Data cutoff date: October 4, 2018. bTMB indicates blood tumor mutational burden; mut/Mb, mutations per megabase; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand 1; TC, tumor cell; tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden.
aScreening consent received for PD-L1 status.
bOnly applicable for patients completing study treatment before implementation of clinical study protocol amendment, which allowed patients to continue receiving immunotherapy until disease progression, whereas previously a maximum of 12 months was allowed.
cReason for discontinuation applies to the latest component discontinued.
dIntention-to-treat population includes all randomized patients.
eAs-treated population includes all patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment.
Primary analysis population. A and B, Data cutoff date: October 4, 2018. C and D, Data cutoff date: June 1, 2017. Progression-free survival was determined by blinded independent central review according to Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.26 Parts A, B, and D depict primary end points; part C, secondary end point. HR indicates hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TC, tumor cell.
A and B, Data cutoff date: October 4, 2018. C and D, Data cutoff date: June 17, 2017. Progression-free survival was determined by blinded independent central review according to Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.26 bTMB indicates blood tumor mutational burden; HR, hazard ratio; mut/Mb, mutations per megabase; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
eFigure 1. MYSTIC Study Design
eFigure 2. Hierarchical Multiple Testing Procedure
eFigure 3. Subgroup Analysis of Overall Survival for Durvalumab Monotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Among Patients With PD-L1 TC ≥25%
eFigure 4. TMB Dataset and Blood TMB Correlation With Tissue TMB
eFigure 5. Overall Survival in the ITT, Blood and Tissue TMB Evaluable Populations
eFigure 6. Exploratory Analysis of Overall Survival Across Blood TMB Cut-offs
eFigure 7. Venn Diagram Showing Overlap of Patient Subgroups Based on Blood TMB and PD-L1
eFigure 8. Exploratory Analysis of Overall Survival According to Tissue TMB
eTable 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
eTable 2. Summary of Efficacy Endpoints Reported in this Publication
eTable 3. Sample Size Assumptions in the PD-L1 ≥TC 25% Primary Analysis Population
eTable 4. Baseline Demographics and Disease Characteristics in the Intention-to-treat Population
eTable 5. Subsequent (Post-discontinuation) Anticancer Therapy in Patients With PD-L1 TC ≥25%
eTable 6. Overall Survival in the ITT Population and by PD-L1 Expression Subgroup
eTable 7. Summary of Tumor Response Amongst Patients With PD-L1 TC ≥25%
eTable 8. Baseline Demographics and Disease Characteristics (Patients With Blood TMB ≥20 and <20 mut/Mb)
eTable 9. Baseline Demographics and Disease Characteristics (Patients With Tissue TMB ≥10 and <10 mut/Mb)
eTable 10. Exploratory Analysis of Tumor Response Among Patients With Blood TMB ≥20 mut/Mb and <20 mut/Mb
eTable 11. Safety Summary in Patients With PD-L1 TC ≥25%
eTable 12. Safety Summary in Patients With Blood TMB ≥20 mut/Mb
eTable 13. All-cause Adverse Events
eTable 14. Treatment-related Serious Adverse Events Occurring in ≥2 Patients in Any Treatment Group
eTable 15. Treatment-related Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation Occurring in ≥2 Patients in Any Treatment Group
eTable16. Immune-mediated Adverse Events (Grouped Terms) Occurring in ≥2 Patients in Any Treatment Group
Data Sharing Statement.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Rizvi NA, Cho BC, Reinmuth N, et al. Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab vs Standard Chemotherapy in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The MYSTIC Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(5):661–674. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0237
Does first-line durvalumab treatment with or without tremelimumab improve survival outcomes vs chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer?
In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial including 1118 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, although the trial did not meet its primary end points, treatment with durvalumab resulted in a numerically reduced risk of death vs chemotherapy in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 expression on at least 25% of tumor cells. In exploratory analyses, a blood tumor mutational burden threshold of at least 20 mutations per megabase was identified for optimal clinical benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy.
These findings highlight the need for further investigation and prospective validation of blood tumor mutational burden as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy.
Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018.
Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory.
Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance
The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab.
ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282
Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) have reshaped the first-line metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) treatment landscape. Pembrolizumab is globally approved as a first-line monotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or more, with a recent extension to all patients with PD-L1–positive (tumor proportion score of 1% or more) tumors in the US and Japan, based on data from the KEYNOTE-042 study.1 The combination of PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies with chemotherapy has also improved outcomes in patients with unselected mNSCLC.2-7
Early studies have shown that genomic landscape, including tumor mutational burden (TMB), shapes responses to anti–PD-L1 therapy.8,9 Recently, TMB measured using tissue (tTMB) has emerged as a predictive biomarker of improved response and progression-free survival (PFS) with immunotherapy that is independent of PD-L1 expression.10-13 However, to our knowledge, a predictive effect of tTMB on overall survival (OS) benefit with immunotherapy vs chemotherapy has not been shown in NSCLC. More recently, measurement of TMB from blood (bTMB) has been demonstrated, obviating some of the logistic and technical challenges associated with tTMB measurement.14-17
Durvalumab is a selective, high-affinity human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80.18 Durvalumab is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, based on data from the PACIFIC study,19,20 and has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC in phase 2 and 3 trials.21,22 Tremelimumab, a monoclonal immunoglobulin G2 antibody targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), prevents normal downregulation of T cells and prolongs T-cell action, thereby enhancing immune function.23 Combining anti–PD-1/PD-L1 with anti–CTLA-4 therapies may amplify antitumor T-cell responses through nonredundant immune checkpoint blockade and provide additive or synergistic activity. Durvalumab, in combination with tremelimumab, has shown clinical activity in patients with advanced NSCLC in a phase 1 and 2 investigation.24
We report the final analyses of OS and PFS in patients with mNSCLC and PD-L1 expression on ≥25% of tumor cells (PD-L1 TC ≥25%; primary efficacy analysis population) from the MYSTIC study, an open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of first-line treatment with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, vs platinum-based chemotherapy. We also report the results of prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses to assess the effects of additional PD-L1 expression thresholds, as well as bTMB and tTMB, on outcomes.
The study was performed at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Adults with stage IV NSCLC were eligible provided they had not previously received systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status25 of 0 to 1, demonstrated measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1,26 and had known tumor PD-L1 expression status prior to randomization. Patients with sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations and those with symptomatic, unstable brain metastases were excluded (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).
The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The protocol and all modifications (Supplement 2) were approved by the institutional review boards or ethics committees of all participating centers and and the relevant regulatory authorities. All patients provided written informed consent.
Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 20 mg/kg of durvalumab every 4 weeks until disease progression, 20 mg/kg of durvalumab every 4 weeks until disease progression plus 1 mg/kg of tremelimumab every 4 weeks for up to 4 doses, or 4 to 6 cycles of platinum-based doublet chemotherapy of the investigator’s choice (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Randomization was stratified by PD-L1 TC ≥25% vs <25% and histologic subtype (squamous or nonsquamous). See the eMethods in Supplement 1 for additional randomization and dosing details.
Maintenance pemetrexed therapy was allowed in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC whose disease had not progressed after 4 cycles of pemetrexed combined with a platinum agent. In-study crossover from chemotherapy to the immunotherapy arms was not allowed. Patients continued treatment until objective disease progression (RECIST version 1.1), development of an adverse event necessitating treatment discontinuation, or withdrawal of consent (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1).
The primary end points were OS (time from randomization to death due to any cause) for both immunotherapy arms vs chemotherapy, and PFS (time from randomization to objective disease progression according to blinded independent central review, or death) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy, all in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. Secondary end points included PFS for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, objective response rate and duration of response for both immunotherapy arms vs chemotherapy (all in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%), and safety and tolerability. Investigation of the relationship between biomarkers, including TMB, and clinical outcomes was a prespecified exploratory objective. See eTable 2 in Supplement 1 for additional end points and the eMethods in Supplement 1 for details of assessments.
The study was sized to characterize the OS benefit for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy and for durvalumab vs chemotherapy as well as the PFS benefit for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. Originally, the primary end points were to be evaluated in all patients, irrespective of tumor PD-L1 expression; however, the protocol was modified in December 2016 (after the trial completed accrual but before any planned analyses) to restrict the primary analysis population to patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25% based on prior studies and the evolving treatment landscape.21,24,27,28
Approximately 1092 patients, including 480 patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%, were needed to obtain 231 events for the primary PFS analysis across the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group and the chemotherapy group (72% maturity), as well as 225 OS events for the primary OS analysis across each treatment group comparison (70% maturity) (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). Two interim analyses of OS were planned: the first at the time of the primary PFS analysis and the second when 80% of the target 225 OS events had occurred. To control for overall type I error at 5% (2-sided), a hierarchical multiple-testing procedure with gatekeeping strategy was used across end points, analysis populations, and treatment regimens (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1).
For the PFS analysis, which was based on an assumed PFS HR of 0.59, the trial was estimated to have 88% power to demonstrate statistical significance with an overall 2-sided significance level of 0.5% for the comparison of durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. For the OS analysis, with an assumed OS HR of 0.62, the trial was estimated to have 90% power to demonstrate statistical significance with an overall 2-sided significance level of 3% for the comparison of durvalumab vs chemotherapy and 86% power to demonstrate statistical significance with an overall 2-sided significance level of 1.5% for the comparison of durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). The assumed OS HRs were based on results from previous clinical studies with the therapies that were the standard of care when the MYSTIC study was designed,29-31 as well as emerging data from early-phase durvalumab studies28,32 and other trials of anti–PD-1 or PD-L1.33-35
The primary PFS analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histologic subtype (stratification factor at randomization), with HR and 99.5% CI estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. For statistical significance of durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy, P<.005 was required.
The primary OS analysis was performed using similar methods, adjusted for 2 interim analyses, with HRs estimated with 2-sided 97.54% and 98.77% CIs, respectively, for comparisons of durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab with chemotherapy. For statistical significance at final analysis, P<.0246 for durvalumab vs chemotherapy and P<.0123 for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy were required (Lan-DeMets spending function approximating O’Brien-Fleming boundary36). Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. As a supportive analysis for OS in the population with PD-L1 TC ≥25%, restricted mean survival time was evaluated by calculating area under the curve for the OS Kaplan-Meier curve for each treatment arm. The difference in restricted mean survival time (95% CI) for the immunotherapy vs chemotherapy arms, based on the minimum of maximum event method, is reported (truncation time is based on the minimum of maximum event time in months); a difference higher than 0 favors the immunotherapy arm.
For secondary analyses performed in the population with PD-L1 TC ≥1% and the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the stratification was additionally adjusted for PD-L1 expression status (TC ≥25% vs <25%). Odds ratios and 95% CIs for comparing objective response rate between treatment groups were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for the same factors as PFS and OS. Prespecified exploratory TMB analysis was performed using an unstratified log-rank test, with HRs and 95% CIs estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model.
Efficacy was analyzed on an ITT basis, including all randomized patients or subsets of this population based on PD-L1 expression or TMB levels. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment (as-treated population).
Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1891 patients were enrolled. Of the 1118 randomized patients, 1092 (97.7%) received at least 1 dose of study treatment: 369 of 374 patients (98.7%) in the durvalumab group, 371 of 372 patients (99.7%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 352 of 372 patients (94.6%) in the chemotherapy group (Figure 1). In the chemotherapy group, the most common regimens for patients with nonsquamous and squamous histologic subtypes of tumor were pemetrexed plus carboplatin (138 of 253 patients [54.5%]) and gemcitabine plus carboplatin (49 of 99 patients [49.5%]), respectively. The primary analysis population (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%) comprised 488 of 1118 randomized patients (43.6%): 163 of 374 patients (43.6%) in the durvalumab group, 163 of 372 patients (43.8%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 162 of 372 patients (43.5%) in the chemotherapy group. The baseline demographic and disease characteristics of patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25% were generally consistent with the ITT population and were balanced between treatment groups (Table 1; eTable 4 in Supplement 1).
At the data cutoff date for the final OS analysis (October 4, 2018), among patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%, 25 of 163 patients (15.3%) in the durvalumab group, 18 of 163 patients (11.0%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 1 of 162 patients (0.6%) in the chemotherapy group were continuing to receive the study treatment. Of these, 5 patients in the durvalumab group and 1 patient in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group were treated through disease progression, and 5 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group who were continuing to receive treatment with durvalumab at the data cutoff date received retreatment with tremelimumab. In addition, 73 patients (44.8%) in the durvalumab group, 61 patients (37.4%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 95 patients (58.6%) in the chemotherapy group received subsequent systemic cancer therapy (eTable 5 in Supplement 1). Among these, immunotherapy was received by 10 of 73 patients (14%) in the durvalumab group, 5 of 61 patients (8%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 64 of 95 patients (67%) in the chemotherapy group.
As of October 4, 2018, median (range) follow-up for OS was 30.2 (0.3-37.2) months. Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not statistically significantly improve OS vs chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%.
The median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 (Figure 2A). The 24-month OS rate was 38.3% (95% CI, 30.7%-45.7%) with durvalumab and 22.7% (95% CI, 16.5%-29.5%) with chemotherapy. Most planned patient subgroups in the primary analysis population treated with durvalumab had numerical improvement in OS vs chemotherapy (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1).
The median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) and the 24-month OS rate was 35.4% (95% CI, 28.1%-42.8%) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20) (Figure 2B). The OS in the ITT population and in subgroups defined by different PD-L1 expression levels (TC <1%, ≥1%, 25%-49%, and ≥50%) is shown in eTable 6 in Supplement 1. In patients with PD-L1 TC ≥50% and PD-L1 TC between 25% and 49%, OS HRs for durvalumab vs chemotherapy were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55-1.04) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.49-1.23), respectively (eTable 6 in Supplement 1). A supportive analysis for OS in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25% showed a restricted mean survival time difference of 1.99 months (95% CI, −0.37 to 4.35) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy and 0.76 months (95% CI, −1.62 to 3.14) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy.
As of June 1, 2017 (data cutoff date for the primary PFS analysis), median (range) follow-up for PFS was 10.6 (0-18) months. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the durvalumab and chemotherapy groups (secondary end point) (Figure 2C) or between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab and chemotherapy groups (primary end point) (Figure 2D). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71); the 12-month PFS rate was 25.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-33.1%) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 14.3% (8.4%-21.7%) with chemotherapy. Median PFS in the ITT population was 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6-3.4) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-5.6) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49).
As of June 1, 2017, the objective response rate among patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25% was 35.6%, 34.4%, and 37.7% with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and chemotherapy, respectively (eTable 7 in Supplement 1). The median duration of response was not reached in the immunotherapy arms and was 4.4 months with chemotherapy. More patients had an ongoing response at 12 months in the immunotherapy treatment groups (61.3%, 54.9%, and 18.0% in the durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and chemotherapy arms, respectively) (eTable 7 in Supplement 1).
Pretreatment plasma samples were available from 1001 patients (median plasma volume, 1.71 mL per patient [range, 0.2-3.5 mL]), of whom 809 patients (72.4% of those randomized) were evaluable for bTMB; 194 did not have valid bTMB results owing to low cell-free DNA input, low tumor DNA shedding, or other quality control failures. Pretreatment tissue samples were available from 735 patients, of whom 460 (41.1% of those randomized) were evaluable for tTMB; 275 samples did not produce a useable tTMB result owing to a variety of reasons, including insufficient tissue and/or tumor cells, insufficient DNA extracted, or a poor-quality next-generation sequencing library.
The TMB values did not correlate with PD-L1 expression levels (blood: Spearman ρ = 0.05; Pearson r = 0.01; tissue: Spearman ρ = 0.09; Pearson r = 0.06). Among 352 patients with matched samples (31.5% of randomized patients), bTMB and tTMB were correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.6; Pearson r = 0.7) (eFigure 4 in Supplement 1). Baseline characteristics in the populations with evaluable bTMB and tTMB were consistent with the ITT population (eTables 8 and 9 in Supplement 1). The OS in the populations with evaluable TMB was consistent with the ITT population in the 3 treatment arms (eFigure 5 in Supplement 1). For durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy, the HR for OS improved gradually as the bTMB threshold was increased (eFigure 6 in Supplement 1). The group with bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb) was selected for further analysis because there was a clinically relevant effect size for durvalumab plus tremelimumab and the patient population that derived benefit. The group with tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb was studied based on a threshold shown to be predictive for PFS and response in previous trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC.11,12 Further exploratory analyses in groups with tTMB values ≥10 mut/Mb were limited by small sample sizes.
In groups with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb or tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb, there were greater proportions of patients with a history of smoking and squamous histologic subtype of tumor compared with the corresponding lower-TMB subgroups (eTables 8 and 9 in Supplement 1). There was 12% overlap between the population with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb and that with PD-L1 TC ≥25% (eFigure 7 in Supplement 1).
A bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb was associated with improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; unadjusted HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74) (Figure 3A); 24-month OS rates were 48.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-59.7%) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 19.4% (95% CI, 11.0%-29.5%) with chemotherapy. In contrast, there was no improvement in OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with bTMB <20 mut/Mb (median, 8.5 months [95% CI, 6.7-9.8] vs 11.6 months [95% CI, 9.6-13.1]; unadjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45) (Figure 3B). A bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb, but not <20 mut/Mb, was also associated with improved PFS (Figure 3C and D) and objective response rate (eTable 10 in Supplement 1) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy.
For patients with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb who received durvalumab alone, the median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 7.8-18.6) (unadjusted HR vs chemotherapy, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.05). The HR for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs durvalumab alone was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.48-1.11) (Figure 3A), supporting an additional contribution of tremelimumab.
A tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb, but not <10 mut/Mb, was associated with numerically longer OS in both immunotherapy groups vs chemotherapy. The median OS was 16.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-27.3) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, 18.6 months (95% CI, 9.3-22.0) with durvalumab, and 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.1-16.0) with chemotherapy. The HR was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48-1.09) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.47-1.06) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy (eFigure 8 in Supplement 1).
As of October 4, 2018, the median (range) actual duration of treatment was 16.0 (0.4-148.6) weeks for durvalumab; 16.0 (0.6-161.3) and 12.0 (0.6-32.0) weeks for durvalumab and tremelimumab, respectively, in the combination arm; and 17.9 (1.1-137.4) weeks for chemotherapy. All-grade adverse events that were considered by the investigator to be treatment related (TRAEs) occurred in 54.2% (200/369), 60.1% (223/371), and 83.0% (292/352) of patients treated with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and chemotherapy, respectively (Table 2). Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were lower with durvalumab (55/369; 14.9%) and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (85/371; 22.9%) than with chemotherapy (119/352; 33.8%), and fewer patients had TRAEs leading to discontinuation in the durvalumab group (5.4% [20/369] vs 13.2% [49/371] and 9.4% [33/352], respectively). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 2 of 369 patients (0.5%) in the durvalumab group, 6 of 371 patients (1.6%) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 3 of 352 patients (0.9%) in the chemotherapy group. Safety in the population with PD-L1 TC ≥25% (primary analysis population) and the population with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb was consistent with safety findings in the overall as-treated population (eTables 11 and 12 in Supplement 1). For additional safety details, see eTables 13 through 16 in Supplement 1.
Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 13.6% (50/369), 28.3% (105/371), and 3.4% (12/352) of patients in the durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and chemotherapy groups, respectively (eTable 16 in Supplement 1). These events were grade 3 or 4 in 4.1% (15/369), 10.8% (40/371), and 0.6% (2/352) of patients, respectively.
In patients with mNSCLC and PD-L1 TC ≥25%, first-line treatment with durvalumab did not statistically significantly improve OS vs chemotherapy. Durvalumab was associated with a numerically reduced risk of death (HR, 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04), with a 24-month OS rate of 38.3%, indicating a longer-term treatment benefit compared with chemotherapy (24-month OS rate, 22.7%). Although patients with PD-L1 TC between 25% and 49% had a reduction in risk of death equivalent to patients with PD-L1 TC ≥50%, they had improved outcomes compared with patients with PD-L1 TC <25%, indicating that PD-L1 TC ≥25% is an appropriate cutoff point for durvalumab monotherapy in patients with mNSCLC. The OS analyses across planned patient subgroups showed numerical improvement in HRs for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, consistent with the primary OS end point; these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the low numbers of patients across individual subgroups. Results from the MYSTIC study align with those of previously reported treatment-naive, PD-L1 biomarker–selected trials,1,10,37 including KEYNOTE-042,1 in which the OS HR was 0.77 with pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 20% or more. Durvalumab vs chemotherapy is being evaluated further in the phase 3 PEARL study38 in a larger population (approximately 325 patients per arm) of treatment-naive patients with mNSCLC and PD-L1 TC ≥25%. In this rapidly evolving treatment landscape, PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies combined with chemotherapy have emerged as a standard of care for many patients with mNSCLC without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 genetic alterations. In combination with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab are associated with OS HRs of 0.49 and 0.79, respectively.2,4 The phase 3 POSEIDON study39 demonstrated improvement in PFS with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, as well as with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, vs chemotherapy alone in patients with previously treated mNSCLC; the study continues to assess OS.
Durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not significantly improve OS or PFS vs chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. In contrast to single-agent anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 treatment, for which PD-L1 is an established patient selection biomarker, TMB may be a better biomarker for combination immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 and anti–CTLA-4. A multivariate analysis across cancer types suggested improved OS with immunotherapy at high TMB levels; however, the actual threshold for high TMB varied markedly between cancer types.40 Previous NSCLC trials have demonstrated improved PFS with PD-1/CTLA-4 combination blockade in tumors with a high tTMB independent of PD-L1 expression.11,12 However, OS was similar regardless of whether patients had a high or low TMB.41 Both turnaround time and tumor tissue availability have been areas of concern for implementation of tTMB as a biomarker for patient selection.14,16,17 In this study, TMB was evaluable from blood in 72.4% (809/1118) of patients (consistent with other studies16) and from tissue in 41.1% (460/1118). Matched bTMB and tTMB data were available in 31.5% (352/1118) of patients, with a modest correlation observed despite important technical differences between sample types and platforms, consistent with previously reported findings.16 Blood TMB proved to be an appropriate biomarker of immunotherapy benefit in this trial and may be more representative of clonal mutations,42 accounting for tumor heterogeneity in patients with advanced NSCLC,43 but this needs to be validated in prospective studies.
A tTMB threshold of 10 mut/Mb for nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC was based on single-arm, phase 2 response data and supported by phase 3 PFS data.11,12 However, to our knowledge, this study is the first analysis to date to optimize a TMB threshold based on a relevant OS improvement in NSCLC. This exploratory analysis in a large data set evaluated multiple bTMB thresholds and identified a threshold of ≥20 mut/Mb for durvalumab plus tremelimumab that was predictive of optimal OS benefit. Of 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, 211 (26.1%) had bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb, which was associated with a clear OS improvement in patients receiving durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74), in addition to improvements in PFS and objective response rate. The benefit of combination immunotherapy was durable, with 48.1% of patients alive at 2 years vs 19.4% with chemotherapy. In contrast, in patients with bTMB <20 mut/Mb, durvalumab plus tremelimumab was not associated with any improvement in clinical outcomes (OS HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45). A smaller clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab alone vs chemotherapy in the population with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb. Accordingly, this cutoff point revealed a meaningful contribution of tremelimumab in the combination immunotherapy group vs durvalumab alone (OS HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.11).
The safety and tolerability profiles of durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab in this study were consistent with data from previous trials.19-23,32,44 Both immunotherapy arms were associated with fewer grade 3 or higher TRAEs than chemotherapy. The durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination was associated with a higher rate of TRAEs leading to discontinuation than durvalumab or chemotherapy.
One of the limitations of the study was that, in response to the evolving treatment landscape and the emergence of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker for anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy during the conduct of the MYSTIC study, the primary analysis population for the study was amended to include only patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. As a result, the primary study end points were evaluated in 44% of the overall randomized population and therefore with reduced power. The open-label study design was another limitation, which may explain why 20 patients randomized to the chemotherapy arm did not receive their assigned treatment; these patients may have received first-line immunotherapy instead and potentially biased the OS results. In addition, imbalances in subsequent anticancer treatment that favored the control arm, in which substantially more patients received subsequent immunotherapy compared with the durvalumab arm or durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, highlight the effect this may have on OS as an end point. Finally, scientific understanding of TMB as a potential biomarker for efficacy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has evolved since the time of study initiation. The TMB analyses were exploratory, and there were limitations associated with the availability of plasma and tumor tissue samples as well as a lack of prespecified statistical adjustment or stratification based on TMB.
In conclusion, although statistical significance was not achieved, first-line durvalumab treatment was associated with an OS HR of 0.76 vs chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC who had PD-L1 TC ≥25%, in line with OS outcomes observed with other anti–PD-1 and PD-L1 agents in similar populations. Whereas durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not statistically significantly improve OS or PFS vs chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%, the combination showed clinical activity in patients with bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb. This exploratory analysis, representing the largest from a phase 3 trial correlated with long-term outcomes in first-line treatment of mNSCLC, identified a bTMB threshold of 20 mut/Mb for durvalumab plus tremelimumab that was predictive of optimal benefit in OS in addition to improved PFS and objective response rate. Further investigation and prospective validation of bTMB as a predictive biomarker for benefit with immunotherapy are warranted.
Accepted for Publication: December 6, 2019.
Published Online: April 9, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0237
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2020 Rizvi NA et al. JAMA Oncology.
Corresponding Author: Naiyer A. Rizvi, MD, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington Ave, Milstein Hospital Bldg, Ste 6GN-435, New York, NY (email@example.com).
Author Contributions: Dr Rizvi had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Rizvi and Cho are co–first authors.
Study concept and design: Rizvi, Cho, Vicente, Geater, Kim, Higgs, Boothman, Zhao, Scheuring, Stockman, Chand, Peters.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Rizvi, Cho, Reinmuth, Lee, Luft, Ahn, van den Heuvel, Cobo, Vicente, Smolin, Moiseyenko, Antonia, Le Moulec, Robinet, Natale, Schneider, Shepherd, Geater, Garon, Goldberg, Nakagawa, Raja, Higgs, Boothman, Zhao, Scheuring, Stockman, Chand, Peters.
Drafting of the manuscript: Rizvi, Cho, Vicente, Smolin, Le Moulec, Shepherd, Kim, Scheuring, Chand, Peters.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Cho, Kim, Raja, Higgs, Zhao, Scheuring, Chand.
Obtained funding: Le Moulec, Chand.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Cho, Reinmuth, Lee, Smolin, Natale, Geater, Garon, Chand, Peters.
Study supervision: Rizvi, Cho, Reinmuth, Luft, Ahn, Cobo, Vicente, Smolin, Antonia, Robinet, Goldberg, Nakagawa, Raja, Scheuring, Stockman, Chand, Peters.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Rizvi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Bellicum, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Calithera, Dracen, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Janssen, Merck, Neogenomics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, and Gritstone; grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb; equity in Bellicum, Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, and Gritstone; and has a patent pending for PCT/US2015/062208 with royalties paid. Dr Cho reports research funding from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Mogam Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Dizal Pharma, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; serving as a consultant for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Yuhan, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Takeda, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; stock ownership in TheraCanVac Inc, Gencurix Inc, and Bridgebio Therapeutics; and royalties from Champions Oncology. Dr Reinmuth reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr Lee reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. Dr Ahn reports personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly and Company, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Yuhan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Vicente reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. Dr Smolin reports grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Biocad; nonfinancial support from Roche; and advisory board participation for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Antonia reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Achilles Therapeutics, Celsius, Cellular Biomedicine Group, Samyang Biopharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Rapt Therapeutics, Memgen, Venn Therapeutics, Amgen, and Merck. Dr Robinet reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and personal fees from Bayer. Dr Natale reports that his spouse is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr Schneider reports stock ownership in Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Shepherd reports personal fees from and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. Dr Geater reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Novartis. Dr Garon reports grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dracen, EMD Serono, Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Merck, Neon, Mirati, Dynavax, and Iovance, and personal fees from Dracen, EMD Serono, and Novartis. Dr Goldberg reports grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Spectrum, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Genentech. Dr Nakagawa reports grants and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme KK, Eli Lilly Japan KK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, AstraZeneca KK, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharma KK, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer Japan, Takeda, SymBio Pharmaceuticals, and Daiichi-Sankyo; grants from Merck Serono, Icon Japan KK, Parexel International, IQVIA Services Japan KK, A2 Healthcare Corp, AbbVie, EP-CRSU Co, Linical Co, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, EPS International Holdings Co, Quintiles, CMIC Shift Zero KK, Eisai Co, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co, EPS Corp, Bayer Yakuhin, inVentiv Health Japan, Gritstone Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline KK, Yakult Honsha Co, and Covance; and personal fees from Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co, CareNet, Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co, Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co, Yodosha Co, Clinical Trial Co, Medicus Shuppan Publishers Co, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Corp, Nikkei Business Publications, Thermo Fisher Scientific KK, Nanzando Co, Medical Review Co, Yomiuri Telecasting Corp, and Reno Medical KK. Drs Raja and Higgs report a patent pending related to tumor mutational burden, and employment at and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. Drs Boothman, Scheuring, and Stockman report employment at and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. Dr Zhao reports employment at AstraZeneca. Dr Chand reports employment at and stock ownership in AstraZeneca and stock ownership in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Peters reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bioinvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly and Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharmamar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody, from whom she has received honoraria. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This study was funded by AstraZeneca.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Group Information: The MYSTIC Investigators include the following: Australia: Matthew Chan, MD (Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford); Chee Lee, MD (St George Hospital, Kogarah); Stephen Clarke, MD (Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards); Keith Horwood, MD (Icon Cancer Care, Southport); Baerin Houghton, MD (Port Macquarie Base Hospital, Port Macquarie); Richard De Boer, MD (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne); Rachel Wong, MD (Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne); Belgium: Johan Vansteenkiste, MD (Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Leuven); Lore Decoster, MD (Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels); Frédérique Bustin, MD (Centre Hospitalier Régional de la Citadelle, Liège); Marc Lambrechts, MD (AZ Sint-Maarten, Duffel); Christophe Lonchay, MD (Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi); Canada: Andrew Robinson, MD (Kingston General Hospital, Kingston); Sunil Yadav, MD (Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Saskatoon); Jeffrey Rothenstein, MD (Lakeridge Health Oshawa, Oshawa); Jonathan Noble, MD, and Abderrahim Khomani, MD (Health Sciences North, Sudbury); Mohammad Rassouli, MD (Sault Area Hospital, Sault Ste Marie); Brian Findlay, MD (Niagara Health System, St Catharines); Labib Zibdawi, MD (Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket); Frances A. Shepherd, MD (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto); Aisha Ahmed, MD (Allan Blair Cancer Center, Regina); France: Gilles Robinet, MD (Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest–Hôpital Morvan, Brest); Alexis Cortot, MD (Hôpital Calmette–Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Lille); Sylvestre Le Moulec, MD, and Sophie Cousin, MD (Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux); Christos Chouaid, MD (Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil); Fabrice Barlesi, MD (Hôpital Nord, Marseille); Maurice Perol, MD (Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon); Germany: Helge Bischoff, MD (Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg); Eckart Laack, MD (Hämato-Onkologie Hamburg, Hamburg); Achim Rittmeyer, MD (Fachklinik für Lungenerkrankungen, Immenhausen); Peter Fix, MD, Claus-Peter Schneider, MD, and Rainer Bonnet, MD (Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka); Monika Serke, MD (Lungenklinik Hemer, Hemer); Barbara Deschler-Baier, MD, and Ruth Seggewiß-Bernhardt, MD (Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg); Thomas Wehler, MD (Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg); Jürgen Alt, MD (Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz); Arnd Nusch, MD (Praxis für Hämatologie und internistische Onkologie, Velbert); Annette Dieing, MD (Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin); Jens Panse, MD (University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen); Stefan Rüdiger, MD, and Cornelia Kropf-Sanchen, MD (Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm); Justyna Rawluk, MD (Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg); Frank Griesinger, MD (Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg); Joachim von Pawel, MD, and Niels Reinmuth, MD (Asklepios Lung Clinic, Munich-Gauting, Germany); Jürgen R. Fischer, MD (Klinik Löwenstein, Löwenstein); Sabine Bohnet, MD (Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel); Christian Lerchenmüller, MD (Facharzt für Innere Medizin und Hämatologie und Onkologie, Münster); Maike de Wit, MD (Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin); Hungary: Gyula Ostoros, MD, Andrea Fülöp, MD, Krisztina Bogos, MD, and Ildikó Horváth, MD (Országos Korányi Pulmonológiai Intézet, Budapest); Éva Somogyiné Ezer, MD (Somogy Megyei Kaposi Mór Oktató Kórház, Kaposvár); Eszter Csánky, MD (Miskolci Semmelweis Ignác Egészségügyi Központ és, Miskolc); Ágnes Bartos, MD (Koch Róbert Kórház és Rendelőintézet, Edelény); Zsolt Pápai Székely, MD (Fejér Megyei Szent György Kórház, Székesfehérvár); Veronika Sárosi, MD (Pécsi Tudományegyetem ÁOK Klinikai Központ, Pécs); Gábor Pajkos, MD (Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kórház SzTE ÁOK Oktató Kórháza, Kecskemét); Beatrix Bálint, MD (Szegedi Tudományegyetem Tüdőgyógyászati Tanszék, Deszk); Péter Szabó, MD (Jósa András Oktató Kórház Eü Szolgáltató Nonprofit Kft, Nyíregyháza); Italy: Francesco Grossi, MD (Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Genoa); Filippo De Marinis, MD (European Institute of Oncology, Milan); Marina Chiara Garassino, MD (Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan); Angelo Delmonte, MD (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola); Luca Gianni, MD (Ospedale San Raffaele del Monte Tabor, Milan); Evaristo Maiello, MD (IRCCS Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo); Michele Maio, MD (Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena); Japan: Takayasu Kurata, MD (Kansai Medical University Hospital, Osaka); Fumio Imamura, MD, and Toru Kumagai, MD (Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka); Shunichi Sugawara, MD (Sendai Kousei Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi); Nobuaki Kobayashi, MD, Masaharu Shinkai, MD, Masahiro Shinoda, MD, and Makoto Kudo, MD (Yokohama City University Medical Centre, Kanagawa); Kiyoshi Komuta, MD (Osaka Police Hospital, Osaka); Yasuharu Nakahara, MD (National Hospital Organization Himeji Medical Center, Hyogo); Hiroyasu Kaneda, MD, and Tomohiro Ozaki, MD (Kishiwada City Hospital, Osaka); Yasuhiko Nishioka, MD (Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima); Yoshikazu Hasegawa, MD (Izumi Municipal Hospital, Izumi, Osaka); Takashi Nishimura, MD (Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Kyoto); Yuichiro Takeda, MD (National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo); Takuma Yokoyama, MD (Kyorin University Hospital, Tokyo); Tetsunari Hase, MD, and Masashi Kondo, MD (Nagoya University Hospital, Aichi); Masayuki Takeda, MD, and Kazuhiko Nakagawa, MD (Kindai University, Osaka); Keisuke Aoe, MD (National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi Ube Medical Center, Yamaguchi); Ichiro Natsume, MD (Yokosuka Kyosai Hospital, Kanagawa); Noriyuki Ebi, MD (Iizuka Hospital, Fukuoka); Shohei Takata, MD (National Hospital Organization Fukuoka-Higashi Medical Center, Fukuoka); Hideyuki Nakagawa, MD (National Hospital Organization Hirosaki National Hospital, Aomori); Shoichi Kuyama, MD (National Hospital Organization Iwakuni Clinical Center, Yamaguchi); Kentaro Iwanaga, MD (Saga-Ken Medical Centre Koseikan, Saga); Hiroshi Yokouchi, MD, and Kenya Kanazawa, MD (Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima); Haruhiro Saito, MD (Kanagawa Cancer Center, Kanagawa); Nobuyuki Katakami, MD, and Hisateru Yasui, MD (Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation Hospital, Hyogo); Hideo Saka, MD (National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Center, Aichi); Shinji Atagi, MD (National Hospital Organization Kinki-chuo Chest Medical Center, Osaka); Kazuhiro Sato, MD (Nagaoka Red Cross Hospital, Niigata); Chikara Sakaguchi, MD (Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Kyoto); Akihiro Bessho, MD (Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, Okayama); Kazuo Kasahara, MD (Kanazawa University Hospital, Ishikawa); Hiroki Tateno, MD (Saitama City Hospital, Saitama); The Netherlands: Paul Baas, MD, and Michel M. van den Heuvel, MD (Nederlands Kanker Instituut–Antoni van Leeuwenhoekziekenhuis, Amsterdam); Robin Cornelissen, MD (Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam); Jeroen Hiltermann, MD (University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen); Joachim Aerts, MD (Amphia Ziekenhuis loc. Molengracht, Molengracht, Breda); Anne Marie Dingemans, MD (Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht); Johannes Smit, MD (Rijnstate Ziekenhuis, Arnhem); Bonne Biesma, MD (Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, ’s-Hertogenbosch); Russia: Konstantin Laktionov, MD, and Daniil Stroyakovskiy, MD (Moscow City Oncology Hospital No. 62, Moscow); Artem Poltoratskiy, MD (N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg); Alexander Luft, MD (Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital, St Petersburg); Galina Statsenko, MD (State Institution of Health Omsk Regional Oncology Dispensary, Omsk); Sergei Orlov, MD (Pavlov First State Medical University of St Petersburg, St Petersburg); Alexey Smolin, MD (Burdenko Main Military Clinical Hospital, Moscow); Vladimir Moiseyenko, MD (Oncological Clinical Research Center, St Petersburg); Yuri Ragulin, MD (Medical Radiological Scientific Center [MRSC RAMS], Obninsk); Alexey Severtsev, MD (Central Clinical Hospital No. 1 of JSC “Russian Railways,” Moscow); Mikhail Byakhov, MD, and Tatyana Barannikova, MD (SBHI of Moscow City, Moscow Clinical Center, Moscow); Nina Karaseva, MD (St Petersburg City Oncological Dispensary, St Petersburg); South Korea: Sang-We Kim, MD (Asan Medical Center, Seoul); Ji-Youn Han, MD (National Cancer Center, Goyang); Ki Hyeong Lee, MD (Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju); Myung-Ju Ahn, MD (Samsung Medical Center, Seoul); Hyun Woo Lee, MD (Ajou University Hospital, Suwon); Eun Kyung Cho, MD (Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon); Sung Sook Lee, MD (Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan); Jin-Soo Kim, MD, and Ki-Hwan Kim, MD (SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul); Jong Seok Lee, MD (Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam); Young Joo Min, MD (Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan); Gyeong-won Lee, MD (Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju); Hwan Jung Yun, MD (Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon); Keon Uk Park, MD (Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu); Kyung Hee Lee, MD (Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu); Byoung Chul Cho, MD (Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul); Jun Ho Ji, MD (Samsung Changwon Hospital, Changwon); Yun Gyoo Lee, MD (Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul); Joo-Hang Kim, MD (CHA Bundang Medical Center, Seongnam); Bong-Seog Kim, MD (Seoul Veterans Hospital, Seoul); Spain: Oscar José Juan Vidal, MD (Hospital Universitario y Politécnico de La Fe, Valencia); David Vicente, MD (Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville); Enriqueta Felip Font, MD (Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona); Noemí Reguart Aransay, MD (Clinical and Provincial Hospital of Barcelona, Barcelona); Javier De Castro Carpeno, MD (Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid); Bartomeu Massuti Sureda, MD (Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante); José Miguel Sánchez Torres, MD (Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid); Manuel Domine Gomez, MD (Jiménez Díaz Foundation University Hospital, Madrid); Miriam Alonso García, MD, and Jesús Corral Jaime, MD (Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville); Pilar Diz Tain, MD (Hospital de León, León); Joaquim Bosch-Barrera, MD (Hospital Universitari de Girona Doctor Josep Trueta, Girona); Manuel Cobo, MD (Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Instituto de Investigacion Biomédica de Málaga [IBIMA], Málaga); Mariano Provencio Pulla, MD (Hospital Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid); Ana Laura Ortega Granados, MD, and Nuria Cárdenas Quesada, MD (Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Jaén); Rosario García Campelo, MD (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario a Coruña [CHUAC], La Coruña); Switzerland: Patrizia Froesch, MD (Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona); Solange Peters, MD (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne University, Lausanne); Taiwan: Yuh-Min Chen, MD (Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei); Wu-Chou Su, MD (National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan); Kang-Yun Lee, MD (Taipei Medical University Shuang-Ho Hospital, New Taipei City); Cheng-Ta Yang, MD (Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City); Gee-Chen Chang, MD (Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung); Yu-Feng Wei, MD (E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung); Chin-Chou Wang, MD (Taipei Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei City); Thailand: Virote Sriuranpong, MD (King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok); Sarayut Lucien Geater, MD (Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla); Kosin Wirasorn, MD (Srinagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen); Busayamas Chewasakulyong, MD (Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Muang, Chiang Mai); United States: Naiyer A. Rizvi, MD (Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York); Maria Baggstrom, MD (Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri); Jonathan Riess, MD (University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento); Melissa Johnson, MD (Tennessee Oncology PLLC, Nashville); Patrick Forde, MD (Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, Maryland); Petros Nikolinakos, MD (University Cancer & Blood Center, Athens, Georgia); Helen Ross, MD (Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona); Scott J. Antonia, MD (H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida); Susmitha Vaka, MD, and Augusto Villegas, MD (Cancer Specialists of North Florida, Jacksonville); Leena Gandhi, MD, and Jean K. Lee, MD (New York University Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York); Ronald Natale, MD (Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California); Daniel Carrizosa, MD, and Edward S. Kim, MD (Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina); Jennifer Carney, MD (Kaiser Permanante Hawaii/Moanalua Medical Center, Honolulu); Matthew Rettig, MD, Kathryn Henick, MD, and Fairooz Kabbinavar, MD (VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care, Los Angeles, California); Sarah B. Goldberg, MD (Yale School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut); Jeffrey Schneider, MD (NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, New York); Ashish Saxena, MD (Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York); Robert Hirsch, MD (Memorial Cancer Institute at Memorial Healthcare System, Miami, Florida); Ticiana Leal, MD (University of Wisconsin, Madison); Leora Horn, MD (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee); Nathan Pennell, MD (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio); Hatim Husain, MD (Moores UC San Diego Cancer Center, La Jolla, California); Patricia Plezia, MD, and Manuel Modiano, MD (Arizona Clinical Research Center, Tucson); Dennis Lowenthal, MD (Overlook Medical Center, Summit, New Jersey); Ahmad Raza, MD (Fairview Southdale Medical Oncology, Edina, Minnesota); Aparkishor Ganti, MD (University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha); Edward B. Garon, MD (David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California/TRIO-US Network, Los Angeles); Ravindranath Patel, MD (Comprehensive Blood & Cancer Center, Bakersfield, California); Robert Dichmann, MD (Central Coast Medical Oncology Corporation, Santa Maria, California); Brian DiCarlo, MD (Coastal Medical Research Group, Inc, San Luis Obispo, California); William Lawler, MD (St Joseph Heritage Healthcare, Anaheim, California); Thomas Lowe, MD (Torrance Health Association, Torrance, California); Sherman Baker, MD (Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond); Charles Holladay, MD (Charleston Cancer Center, Charleston, South Carolina); Gregory John Yang, MD (Yuma Regional Medical Center, Yuma, Arizona); Vietnam: Quang Bui, MD (Vietnam National Cancer Institute, Hanoi); Khoa Mai, MD (Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi); Nhung Nguyen, MD (Vietnam National Lung Hospital, Hanoi); Mai Tran, MD (Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital (HCMCOH), Ho Chi Minh City); Ngoc Tran, MD (Cho Ray Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City); Sam Le, MD (Thống Nhất Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City).
Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology Congress; December 13, 2018; Geneva, Switzerland; and at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; April 1, 2019; Atlanta, Georgia.
Additional Contributions: We thank the patients, their families and caregivers, and all investigators involved in this study. Furthermore, we acknowledge Stuart McIntosh, MD; Delyth Clemett, PhD; Piruntha Thiyagarajah, MD; Philip Z Brohawn, MBA; Michael Kuziora, PhD; Han Si, PhD; Jill Walker, PhD; Pralay Mukhopadhyay, PhD; Jiabu Ye, PhD; and Feng Liu, PhD, for contributions to study design, execution, and data analysis and interpretation. All were employees of AstraZeneca at the time of their work on this study. Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines, was provided by Samantha Holmes, DPhil, of Cirrus Communications, Macclesfield, UK, and was funded by AstraZeneca.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
Create a personal account or sign in to: