT03783442 . Interim Analysis 3-Year Follow-up TIS + CT (n=31) PBO + CT (n=32) TIS + CT (n=32) e PBO + CT (n=31) f Median OS, mo(95% CI) 25.6 (15.3, NE) 11.5(9.0, 21.8) 25.6 (15.3, NE) 12.3(9.0, 21.8) HR (95% CI) a 0.36 (0.17, 0.77) – 0.50 (0.26, 0.95) – Median PFS, a mo(95% CI) 13.2(6.8, NE) 6.7(4.2, 9.7) 13.2(6.8, 27.7) 6.7(4.2, 9.7) HR (95% CI) a 0.46 (0.22, 0.96) – 0.47 (0.23, 0.96) – ORR, b,c n (%) 18 (58.1) 10 (31.3) 19 (59.4) 10 (32.3) Median DoR, b,d mo(95% CI) Not reached (8.4, NE) 5.7 (1.5, 9.6) 22.1 (6.1, NE) 5.7 (1.5, 9.6) a Stratified. b Investigator assessed. c Unconfirmed. d Based on unconfirmed ORR. e One patient’s disease status at baseline was changed to LA after interim analysis. f One patient’s disease status at baseline was changed to metastatic after interim analysis. NE, not estimable.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (8)
Harry H. Yoon
Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
Sunnie S. Kim
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
Jianming Xu
State Key Laboratory of Soil Pollution Control and Safety,
Ken Kato
Institute for Protein Research, The University of Osaka, 3-2 Yamadaoka, Suita-shi, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
Bo Wei
State Key Laboratory of Deep Earth Processes and Resources, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Sebastian Yan
Clinical Development, BeOne Medicines, Ltd., Shanghai, China
Xuan Kong
Jaffer A. Ajani