Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.
Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.
Lancet Oncol. 2022 Aug;23(8):1009-1020. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00369-2. Epub 2022 Jul 7.
Establishing alternatives to lifelong chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has been proposed to address chemotherapy resistance and cumulative toxicity. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown efficacy in this setting, and concurrent immune checkpoint blockade could offer synergistic tumour control. The aim of this study was to test the safety and antitumour activity of maintenance with PARP inhibition combined with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had a stable response to platinum-based chemotherapy.
We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 1b/2 study of niraparib plus anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose cancer had not progressed after at least 16 weeks of platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4) to niraparib 200 mg orally per day plus either nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks (later changed to 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks based on manufacturer update) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks for four doses. The primary endpoints were safety and progression-free survival at 6 months. Treatment groups were not compared for activity, which was assessed in each group against a clinically meaningful progression-free survival at 6 months of 44% (null hypothesis). Superiority of a treatment regimen could be declared if 6-month progression-free survival was 60%, and inferiority if 6-month progression-free survival was 27%. All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-treatment assessment of response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 were included in the efficacy population. The safety population consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03404960, and enrolment is completed and follow-up is ongoing.
91 patients were enrolled between Feb 7, 2018, and Oct 5, 2021 and were randomly assigned to niraparib plus nivolumab (n=46) or niraparib plus ipilimumab (n=45). Of these patients, 84 were evaluable for the progression-free survival endpoint (niraparib plus nivolumab=44; niraparib plus ipilimumab=40). Median follow-up was 23·0 months (IQR 15·0-31·5). 6-month progression-free survival was 20·6% (95% CI 8·3-32·9; p=0·0002 vs the null hypothesis of 44%) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group; and 59·6% (44·3-74·9; p=0·045) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. Ten (22%) of 46 patients in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 23 (50%) of 45 patients in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group had a grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the niraparib plus nivolumab group were hypertension (in four [8%] patients), anaemia (two [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (two [4%]) whereas in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group these were fatigue (in six [14%]), anaemia (five [11%]), and hypertension (four [9%]). There were no treatment-related deaths.
The primary endpoint of 6-month progression-free survival was met in the niraparib plus ipilimumab maintenance group, whereas niraparib plus nivolumab yielded inferior progression-free survival. These findings highlight the potential for non-cytotoxic maintenance therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the Basser Center Young Leadership Council, The Konner Foundation, The Pearl and Philip Basser Innovation Research Award, the Anonymous Foundation, and the US National Institutes of Health.
为了解决化疗耐药和累积毒性的问题,已经提出了为晚期胰腺癌患者提供终身化疗替代方案的建议。多聚(ADP-核糖)聚合酶(PARP)抑制剂在这种情况下显示出疗效,而同时进行免疫检查点阻断可能提供协同的肿瘤控制。本研究的目的是测试在对铂类化疗有稳定反应的晚期胰腺癌患者中,使用 PARP 抑制剂联合免疫检查点阻断进行维持治疗的安全性和抗肿瘤活性。
我们进行了一项开放标签、随机、1b/2 期研究,评估尼拉帕利联合抗 PD-1(纳武利尤单抗)或抗 CTLA-4(伊匹单抗)治疗至少 16 周铂类化疗后癌症未进展的晚期胰腺癌患者。患者通过随机分组(1:1)接受尼拉帕利 200mg 口服每天一次联合每 2 周静脉注射纳武利尤单抗 240mg(后来根据制造商更新改为每 4 周静脉注射 480mg)或伊匹单抗 3mg/kg 静脉注射每 4 周 4 剂。主要终点是 6 个月时的安全性和无进展生存期。治疗组不进行活性比较,根据实体瘤反应评估标准 1.1 评估的 6 个月无进展生存期为 44%(零假设)的活性在每个组中进行评估。如果 6 个月无进展生存期为 60%,则可以宣布治疗方案的优越性,如果 6 个月无进展生存期为 27%,则可以宣布治疗方案的劣效性。所有至少接受一剂研究治疗且至少有一次根据实体瘤反应评估标准 1.1 进行的治疗后反应评估的患者均被纳入疗效人群。安全性人群包括至少接受一剂研究治疗的所有患者。这项研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册,编号为 NCT03404960,入组已完成,随访正在进行。
2018 年 2 月 7 日至 2021 年 10 月 5 日期间,91 名患者入组,并随机分配至尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗(n=46)或尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗(n=45)组。这些患者中,84 名患者可评估无进展生存期终点(尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗组=44 名;尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗组=40 名)。中位随访时间为 23.0 个月(IQR 15.0-31.5)。尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗组的 6 个月无进展生存期为 20.6%(95%CI 8.3-32.9;p=0.0002 与 44%的零假设相比);尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗组为 59.6%(44.3-74.9;p=0.045)。尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗组 46 名患者中有 10 名(22%)和尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗组 45 名患者中有 23 名(50%)发生了 3 级或更严重的治疗相关不良事件。尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗组最常见的 3 级或更严重不良事件是高血压(4 名患者,8%)、贫血(2 名患者,4%)和血小板减少(2 名患者,4%),而尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗组则是疲劳(6 名患者,14%)、贫血(5 名患者,11%)和高血压(4 名患者,9%)。没有治疗相关死亡。
尼拉帕利联合伊匹单抗维持组的主要终点 6 个月无进展生存期达到,而尼拉帕利联合纳武利尤单抗组则无进展生存期较差。这些发现强调了晚期胰腺癌患者非细胞毒性维持治疗的潜力。
百时美施贵宝、葛兰素史克、Basser 中心青年领导委员会、科纳基金会、珍珠和菲利普·巴瑟创新研究奖、匿名基金会和美国国立卫生研究院。