Background Pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. The effect of chemoradiotherapy might be enhanced by immunotherapy. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adding pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 clinical trial, adults (age ≥18 years) at 176 medical centres in 30 countries with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice-response system with integrated web response to receive 5 cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus chemoradiotherapy, followed by 15 cycles of pembrolizumab (400 mg) or placebo every 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by planned external beam radiotherapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs non-intensity-modulated radiotherapy or non-volumetric-modulated arc therapy), cervical cancer stage at screening (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IB2–IIB node positive vs stage III–IVA), and planned total radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy) dose (<70 Gy vs ≥70 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1—by investigator or by histopathologic confirmation of suspected disease progression—and overall survival. Primary analysis was conducted in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly allocated participants. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, which included all randomly allocated patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04221945, and is closed to new participants. Findings Between June 9, 2020, and Dec 15, 2022, 1060 participants were randomly assigned to treatment, with 529 assigned to the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 531 to the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. At data cutoff (Jan 9, 2023), median follow-up was 17·9 months (IQR 11·3–22·3) in both treatment groups. Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group; rates at 24 months were 68% in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group versus 57% in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. The hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death was 0·70 (95% CI 0·55–0·89, p=0·0020), meeting the protocol-specified primary objective. Overall survival at 24 months was 87% in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 81% in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group (information fraction 42·9%). The HR for death was 0·73 (0·49–1·07); these data have not crossed the boundary of statistical significance. Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were 75% in the pembrolizumab–chemoradiotherapy group and 69% in the placebo–chemoradiotherapy group. Interpretation Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (MSD).

5506 Background: In KEYNOTE-826 (NCT03635567),pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) ± bevacizumab (bev) provided statistically significant, clinically meaningful PFS and OS improvements in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In the present analysis of KEYNOTE-826, we assessed outcomes in several key patient subgroups. Methods: Eligible adult patients had persistent, recurrent, or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix not previously treated with chemo and not amenable to curative treatment; measurable disease per RECIST v1.1; ECOG PS 0–1; and a tumor sample to determine PD-L1 status. Patients were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W or placebo (pbo) for up to 35 cycles + chemo (paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 + cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or carboplatin AUC 5) ± bev 15 mg/kg. Dual primary endpoints are PFS by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 and OS in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥1, all comers, and CPS ≥10. Treatment effects on PFS and OS were examined in patient subgroups defined by bev use (yes or no), histology (squamous or non-squamous [including adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous]), platinum use (carboplatin or cisplatin), and prior chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were based on a stratified Cox regression model. Results: 617 patients were randomized (pembro + chemo ± bev, n=308; pbo + chemo ± bev, n=309). At the May 3, 2021 data cutoff, median follow-up was 22 months. Pembro + chemo prolonged PFS and OS vs pbo + chemo in all subgroups evaluated in the all-comer population (Table). Similar benefits of pembro + chemo on PFS and OS were also seen in the protocol-specified CPS ≥1 and CPS ≥10 populations. Conclusions: Pembro + chemo ± bev prolonged PFS and OS vs pbo + chemo ± bev among the subgroups defined by bev use, histology, platinum use, and prior CRT and provided clinically meaningful benefits similar to the broader population of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03635567. [Table: see text]

(Abstracted from Lancet 2024;403:1341-1350) Prognosis for locally advanced cervical cancer is poor, with 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival ranging from 47% to 80%. For the past several decades, treatment has included external beam radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy followed by brachytherapy, and novel therapeutic options are needed.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provides clinically meaningful benefit as first-line therapy for advanced (locoregional extension and residual disease after surgery)/metastatic/recurrent pMMR and dMMR endometrial cancer (EC), with greater magnitude of benefit in the dMMR phenotype. We evaluated addition of pembrolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy (with/without radiation therapy) among patients with newly-diagnosed, high-risk EC without any residual macroscopic disease following curative-intent surgery.

Importance The KEYNOTE-826 randomized clinical trial showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Treatment effects in patient subgroups of the study population are unknown. Objective To assess efficacy outcomes in patient subgroups of KEYNOTE-826. Design, Setting, and Participants Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted in a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Participants included women with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix that had not been treated with systemic chemotherapy and was not amenable to curative treatment. This subanalysis was conducted from November 20, 2018, to May 3, 2021. Interventions Pembrolizumab, 200 mg, every 3 weeks or placebo for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel, 175 mg/m 2 , plus cisplatin, 50 mg/m 2 , or carboplatin AUC 5 [area under the free carboplatin plasma concentration vs time curve]) with or without bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg. Main Outcomes and Measures Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in subgroups defined by use of bevacizumab (yes or no), choice of platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin), prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT) exposure only (yes or no), and histologic type (squamous or nonsquamous) in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1–positive tumors (defined as a combined positive score [CPS] ≥1) and in the intention-to-treat population. Results A total of 617 patients (median age, 51 years; range, 22-82 years) were enrolled in the trial. In the CPS greater than or equal to 1 population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85) and cisplatin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.04), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), and squamous (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.20) histologic type. In the intention-to-treat population, HRs for OS also favored the pembrolizumab group in all subgroups: with bevacizumab (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and without bevacizumab (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04), use of carboplatin (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89) or cisplatin (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.32-1.09), with prior CRT only (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91) and without prior CRT only (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97), and squamous (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) and nonsquamous (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.23) histologic type. Similar to OS, the addition of pembrolizumab prolonged PFS across all subgroups in the CPS greater than or equal to 1 and intention-to-treat populations. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this trial suggest that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved OS across subgroups of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635567

Supplemental Table S1. Baseline Patient Characteristics Supplemental Table S2. Univariate Analyses of Association Between Clinical Factors and Early LVEF Change on Sunitinib

OBJECTIVE:This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the association of gene expression signatures, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) tumor microenvironment-associated cell phenotypes with clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) from the phase II KEYNOTE-100 study. METHODS:Pembrolizumab-treated patients with evaluable RNA-sequencing (n = 317), whole exome sequencing (n = 293), or select mIHC (n = 125) data were evaluated. The association between outcomes (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) and gene expression signatures (T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile [TcellinfGEP] and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures), TMB, and prespecified mIHC cell phenotype densities as continuous variables was evaluated using logistic (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS). One-sided p-values were calculated at prespecified α = 0.05 for TcellinfGEP, TMB, and mIHC cell phenotypes and at α = 0.10 for non-TcellinfGEP signatures; all but TcellinfGEP and TMB were adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS:No evidence of associations between ORR and key axes of gene expression was observed. Negative associations were observed between outcomes and TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.019; OS, adjusted-p = 0.085) and hypoxia (PFS, adjusted-p = 0.064) signatures. TMB as a continuous variable was not associated with outcomes (p > 0.05). Positive associations were observed between densities of myeloid cell phenotypes CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- in the tumor compartment and ORR (adjusted-p = 0.025 and 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory analysis in advanced ROC did not find evidence for associations between gene expression signatures and outcomes of pembrolizumab. mIHC analysis suggests CD11c+ and CD11c+/MHCII-/CD163-/CD68- phenotypes representing myeloid cell populations may be associated with improved outcomes with pembrolizumab in advanced ROC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02674061.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The phase III, double-blind KEYNOTE-826 trial of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, showed statistically significant survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (primary data cutoff: May 3, 2021). This article reports the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) results tested in the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. At the final data cutoff (October 3, 2022), the median study follow-up duration was 39.1 months (range, 32.1-46.5 months). In the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 (N = 548), all-comer (N = 617), and CPS ≥10 (N = 317) populations, median OS with pembrolizumab–chemotherapy versus placebo–chemotherapy was 28.6 months versus 16.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74]), 26.4 months versus 16.8 months (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77]), and 29.6 months versus 17.4 months (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78]), respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 82.4% with pembrolizumab–chemotherapy and 75.4% with placebo–chemotherapy. These results show that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, continued to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OS for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Introduction/Background The first interim analysis of KEYNOTE-826 (NCT03635567) showed that first-line pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS vs placebo (pbo) + chemo in patients (pts) with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer across all prespecified populations (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10). Here, we present the protocol-specified final OS analysis results of KEYNOTE-826. Methodology Eligible adults with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemo (prior radiosensitizing chemo allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment (surgery or radiation) were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg or placebo Q3W for up to 35 cycles + chemo (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 + cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5), ± bev 15 mg/kg. Pts were stratified by metastatic status at diagnosis (yes/no), planned bev use (yes/no), and PD-L1 CPS ( < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥10). Dual primary end points were OS and PFS per RECIST v1.1 assessed by investigator review, each tested sequentially in the PD-L1 CPS ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. Results From Nov 2018 to Jan 2020, 617 patients were randomized (pembro + chemo, n = 308 [63.6% with bev]; pbo + chemo, n = 309 [62.5% with bev]); 548 (88.8%) pts had PD-L1 CPS ≥1 and 317 (51.4%) had CPS ≥10. At the Oct 3, 2022 data cutoff, median follow-up was 39.1 mo. Pembro + chemo significantly improved OS and PFS in the CPS ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations (table 1). The pembro + chemo benefit was seen regardless of bev use. Grade ≥3 AE incidence was 82.4% in the pembro + chemo arm and 75.4% in the placebo + chemo arm. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were anemia (30.3% vs 27.8%), neutropenia (12.4% vs 9.7%), and hypertension (10.4% vs 11.7%). Conclusion The addition of pembro to chemo ± bev significantly reduced the risk of death by 40% in the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 population, by 37% in the all-comer population, and by 42% in the CPS ≥10 population, and had a manageable safety profile. These data are consistent with the earlier results and provide further support for pembro + chemo ± bev as a new standard of care for first-line treatment of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Disclosures .

Supplementary Figure 1. Mailed questionnaire to general practitioner ; Supplementary Figure 2. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for bladder cancer in THIN 2000-2011; Supplementary Table 1. Bladder cancer and cystectomy codes; Supplementary Table 2. Algorithm performance for detecting incident bladder cancer; Supplementary Table 3. Computation of the proportion of muscle-invasive bladder cancer that is captured by the algorithm for muscle-invasion among those with coded bladder cancer diagnosis in THIN

Objectives: Results from a phase 1b/2 study showed lenvatinib (LEN) + pembrolizumab (pembro) has efficacy in patients (pts) with advanced endometrial carcinoma following prior treatment. Here, we describe the phase III study results of LEN + pembro vs treatment of physician's choice (TPC) following platinum-based therapy in pts with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). Methods: Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive LEN 20 mg orally QD + pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or TPC (doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 IV Q3W or paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 IV QW [3 weeks on; 1 week off]). Eligible pts had aEC with 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen or up to 2 prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, if 1 was given in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting. Randomization was stratified by DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status (centrally determined); pts with proficient (p)MMR tumors were further stratified by ECOG PS, geographic region, and prior history of pelvic radiation. Primary endpoints were PFS by blinded independent central review per RECIST v1.1 and OS. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. A graphical approach for multiplicity to control for type 1 error was used to test PFS for pts with pMMR aEC, then pts irrespective of MMR tumor status (ie, all comers), followed by OS (pMMR aEC, then all comers) and ORR (pMMR aEC, then all comers). Efficacy analyses were conducted in randomized pts; safety analyses were conducted in pts who received treatment. Results: Conclusions: LEN + pembro demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PFS, OS, and ORR vs TPC both in pts with aEC that was pMMR and in pts with aEC irrespective of MMR status. The safety profile of LEN + pembro was manageable and consistent with previously reported studies. Results from a phase 1b/2 study showed lenvatinib (LEN) + pembrolizumab (pembro) has efficacy in patients (pts) with advanced endometrial carcinoma following prior treatment. Here, we describe the phase III study results of LEN + pembro vs treatment of physician's choice (TPC) following platinum-based therapy in pts with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive LEN 20 mg orally QD + pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or TPC (doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 IV Q3W or paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 IV QW [3 weeks on; 1 week off]). Eligible pts had aEC with 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen or up to 2 prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, if 1 was given in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting. Randomization was stratified by DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status (centrally determined); pts with proficient (p)MMR tumors were further stratified by ECOG PS, geographic region, and prior history of pelvic radiation. Primary endpoints were PFS by blinded independent central review per RECIST v1.1 and OS. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. A graphical approach for multiplicity to control for type 1 error was used to test PFS for pts with pMMR aEC, then pts irrespective of MMR tumor status (ie, all comers), followed by OS (pMMR aEC, then all comers) and ORR (pMMR aEC, then all comers). Efficacy analyses were conducted in randomized pts; safety analyses were conducted in pts who received treatment. LEN + pembro demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PFS, OS, and ORR vs TPC both in pts with aEC that was pMMR and in pts with aEC irrespective of MMR status. The safety profile of LEN + pembro was manageable and consistent with previously reported studies.

BACKGROUND Pembrolizumab has efficacy in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic or unresectable cervical cancer that has progressed during chemotherapy. We assessed the relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy and, per investigator discretion, bevacizumab. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival, each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more. The combined positive score is defined as the number of PD-L1-staining cells divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100. All results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS In 548 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more, median progression-free survival was 10.4 months in the pembrolizumab group and 8.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.77; P<0.001). In 617 patients in the intention-to-treat population, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P<0.001). In 317 patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 10 or more, progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 8.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was 53.0% in the pembrolizumab group and 41.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81; P<0.001), 50.4% and 40.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84; P<0.001), and 54.4% and 44.6% (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84; P = 0.001), respectively. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were anemia (30.3% in the pembrolizumab group and 26.9% in the placebo group) and neutropenia (12.4% and 9.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with pembrolizumab than with placebo among patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer who were also receiving chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-826 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03635567.).

Objective Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression affects tumor evasion of immune surveillance. The prognostic value and relationship of PD-L1 expression to T-cell-inflamed immune signatures in ovarian cancer are unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of PD-L1 on overall survival and its correlation with an immune-mediated gene expression profile in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Methods PD-L1 expression in tumor and immune cells was assessed by immunohistochemistry, and PD-L1-positive expression was defined as a combined positive score >= 1; a T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile containing interferon gamma response genes was evaluated using extracted RNA from surgical samples. Associations between PD-L1 expression, gene expression profile status, and overall survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results A total of 376 patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer treated by cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based therapy were included. PD-L1-positive expression was observed in 50.5% of patients and associated with more advanced stage (p=0.047), more aggressive histologic subtype (p=0.001), and platinum sensitivity defined by increasing treatment-free interval from first platinum-based chemotherapy to next systemic treatment (p=0.027). PD-L1-positive expression was associated with longer overall survival in multivariate analyses (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93). In subgroup analyses, this association was most pronounced in patients with partially platinum-sensitive disease (treatment-free interval >= 6 to <12 months). T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile status correlated with PD-L1 expression (Spearman,rho=0.712) but was not an independent predictor of overall survival. Conclusion PD-L1 expression is associated with longer overall survival among advanced ovarian cancer patients. PD-L1 expression may be an independent prognostic biomarker.

TPS6096 Background: High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer has a poor prognosis, and more than half of patients recur in 2 y. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent chemotherapy followed by brachytherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer. The immunostimulatory activity of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (pembro) may be enhanced by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). After the KEYNOTE-158 study, in which pembro showed durable antitumor activity, pembro monotherapy was approved for patients with PD-L1–positive recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who progressed during or after chemotherapy. ENGOT-cx11/KEYNOTE-A18 (NCT04221945) is a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating pembro with concurrent CRT for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Methods: Approximately 980 patients with high-risk (FIGO 2014 stage IB2-IIB with node-positive disease or stage III-IVA), locally advanced, histologically confirmed cervical cancer who have not received systemic therapy, immunotherapy, definitive surgery, or radiation will be randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 cycles of pembro 200 mg every 3 wk (Q3W) + CRT followed by 15 cycles of pembro 400 mg Q6W or 5 cycles of placebo Q3W + CRT followed by 15 cycles of placebo Q6W. The CRT regimen includes 5 cycles (with optional 6th dose) of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 Q1W + EBRT followed by brachytherapy. Randomization is stratified by planned EBRT type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] or volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-IMRT or non-VMAT), cancer stage at screening (stage IB2-IIB vs III-IVA), and planned total radiotherapy dose. Treatment will continue until the patient has received 20 cycles of pembro (5 cycles 200 mg Q3W, 15 cycles 400 mg Q6W) vs placebo (~2 y) or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary endpoints are PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. Secondary endpoints are PFS at 2 y, OS at 3 y, complete response at 12 wk, ORR, PFS and OS in PD-L1–positive patients, EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CX24, and safety. Enrollment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04221945.

Background Patients with advanced cervical cancer comprise a high-risk, poor prognostic group. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has emerged as a therapeutic target for these patients, though incorporation of the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab to platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy (CT) is associated with a modest OS benefit vs CT alone (median OS, 16.8 vs 13.3 mo; hazard ratio, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62-0.95; P = 0.007; Tewari et al. Lancet. 2017). On the basis of an ORR of 14.3% (95% CI, 7.4-24.1) among 77 pretreated women with PD-L1–positive tumors in the cervical cancer cohort of KEYNOTE-158 (Chung et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019), the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab was granted accelerated approval by the US FDA for patients with PD-L1–positive (combined positive score [CPS] of > 1) cervical cancer who had progressed during or after first-line CT. KEYNOTE-826 (NCT03635567) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multinational study designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of CT with or without pembrolizumab and/or bevacizumab in the first-line setting. Trial design Eligible patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with CT in a recurrent or metastatic setting who are not amenable to curative treatment will be randomized 1:1 to CT + pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks. The CT regimen (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 + cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg) will be selected by the investigator before randomization. Stratification will be performed by metastasis status at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use (yes/no), and tumor PD-L1 CPS ( Clinical trial identification NCT03635567. Legal entity responsible for the study Merck & Co., Inc. Funding Funding for this study was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure K. Fujiwara: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Chugai Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Taiho Pharmaceutical; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self): Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self): Janssen Oncology; Honoraria (self): Kyowa Hakko Kirin; Honoraria (self): Lilly Japan; Honoraria (self): Nippon Kayaku; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Ono Pharmaceutical; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Zeria Pharmaceutical; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Kaken Pharmaceutical; Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunogen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Oncotherapeutics. R. Shapira-Frommer: Honoraria (self): MSD Oncology; Honoraria (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Vascular Biogenics; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis Oncology. J. Alexandre: Honoraria (self): Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis ; Honoraria (self): Sanofi/Aventis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen. B. Monk: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy: Advaxis; Advisory / Consultancy: Agenus; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Biodesix; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy: Conjupro; Advisory / Consultancy: Genmab; Advisory / Consultancy: Gradalis; Advisory / Consultancy: ImmunoGen; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunomedics; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen/JohnsonJ Advisory / Consultancy: Mateon (formally Oxigene); Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Myriad; Advisory / Consultancy: Perthera; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Precison Oncology. T. Fehm: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer. N. Colombo: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): TESARO, Inc.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: PharmaMar; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: TESARO, Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy: BioCad. K. Hasegawa: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Daiichi-Sankyo; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Honoraria (self): Chugai; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Yakult Honsha; Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer. J.J. Li: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc.; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Spouse / Financial dependant: Celgene. K. Stein: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc.; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Novartis. S.M. Keefe: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. K. Tewari: Honoraria (self): TESARO, Inc.; Honoraria (self): Clovis Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche/Genentech; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca ; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (institution): Morphotek; Research grant / Funding (institution): Regeneron. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Objective: The purpose of this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis was to compile the response of historic treatment options in first-line settings for patient populations who are cisplatin ineligible. Materials and Methods: SLR was conducted to compile objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of historic therapies for this population based on stringent criteria. Clinical trials published in English from January 1991 to June 2016 were identified by searching the PubMed (Medline), Cochrane, and Embase databases. Results: Eighteen studies (21 arms; N=810) were identified and used for this meta-analysis. For all treatments included in these studies, the pooled ORR was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.42). The ORR for the carboplatin+gemcitabine arms (6 arms; N=259), which is the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s recommended first-line treatment (before approval of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab) for this population was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.30-0.42), the median DOR (4 arms) was 7.00 months (95% CI, 4.34-11.29), and the median OS was 8.39 months (95% CI, 7.05-9.98). Conclusions: The results of this SLR clearly demonstrate the paucity of clinical studies that assess therapeutic intervention in truly cisplatin-ineligible advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma subjects and highlight the development of novel therapies that can create real improvement in long-term outcomes. The recent approval of 2 checkpoint inhibitors, atezolizumab and pembrolizumab, were added in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidance as recommended first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and has provided alternatives for this patient population.

433 Background: PD-L1 immunohistochemistry and an 18-gene T cell–inflamed gene expression profile (GEP) are associated with response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy across tumor types, including urothelial carcinoma. A gene expression signature representing convergent biology related to stromal/EMT/TGF-β pathways was developed and prespecified for testing for association with pembrolizumab response in urothelial carcinoma patients treated on the KEYNOTE-052 trial (NCT02335424). Methods: KEYNOTE-052 was a single-arm phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Primary objective of this analysis was to assess the association between the Stromal/EMT/TGF-β signature and outcomes (best overall response [BOR], PFS, OS) as an independent biomarker and to understand its potential prognostic/predictive role beyond the T cell–inflamed GEP score or PD-L1 assessed using combined positive score (CPS). Cox regression models for PFS and OS and a logistic regression model for BOR evaluated associations between Stromal/EMT/TGF-β signature and outcomes adjusting for ECOG performance status (PS) and level of the GEP or CPS (1-sided P value). Results: RNA-Seq data from baseline tumor specimens were available for 187/370 patients on KEYNOTE-052. Lower Stromal/EMT/TGF-β score was associated with favorable BOR rate ( P < 0.001), PFS ( P < 0.001), and OS ( P = 0.002) after adjustment for ECOG PS and GEP (which remained significant at the 0.05 level in all cases). The patterns indicated a very consistent downward trend in the distribution of the Stromal/EMT/TGF-β score for responders versus nonresponders, regardless of GEP. In models that adjusted for both ECOG PS and PD-L1 CPS, the Stromal/EMT/TGF-β score remained significant (BOR rate, P = 0.002; PFS, P = 0.013; OS, P = 0.029). Conclusions: Higher Stromal/EMT/TGF-β signature was associated with resistance to pembrolizumab independently of GEP or PD-L1 in urothelial carcinoma patients on the KEYNOTE-052 trial. Clinical trial information: NCT02335424.

Abstract Background Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecologic cancer and is often diagnosed at advanced stages. The current standard of care (SOC) for advanced EOC is primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy (CT). Although SOC may be effective initially, most patients experience relapse within 3 years after treatment. Combination therapy with PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (pembro) plus PARP inhibitor niraparib resulted in efficacy in patients with platinum-resistant, relapsed OC in the phase 1/2 study TOPACIO/KEYNOTE-162. The PARP inhibitor olaparib is approved for women with newly diagnosed BRCA-mutated OC, as well as for platinum-sensitive, recurrent OC regardless of BRCA1/2 status. Pembro plus CT followed by olaparib maintenance therapy is being investigated in ENGOT-ov43/KEYLYNK-001 (NCT03740165), a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study for first-line treatment of women with BRCA1/2-nonmutated advanced EOC. Trial design Women with stage III or IV BRCA-nonmutated EOC, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer will be randomized 1:1:1 after one lead-in cycle of CT to receive pembro + CT followed by olaparib maintenance; pembro + CT followed by placebo; or placebo + CT followed by placebo. Stratification factors include surgery status (residual tumor after PDS [yes/no] or planned interval debulking), planned bevacizumab use (yes/no), and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS; Clinical trial identification NCT03740165. Legal entity responsible for the study Merck & Co., Inc. Funding Funding for this study was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure K. Fujiwara: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Chugai Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Taiho Pharmaceutical; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self): Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self): Janssen Oncology; Honoraria (self): Kyowa Hakko Kirin; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly Japan; Honoraria (self): Nippon Kayaku; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Ono Pharmaceutical; Honoraria (self): Zeria Pharmaceutical; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunogen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Kaken Pharmaceutical; Research grant / Funding (institution): Oncotherapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Shionogi. I.B. Vergote: Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PharmaMar; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Advaxis; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Genmab; Advisory / Consultancy: Millennium Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunogen; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: TESARO, Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Oncoinvent; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Sotio; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Takeda; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen. J. Sehouli: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Clovis; Honoraria (self): Olympus; Honoraria (self): JohnsonJ Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PharmaMar; Honoraria (self): Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: TESARO, Inc.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. P. Zola: Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: TESARO, Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Roche. R.M. Wenham: Research grant / Funding (self), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Ovation Diagnostics; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: TESARO, Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Mersana Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (self): TapImmune; Research grant / Funding (self): Merck; Research grant / Funding (self): Prescient Therapeutics. P. Pautier: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PharmaMar; Advisory / Consultancy: GlaxoSmithKline. S. Lheureux: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): TESARO, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche/Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): Regeneron. K. Hasegawa: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Daiichi-Sankyo; Honoraria (self): Chugai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Yakult Honsha; Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer. C-H. Lai: Research grant / Funding (self): Roche; Research grant / Funding (self): TTY Biopharm. A. Gonzalez-Martinez: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): TESARO, Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pharmama. Q. Liu: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. S.M. Keefe: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. M. Puglisi: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.