Category: 3. Business

  • Trastuzumab Rezetecan Improves PFS Vs SOC in HER2+ Breast Cancer | Targeted Oncology

    Trastuzumab Rezetecan Improves PFS Vs SOC in HER2+ Breast Cancer | Targeted Oncology

    The novel HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab rezetecan (SHR-A1811) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 78% compared with the standard combination of pyrotinib (Irene) plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, according to findings from the phase 3 HORIZON-Breast01 trial (NCT05424835) presented at the 2025 ESMO Annual Congress.1

    At an overall median follow-up of about 15.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) was 30.6 months (95% CI, 16.8–not reached) in the trastuzumab rezetecan arm compared with 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9–11.0) in the combination arm (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15–0.34; P <.0001). The 12-month PFS rates were 84.7% vs 35.5%, respectively.

    The median investigator-assessed PFS was 33.3 months vs 8.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10–0.25). Per the investigators, the 12-month PFS rate was 86.7% vs 36.0% in the experimental vs combination arms, respectively.

    The median PFS benefit with trastuzumab rezetecan was upheld across all predefined patient subgroups. Of note, the benefit was sustained regardless of prior pertuzumab (Perjeta) treatment and regardless of the number of prior lines of therapy.

    The overall survival (OS) data remained immature at the time of the data cutoff; however, there was a trend toward an OS benefit with trastuzumab rezetecan. The 12-month OS rate was 96.3% with the ADC vs 88.4% with the combination (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.69).

    “Notably, 50.3% of patients in the combination arm received an anti-HER2 ADC as post-study anticancer treatment, suggesting the initial trend we observed with the OS benefit [for trastuzumab rezetecan] might be meaningful,” said presenting author Erwei Song, MD, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

    The objective response rate (ORR) was 81.7% vs 55.9% in the ADC vs combination arms, respectively. The complete response, partial response, and stable disease rates were 4.2% vs 2.8%, 77.5% vs 53.15%, and 14.1% vs 31.0%, respectively. The disease control rate was 95% vs 86.9% and the progressive disease rate was 0.7% vs 9%, respectively. The median duration of response was 27.8 months vs 10.9 months, respectively.

    The median treatment duration was 19.5 months for the ADC, 7.1 months for pyrotinib, and 7.5 months for capecitabine, indicating the ADC was well tolerated. Regarding safety, 13.4% of the ADC arm experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs 11.8% of the combination arm. The rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs was 4.9% vs 1.4%, respectively.

    Song also noted that the majority of patients in the ADC arm had hematologic toxicities, with about 89.4% of patients experiencing neutrophil count decrease across all grades compared with 45.1% in the combination arm. He also noted that only 2.8% of the ADC arm experienced interstitial lung disease (ILD), including only 1 patient with grade 3 ILD.

    “Trastuzumab rezetecan exhibited a significant PFS benefit and a strong trend in OS vs pyrotinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane,” Song said.

    What Was the Study Design of the HORIZON-Breast01 Trial?

    The open-label, multicenter phase 3 HORIZON-Breast01 study enrolled 287 patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer who had prior treatment with a taxane and trastuzumab (Herceptin) in the advanced setting.

    Patients were randomized to trastuzumab rezetecan (n = 142; 4.8 mg/kg IV on day 1 of 21-day cycles) or the combination of pyrotinib (n = 145; 400 mg once daily oral on days 1–21 of 21-day cycles) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1–14 of 21-day cycles). Treatment was administered until disease progression, patient withdrawal, unacceptable toxicity, or investigator decision.

    The primary outcome measure was PFS per BICR. Secondary end points included PFS per investigator assessment, OS, ORR, duration of response, and safety.

    What Were the Patient Characteristics in the HORIZON-Breast01 Trial?

    The study enrolled 287 eligible patients with HER2-positive breast cancer between August 4, 2022, and August 9, 2024. The data cutoff date was June 30, 2025.

    Across the overall study population, the median age was 56 years (range, 27–74), about three-fourths of patients had IHC 3+ HER2 status and the remainder had IHC 2+ and ISH+ status. Almost half of patients were hormone receptor-positive. About three-fourths of patients in the trial had visceral metastases and about 47% had more than 3 organs with tumor metastases. The ECOG performance status (PS) was evenly split between 0 and 1 in the trastuzumab rezetecan arm, while in the combination arm, 58% were ECOG PS 0 and 42% were ECOG PS 1.

    The median number of prior treatment lines across all patients was 1 (range, 1–4). Most patients had received 1 prior line of therapy at 83.8% and 76.6% in the trastuzumab rezetecan and combination arms, respectively. In the experimental arm, 39.4% of patients had primary resistance to trastuzumab compared with 44.8% of patients in the combination arm. All patients had prior taxane therapy and all except 3 patients had prior trastuzumab. Three-fourths of patients overall had prior pertuzumab. Prior trastuzumab emtansine and endocrine therapy had been received by 4.9% vs 6.9% and 29.6% vs 28.3% of the 2 arms respectively.

    In his concluding remarks, Song said “Trastuzumab rezetecan represents a promising practice-changing therapeutic alternative in this patient population.”

    REFERENCE:
    Song E, Yao H, Li H, et a. LBA19 – SHR-A1811 versus pyrotinib plus capecitabine in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (BC): A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III study (HORIZON-Breast01). Results of a phase II study. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA19.

    Continue Reading

  • Tislelizumab Plus Chemo/Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Yields Survival Advantage in Locally Advanced ESCC

    Tislelizumab Plus Chemo/Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Yields Survival Advantage in Locally Advanced ESCC

    The addition of tislelizumab-jsgr (Tevimbra) to induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) boasted higher composite complete response (cCR) rates, which translated to improved survival vs the historical control of concurrent CRT alone, in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), according to data from the phase 2 EC-CRT-002 trial (NCT05520619) presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress.1

    Patients were randomly assigned to group A (n = 57) or group B (n = 57). Investigators also included a historical control group for comparison consisting of 55 patients from a phase 2 trial (NCT02403531) who experienced a 1-year PFS rate of 56% with concurrent CRT alone. Patients in group A received induction chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel plus cisplatin every 3 weeks for 2 cycles; concurrent CRT with intensity modulated radiation therapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions and paclitaxel plus cisplatin every week for 5 cycles; and tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for a total of 16 cycles (induction, n = 2; concurrent, n = 2; adjuvant, n = 12). Patients in group B received the same treatment schedule with the exception that tislelizumab was only administered for a total of 4 cycles (induction, n = 2; concurrent, n = 2).

    Sidebar: Notable Findings From the EC-CRT-002 Trial

    • Two different schedules of tislelizumab plus induction chemotherapy and concurrent CRT led to cCR rates of 51% and 70% vs the historical control of 40% with concurrent CRT alone in patients with ESCC.
    • The 1-year PFS rates with the 2 tislelizumab regimens were 52% and 73% vs 56% with the control.
    • Treatment-related adverse effecrs included lymphopenia, esophagitis, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, pneumonitis, esophageal fistula, alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase level elevation, and rash.

    The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate in group A was 52% vs 56% with the control (P = .52). The 1-year PFS rate in group B was 73% vs 56% with the control (P = .024). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates were 82% and 69% in group A and the control arm, respectively (P = .32). The respective 1-year OS rates in group B vs the control arm were 85% and 69% (P = .004).

    “Tislelizumab plus induction chemotherapy and concurrent CRT demonstrated superior efficacy and manageable toxicity compared [with] chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced ESCC,” Mian Xi, MD, lead study author and chief physician of radiation oncology at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, said in a presentation.

    What Is the Background of the EC-CRT-002 Trial?

    Definitive CRT is the preferred standard of care (SOC) for patients with locally advanced ESCC. Findings from a prior randomized phase 2 trial (NCT02403531) led by Xi failed to show an OS benefit with the addition of induction chemotherapy to definitive CRT vs definitive CRT alone in patients with ESCC.2 However, patients who responded to induction chemotherapy displayed improved OS vs those in the CRT alone arm.

    As such, investigators theorized that combining anti–PD-1 therapy with induction chemotherapy and concurrent CRT could improve OS, resulting in a new SOC for patients with locally advanced disease.

    This served as the basis for the present multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, phase 2 trial. To be eligible for enrollment, patients had to have newly diagnosed, unresectable, locally advanced, histologically confirmed ESCC; be between the ages of 18 and 70 years; have an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2; and have no history of a concomitant or prior malignancy.

    The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points were OS, cCR, safety, and quality of life.

    Between October 2022 and October 2024, 114 patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment. The data cutoff was July 31, 2025.

    What Did the Demographic Information Reveal About the Patients in the EC-CRT-002 Trial?

    Baseline characteristics in group A (n = 57) indicated that most patients were male (84%) and had upper (49%) or middle (37%) as opposed to distal (14%) tumors. The median age was 61 years (range, 38-70), and represented cTNM stages were II (5%), III (33%), IVA (39%), and IVB (23%). In group B (n = 57), most patients were male (75%) and had upper (42%) or middle (42%) vs distal (16%) tumors. The median age was 61 years (range, 37-70), and cTNM stages included II (4%), III (32%), IVA (39%), and IVB (26%).

    What Other Efficacy Data Were Presented From the EC-CRT-002 Trial, and What Was the Safety Profile of the Regimen?

    The cCR rates were 51% and 40% in group A vs the control arm (P = .334). Patients in group B and the control arm experienced cCR rates of 70% and 40%, respectively (P = .003).

    Treatment-related adverse effects included lymphopenia (74.6%), esophagitis (16.7%), anemia (14.9%), leukopenia (13.2%), neutropenia (8.8%), pneumonitis (2.6%), esophageal fistula (2.6%), alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase level elevation (1.8%), and rash (0.9%).

    Exploratory analysis revealed that patients with PD-L1 combined positive scores (CPS) of 1 or greater had improved PFS vs those with PD-L1 CPS below 1 (P = .036). Moreover, patients with higher levels of CD8 positivity had improved PFS (P = .017). Patients who tested negative for circulating tumor DNA also experienced improved survival (P < .001).

    “[The] benefit of adjuvant immunotherapy after definitive CRT remains uncertain,” Xi concluded.

    Disclosures: Xi had no disclosures to declare.

    References

    1. Xi M, Chen B, Liu S, et al. Tislelizumab combined with induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial (EC-CRT-002). Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA82.
    2. Liu S, Luo L, Zhao L, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized phase II trial. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4014. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24288-1

    Continue Reading

  • Zipalertinib Shows Early Efficacy With Manageable Safety in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC With CNS or Leptomeningeal Disease

    Zipalertinib Shows Early Efficacy With Manageable Safety in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC With CNS or Leptomeningeal Disease

    The intracranial objective response rate (ORR) in RANO-BM–evaluable patients (n = 16) was 31.3% (n = 5), which included 1 intracranial complete response. Notably, 2 of 5 intracranial responders also had leptomeningeal disease at baseline, and 4 of the 5 did not receive prior CNS radiotherapy. The intracranial disease control rate (DCR) was 68.8%, and the median intracranial duration of response (DOR) was 8.1 months (95% CI, 3.1-not evaluable).

    The systemic ORR in RECIST 1.1–evaluable patients (n = 29) was 27.6% (n = 8) and the DCR was 58.6%. The median DOR was 7.6 months (95% CI, 2.07-9.07).

    “Zipalertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful intracranial antitumor activity…in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions or other uncommon single or compound uncommon mutations,” Helena A. Yu, MD, attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, stated in the presentation. “The intracranial response rate was similar to the systemic response rate in the reported population,” Yu added.

    Antitumor Activity With Zipalertinib in CNS Metastatic, Uncommon EGFR+ NSCLC

    1. The intracranial ORR in RANO-BM–evaluable patients was 31.3%
    1. The intracranial DCR was 68.8%, and the median intracranial DOR was 8.1 months
    1. The systemic ORR in RECIST 1.1–evaluable patients was 27.6%; the DCR was 58.6% and the median DOR was 7.6 months

    What Led to Zipalertinib’s Evaluation in the REZILENT2 Trial?

    Poor prognosis is associated with the presence of CNS metastases in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, reflecting a clinical need for more effective treatment options.

    Zipalertinib is an oral, highly selective, irreversible EGFR TKI that has proven active in advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in the phase 1/2 REZILIENT1 trial (NCT04036682), including in patients with CNS metastases.2

    To be eligible for enrollment in the subsequent REZILIENT2 trial, patients had to be at least 18 years of age and have received a diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with documented exon 20 insertions or other uncommon single or compound non–EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. Measurable disease per RECIST 1.1/CNS per RANO-BM criteria was also required, as was an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

    Patients with active brain metastases had to be newly diagnosed and/or have progressing brain lesions without CNS targeted therapy and/or leptomeningeal disease. There was no limit on the number of prior therapies patients could have received in the advanced or metastatic setting.

    Patients received 100 mg of oral zipalertinib twice daily until progressive disease or other discontinuation criteria were met. A total of 32 patients were enrolled, 16 of whom were evaluable by RANO-BM.

    The data cutoff was February 17, 2025, and the study remains ongoing.

    The primary end point was ORR per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included intracranial ORR, intracranial DOR, intracranial DCR per RANO-BM, and safety.

    What Were the Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population?

    Within the RANO-BM–evaluable population (n = 16), 62.5% had not received prior CNS radiotherapy. Among all enrolled patients (n = 32), 68.8% did not receive any prior CNS radiotherapy.

    In the former population, the median age was 63.0 years (range, 23-75). Most patients were female (56%), White (63%), and had an ECOG performance status of 1 (63.0%). Almost one-fifth (19%) of patients had leptomeningeal disease. Most patients also had EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations (56%) as opposed to other EGFR mutations (44%). The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 2 (range, 0-4); 56% had received prior EGFR TKI therapy and 6% received prior amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant).

    Within the total population, the median age was 62.5 years (range, 23-83). Most patients were female (56%), White (50%), and had an ECOG performance status of 1 (72.0%). Almost one-fifth (19%) of patients had leptomeningeal disease. Most patients also had EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations (66%) as opposed to other EGFR mutations (41%). The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 2 (range, 0-4); 44% had received prior EGFR TKI therapy and 6% received prior amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant).

    How Safe Was the Agent?

    Yu also noted that the safety profile of zipalertinib at the given dose of 100 mg twice daily was consistent with that from prior data. Yu emphasized the low incidence of EGFR-related grade 3 or greater toxicity, noting that there was no grade 3 or greater diarrhea. Moreover, 2 cases of fatal interstitial lung disease occurred.

    Treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) that occurred in at least 15% of patients included paronychia (grade 1, 6.3%; grade 2, 15.6%; grade ≥3, 3.1%), dermatitis aceniform (grade 1, 9.4%; grade 2, 9.4%; grade ≥3, 3.1%), stomatitis (grade 1, 15.6%; grade 2, 6.3%; grade ≥3, 0%), anemia (grade 1, 9.4%; grade 2, 0%; grade ≥3, 9.4%), dry skin (grade 1, 6.3%; grade 2, 9.4%; grade ≥3, 0%), and rash (grade 1, 6.3%; grade 2, 6.3%; grade ≥3, 3.1%).

    Dose interruptions due to TRAEs occurred in 15.6% of patients.

    “The study is ongoing and full results from cohort C of the REZILENT2 trial will be forthcoming in a future presentation,” Yu concluded.

    Disclosures: Yu reported consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, C4 Therapeutics, Cullinan Oncology, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Taiho Oncology, AbbVie, Novocure, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb/Roche, Orion Clinical; research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Cullinan Oncology (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Erasca, Inc (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Black Diamond Therapeutics (Inst), and Systimmune (Inst); and other relationship with Astellas Pharma.

    References

    1. Yu HA, Ohashi K, Ariyasu R, et al. Activity of zipalertinib against active central nervous system (CNS) metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion (ex20ins)/other uncommon mutations. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 1847MO.
    2. Piotrowska Z, Passaro A, Nguyen D, et al. Zipalertinib in patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor exon 20 insertion-positive non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(21):2387-2397. doi:10.1200/JCO-25-00763

    Continue Reading

  • Perioperative Durvalumab Maintains HRQOL in Muscle-Invasive BC

    Perioperative Durvalumab Maintains HRQOL in Muscle-Invasive BC

    Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, presented the findings at the 2025 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Berlin, Germany.

    At last year’s ESMO Congress in Barcelona, Spain, Thomas B. Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, presented findings from NIAGARA. The patient population consisted of adults with cisplatin-eligible MIBC (cT2-T4aN0/1M0), urothelial cancer or urothelial cancer with divergent differentiation or histologic subtypes, evaluated and confirmed for radical cystectomy, and with creatine clearance of 40 mL/min or lower. Patient were randomly assigned 1:1 to either the durvalumab arm or the comparator arm. Patients in the durvalumab arm received neoadjuvant durvalumab, 1500 mg intravenously every 3 weeks and gemcitabine plus cisplatin for 4 cycles followed by radical cystectomy and 8 cycles of adjuvant durvalumab. Patients in the comparator arm received 4 cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin for 4 cycles followed by radical cystectomy. The 2 primary end points were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response. Regarding EFS, there was a significant reduction in risk (HR=0.68, 95% CI, 0.56-0.82). Median follow-up was 42.3 months (range 0.03-61.3 months).2,3

    Data from NIAGARA supported the FDA’s approval of neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin, followed by adjuvant durvalumab monotherapy following radical cystectomy, for adult patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer.4

    At ESMO 2025, van der Heijden presented HRQOL outcomes from the NIAGARA study. In NIAGARA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L were assessed via electronic device at baseline and every 4 weeks until disease progression. van der Heijden explained that the EORTC QLQ-C30 measures global health scale (GHS)/QoL as well as functional and symptom subscales. GHS/QoL and Physical, Fatigue, and Pain were included in NIAGARA as prespecified priority subscales, with a 10-point change in score compared with baseline being deemed clinically meaningful.

    The EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale is constructed for patients to rate their current overall health; for NIAGARA, the investigators reported visual analogue scale change from baseline.

    A total of 439 (82.4%) of patients in the durvalumab arm completed the baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 assessment vs 450 (84.9%) patients in the comparator arm. In addition, 416 (78.0%) patients in the durvalumab arm completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline assessment vs 410 (77.4%) of patients in the comparator arm. The compliance rate range from baseline to adjuvant week 29 was 50.9%-82.4% in the durvalumab arm vs 44.3%-84.9% in the comparator arm.

    For the EQ-5D-5L, 417 (78.2%) patients completed the baseline assessment vs 430 (81.1%) patients in the comparator arm. Further, 391 (73.4%) patients in the durvalumab arm completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline assessment vs 380 (71.7%) patients in the comparator arm. The compliance rate range from baseline to adjuvant week 29 was 49.9%-78.2% in the durvalumab arm vs 43.2%-81.1% in the comparator arm.

    For GHS/QoL, van der Heijden reported that that the difference between arms for overall mean change from baseline (CFB) was 1.6 (95% CI, –0.44 to 3.69), and with the Physical Functioning subscale, the difference between arms for overall CFB was 1.2 (95% CI, –0.80 to 3.17). For the Fatigue subscale, the difference between arms for overall CFB was –0.9 (95% CI, –3.25 to 1.52), and for the Pain subscale, the difference between arms for overall CFB was –2.1 (95% CI, –4.44 to 0.16).

    The EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale “also did not show any difference between the treatment arms,” according to van der Heijden.

    “Overall, the addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved event-free survival and overall survival without adversely affecting patient-reported outcomes,” van der Heijden said in his concluding remarks.

    References

    1. van der Heijden M, Powles TB, Galsky MD, et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from the NIAGARA trial of perioperative durvalumab (D) plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Presented at: European Society for Medical Oncology Congress. October 17-21, 2025. Berlin, Germany. Abstract 3069MO.
    2. Powles TB, van der Heijden MS, Galsky MD, et al. A randomized phase III trial of neoadjuvant durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy and adjuvant durvalumab in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NIAGARA). Presented at: 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Congress. September 13-17, 2024. Barcelona, Spain. Abstract LBA5.
    3. Powles T, Catto JWF, Galsky MD, et al. Perioperative durvalumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable bladder cancer. N Engl J Med. Published online September 15, 2024. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2408154
    4. FDA approves durvalumab for muscle invasive bladder cancer. News release. US Food & Drug Administration. Published online March 28, 2025. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-durvalumab-muscle-invasive-bladder-cancer
    5. IMFINZI (durvalumab) approved in the US as first and only perioperative immunotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. News release. AstraZeneca. Published online March 31, 2025. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.astrazeneca-us.com/media/press-releases/2025/IMFINZI-durvalumab-approved-in-the-US-as-first-and-only-perioperative-immunotherapy-for-patients-with-muscle-invasive-bladder-cancer.html

    Continue Reading

  • Disitamab Vedotin/Toripalimab Combo Prolongs Survival in Frontline HER2+ Urothelial Cancer

    Disitamab Vedotin/Toripalimab Combo Prolongs Survival in Frontline HER2+ Urothelial Cancer

    Disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab-tpzi (Loqtorzi) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in survival compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy as a frontline treatment for patients with HER2-expressing locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, according to results from the phase 3 RC48-C016 trial (NCT05302284) shared at the 2025 ESMO Congress.1 Results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.2

    With a median survival follow-up of 18.2 months and a data cutoff date of March 31, 2025, the median progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent review committee (BIRC) was 13.1 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.7) with the disitamab vedotin treatment compared with 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.7-7.4) with chemotherapy, representing a 64% reduction in the risk of progression or death (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.28-0.46; P <.0001). The 12- and 18-month PFS rates with disitamab vedotin were 54.5% and 38.4%, respectively, vs 16.2% and 7.5% with chemotherapy.

    The median overall survival (OS) was 31.5 months (95% CI, 21.7-not evaluable) in the disitamab vedotin arm compared with 16.9 months (95% CI, 14.6-21.7) in the chemotherapy arm, correlating with a 46% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.73; P <.0001). The 12-, 18-, and 24-month OS rates in the disitamab vedotin arm were 79.5%, 64.6%, and 52.8%; in the chemotherapy arm, these rates were 62.5%, 48.1%, and 39.4%.

    The PFS and OS benefits were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

    In the disitamab vedotin arm, the overall response rate (ORR) per BIRC was 76.1% (95% CI, 70.3%-81.3%), with complete responses (CRs) in 4.5% and partial responses (PRs) in 71.6% of patients; in the chemotherapy arm, the ORR was 50.2% (95% CI, 43.7%-56.7%), with CRs in 1.2% and PRs in 49.0%. The investigator-assessed ORR with disitamab vedotin was 71.6% (95% CI, 65.5%-77.2%), with CRs in 4.1% and PRs in 67.5% of patients compared with a 49.8% ORR (95% CI, 43.3%-56.3%) with chemotherapy, comprising of CRs in 3.3% and PRs in 46.5% of patients.

    The median duration of response per BIRC was 14.6 months (95% CI, 11.3-18.7) with the disitamab vedotin combination compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.3-5.8) with chemotherapy. In the disitamab vedotin arm, the 6-, 12-, and 18-month DOR rates were 78.9%, 58.5%, and 42.4%; in the chemotherapy arm, these rates were 37.2%, 19.0%, and 8.7%.

    “The phase 3 RC48-C016 study demonstrated for the first time superiority of an anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugate plus an anti-PD1 inhibitor in a biomarker-selected patient population with [locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer],” lead study author Jun Guo, of the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research in the Department of Melanoma and Sarcoma at Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, China, said in the presentation. “Disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab offers a valuable new treatment option and represents a new standard of care for the [first-line] treatment of patients with HER2-expressing [locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer].”

    The open-label RC48-CO16 trial randomly assigned 484 patients 1:1 to receive either disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab (n = 243) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin/carboplatin (n = 241). Treatment consisted of 2.0 mg/kg of intravenous disitamab vedotin and 3.0 mg/kg of toripalimab every 2 weeks, or gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 and cisplatin at 70 mg/m2 on day 1 or carboplatin at area under curve 4.5 on day 1 every 3 weeks. There was no maximum number of cycles set for the disitamab vedotin treatment, and the maximum number of chemotherapy cycles was 6.

    Eligible patients in the trial had no prior systemic treatment for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and central lab-confirmed HER2 immunohistochemistry of 1+, 2+, or 3+; additionally, patients were eligible for cisplatin or carboplatin, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

    The primary end points were PFS per BIRC and OS. Secondary end points included PFS by investigators, ORR, DCR, DOR, safety, and quality of life.

    Subsequent systemic anticancer treatment was received by 27.2% of patients on the disitamab vedotin arm and 64.7% of the chemotherapy arm; this comprised anti–HER2-containing therapy in 2.1% and 40.2%, respectively, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy in 10.7% and 50.2%, and both in 0.8% and 31.1%.

    Regarding safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 100% of patients across both arms, and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 98.8% of patients on the disitamab vedotin arm and 100% of those on the chemotherapy arm. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs occurred in 55.1% and 86.9% of patients, respectively; grade 3, 4, and 5 TRAEs were observed in 44.0%, 9.9%, and 1.2% of those on the experimental arm vs 41.9%, 43.7%, and 1.4% of the chemotherapy arm. TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 12.3% vs 10.4%, respectively.

    Any-grade and grade 3 or higher immune-related AEs occurred in 46.9% and 18.9% of the disitamab vedotin arm.

    Disclosures: Guo noted having advisory board/consultant roles for MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Simcere, RemeGen, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience, and Oriengene.

    References

    1. Sheng X, Zeng G, Zhang C, et al. Disitamab vedotin (DV) plus toripalimab (T) versus chemotherapy (C) in first-line (1L) locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with HER2-expression. Presented at the 2025 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA7.
    2. Sheng X, Zeng G, Zhang C, et al. Disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab in HER2-expressing advanced urothelial cancer. N Engl J Med. Published online October 19, 2025. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2511648

    Continue Reading

  • A Fresh Look at Siemens (XTRA:SIE) Valuation Following Recent Share Price Momentum

    A Fresh Look at Siemens (XTRA:SIE) Valuation Following Recent Share Price Momentum

    Siemens (XTRA:SIE) shares are catching attention as investors revisit the company’s performance over the past month. The stock has climbed 6% during this period, showing steady momentum as part of a broader review of the capital goods sector.

    See our latest analysis for Siemens.

    Zooming out, Siemens’ recent share price return of 25.79% year-to-date reflects ongoing optimism, with the 1-year total shareholder return coming in at 31.18%. Performance has been strong over the past several years, highlighting resilient long-term momentum alongside solid recent gains.

    Curious what else is gaining strength beyond the capital goods sector? Now is a great time to broaden your outlook and discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership

    Given Siemens’ strong run, investors now face a key question: are shares still undervalued, or is the market already pricing in all the anticipated growth and leaving little room for new buyers?

    The latest narrative consensus values Siemens at €250.22, modestly above the last close of €237.90, setting up a closely contested case for whether shares offer a real margin of safety.

    The large, resilient order backlog (€117 billion) and continued strong book-to-bill ratios in core areas such as Mobility and Smart Infrastructure position the company for robust multi-year revenue visibility and support higher consolidated earnings.

    Read the complete narrative.

    Want to know the key drivers behind Siemens’ current valuation? The narrative hinges on ambitious revenue momentum and increased margins, supported by analyst forecasts that might surprise even seasoned investors. Craving details on the numbers at the heart of these projections? Dive in to uncover what makes this fair value so compelling.

    Result: Fair Value of €250.22 (UNDERVALUED)

    Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.

    However, ongoing macroeconomic uncertainties and intensifying global competition could dampen Siemens’ growth outlook and challenge the current optimism around its valuation.

    Find out about the key risks to this Siemens narrative.

    While the consensus sees Siemens as modestly undervalued, our analysis of the company’s price-to-earnings ratio offers a different nuance. Siemens trades at 23.4 times earnings, slightly above the industry average of 22.2, but well below its peer average of 53.5 and its own fair ratio of 26.9. This premium to the sector signals confidence in Siemens’ fundamentals, yet also suggests the margin for error is narrower. Can the company’s future growth justify its valuation, or does this leave the shares more vulnerable to disappointment?

    See what the numbers say about this price — find out in our valuation breakdown.

    XTRA:SIE PE Ratio as at Oct 2025

    If you see things differently, or would rather dig into the figures yourself, you can easily shape your own view in just a few minutes. Do it your way

    A great starting point for your Siemens research is our analysis highlighting 3 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision.

    If you want to gain an edge, don’t stop at Siemens. Uncover powerful opportunities that others might miss by tapping into Simply Wall Street’s top-rated stock screeners.

    This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

    Companies discussed in this article include SIE.xtra.

    Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

    Continue Reading

  • ESMO 2025: CELC-G-201: Phase 1/2 Study of Gedatolisib in Combination with Darolutamide in mCRPC – UroToday

    1. ESMO 2025: CELC-G-201: Phase 1/2 Study of Gedatolisib in Combination with Darolutamide in mCRPC  UroToday
    2. Celcuity Presents Updated Data at the 2025 ESMO Congress from Phase 1 Study Evaluating Gedatolisib Plus Darolutamide in Men with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (“mCRPC”)  Yahoo Finance
    3. Celcuity Inc. Reports Promising Phase 1 Clinical Trial Results for Gedatolisib Combined with Nubeqa® in Advanced Prostate Cancer  Quiver Quantitative
    4. Celcuity Inc. Presents Updated Data At the 2025 Esmo Congress from Phase 1 Study Evaluating Gedatolisib Plus Darolutamide in Men with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer  MarketScreener
    5. Celcuity reports positive Phase 1 data for prostate cancer therapy  Investing.com

    Continue Reading

  • Durvalumab Plus Chemo Yields Inconclusive Results in Advanced Pleural Mesothelioma

    Durvalumab Plus Chemo Yields Inconclusive Results in Advanced Pleural Mesothelioma

    Durvalumab (Imfinzi) in combination with chemotherapy produced outcomes consistent with prior studies in patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, demonstrating favorable overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) trends, according to findings from the phase 3 DREAM3R trial (NCT04334759) presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress. However, challenges with patient accrual and evolving standard-of-care practices limited the conclusiveness of the results.

    Data were presented at the 2025 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress. Durvalumab and chemotherapy yielded a median OS of 21 months (95% CI, 18–27) vs 18 months for chemotherapy alone (95% CI, 14–30) for a HR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63–1.36; stratified log-rank P =.9). Median PFS were 8 months (95% CI, 8–10) with the combination vs 7 months (95% CI, 6–8) with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.5–0.98; P =.20). ORRs were 58% and 35%, respectively (P =.005).

    The safety profiles of chemotherapy with or without durvalumab were consistent with the known profiles of the agents. Fatigue, nausea, and anemia were the most common adverse events (AEs) in both arms.

    What Was the Rationale and Design of the DREAM3R Trial?

    Durvalumab was assessed in the phase 2 DREAM (ACTRN12616001170415) and PrE0505 (NCT02899195). In these studies, durvalumab showed promising activity in combination with pemetrexed and either cisplatin or carboplatin chemotherapy.

    The phase 3 DREAM3R study randomized patients 2:1 to receive durvalumab 1500 mg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for 4 to 6 cycles, followed by durvalumab maintenance 1500 mg every 4 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, or chemotherapy every 3 weeks for 4 to 6 cycles. Accrual started in February 2021.

    However, the results of the CheckMate 743 study (NCT02899299) published in 2021 showed that nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) significantly improved OS vs chemotherapy.2 As the standard of care in pleural mesothelioma had changed, the study design changed to incorporate a nivolumab/ipilimumab arm, and randomization changed to 1:1 durvalumab/chemotherapy or physician’s choice of nivolumab/ipilimumab or chemotherapy.1 At this ESMO Congress, only data from the durvalumab and chemotherapy cohorts were presented.

    A total of 114 patients received chemotherapy and durvalumab and 60 patients received chemotherapy alone. The study’s primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included PFS, ORR, and AEs.

    What Are the Next Steps?

    During her presentation, Anna Nowak, MD, deputy vice chancellor at the University of Western Australia, noted that, while DREAM3R was a well-designed study, due to the early stopping of DREAM3R, it is unlikely that the study question will ever be answered.

    “The key limitation is that slow accrual led to early stopping, and this slow accrual was no doubt, an artifact, partly of the global pandemic, but also then of a change of clinical practice as a result of the of the CheckMate 743 study and subsequent regulatory approval and standard clinical care use,” Nowak explained. “These design modifications add complexity to the interpretation of this clinical trial, and of course, chemotherapy alone would no longer be considered standard of care.”

    Nowak did note that the high objective tumor response and control observed with chemotherapy and durvalumab raised the potential for future testing in the neoadjuvant setting. Additionally, correlative biomarkers that were collected from DREAM3R are also under ongoing analysis.

    Further, Nowak emphasized the importance of timely activation of randomized phase 3 trials after positive phase 2 trials “is critically important to seize the window of opportunity for accrual and provide reliable answers.” Nowak added that, “the reasons for the delay in starting this trial were multifactorial.”

    Disclosures: Nowak declared participation on AstraZeneca Data Safety Monitoring Board, board membership on Cancer Council Western Australia, position on Cancer Australia Advisory Council, and president-elect of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group.

    References

    1. Nowak A. Primary results of DREAM3R: DuRvalumab (MEDI4736) with chemotherapy as first line treatment in advanced pleural Mesothelioma – A phase 3 Randomised trial. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17–20, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA104.

    2. Baas P, Scherpereel A, Nowak AK, et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-386. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32714-8. Epub 2021 Jan 21.

    Continue Reading

  • Tolerability and PFS Benefit Shown for Sirexatamab in DKK1-High mCRC | Targeted Oncology

    Tolerability and PFS Benefit Shown for Sirexatamab in DKK1-High mCRC | Targeted Oncology

    Sirexatamab (DKN-01) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) and standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy was safe and tolerable compared with bevacizumab and SOC in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). In particular, patients in the DKK1-high subgroup demonstrated a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), according to findings of the phase 2 DeFianCe trial (NCT05480306), presented at the 2025 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.1

    In the intent-to-treat population, patients who received the DKK1 inhibiting IgG4 antibody sirexatamab demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 35.1% (95% CI, 25.5%-45.6%) vs 26.6% (95% CI, 18.0%-36.7%) for the control arm (P = .10). Median PFS was 9.2 months in the experimental arm vs 8.3 months in the control arm (P = .17).

    “Neither of these 2 outcomes reached statistical significance,” lead author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, said during the presentation of data. “However, looking at the DKK1-high population, defined as the upper median, the improvement started to bear fruit,” Wainberg, professor of medicine at UCLA and codirector, UCLA GI program, at UCLA Health in California continued.

    There were 50 patients with higher DKK1 in the sirexatamab arm and 38 in the control arm. The ORR in the sirexatamab arm was 38.0% (95% CI, 24.7%-52.8%) vs 23.7% (95% CI, 11.4%-40.2%) in the control arm (P = .0706). Median PFS in the experimental arm was 9.03 months vs 7.06 months (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-1.0; P = .0255). Median OS was not reached in the experimental arm vs 14.39 months in the control arm (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91; P = .0118).

    What Was the DeFianCe Trial Design?

    After an initial safety run-in period (n = 33), a total of 188 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either sirexatamab plus either leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) or leucovorin, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) and bevacizumab (n = 94) vs FOLFIRI or FOLFOX and bevacizumab (n = 94).

    Patients were eligible if they had received 1 prior 5-FU–based therapy, had microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC, and did not have a BRAF V600 mutation. The stratification factors were tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior antiangiogenesis therapy (yes vs no).

    The primary end point was investigator-assessed PFS and the secondary end points were safety, ORR, and OS. Key exploratory end points were PFS, ORR, and the OS of the DKK1-high subgroup.

    What Were the Patient Baseline Characteristics?

    The study was well-balanced for gender and region. The majority of patients were male across the arms (experimental, 68%; control, 55%). In the experimental arm, the majority of patients were from South Korea (53%) compared with 48% in the control arm. Forty-four percent of patients were from the United States in the experimental arm and 43% in the control arm. The majority of patients had left-sided tumors (both 75%).

    “This was a predominantly liver-metastatic patient population, with nearly 75% in both arms having liver metastatic disease,” Wainberg said. Further, 47% of patients in the experimental arm had RAS-mutated disease compared with 57% in the control arm. Looking at prior systemic therapy, 48% of patients in the experimental arm had received antiangiogenesis therapy compared with 51% in the control arm.

    What Was the Safety Profile?

    The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for sirexatamab was similar to the chemotherapy arm, suggesting that the addition of the agent does not adversely impact the safety profile of the combined agents.

    In the experimental arm, 15% of patients discontinued therapy compared with 19% in the control arm. In the patients with DKK1-high status, 4% discontinued in the treatment arm vs not applicable in the control arm. Dose reductions affected 37% of patients in the experimental arm compared with 43% in the control arm. Dose interruptions were similar, with 73% in the experimental arm and 71% in the control arm.

    “These data support continued development of sirexatamab in DKK1-high previously treated patients with mCRC,” Wainberg concluded.

    DISCLOSURES: Dr Wainberg disclosed that he has provided consulting services to Alligator Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Roche AG, Genentech, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merus NV, Merck, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Servier, and Verastem.

    REFERENCE
    Wainberg ZA, Han S-W, Kim JG, et al. DeFianCe Trial: A randomized phase 2 trial of sirexatamab (DKN-01) plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus bevacizumab and chemotherapy as second-line therapy in advanced microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC). Presented at: 2025 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA34.

    Continue Reading

  • Chemotherapy Plus Durvalumab, Bevacizumab, and Olaparib Fails to Offer OS Benefit in Newly Diagnosed Non-tBRCA–Mutated Ovarian Cancer

    Chemotherapy Plus Durvalumab, Bevacizumab, and Olaparib Fails to Offer OS Benefit in Newly Diagnosed Non-tBRCA–Mutated Ovarian Cancer

    Platinum-based chemotherapy plus durvalumab (Imfinzi), bevacizumab (Avastin), and olaparib (Lynparza) maintained a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy and bevacizumab for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed non-tBRCA–mutated ovarian cancer, but did not provide a significant overall survival (OS) benefit, according to final OS data from the phase 3 DUO-O/ENGOT-ov46/GOG-3025 trial (NCT03737643) presented during the 2025 ESMO Congress.1

    At a median follow-up of 56 months, findings from the third data cutoff demonstrated that the median PFS among patients with non-tBRCA–mutated disease in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received chemotherapy with durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib (arm 3; n = 378) was 25.1 months compared with 19.3 months among those who received chemotherapy and bevacizumab (arm 1; n = 378; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.73). Patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab (arm 2, n = 374) had a median PFS of 20.6 months, representing a benefit over arm 1 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). The 24- and 48-month PFS rates were 53% and 30% in arm 3; these respective rates were 39% and 22% in arm 2 and 33% and 16% in arm 1.

    Sidebar: DUO-O Trial Final OS Analysis: Key Takeaways

    • Platinum-based chemotherapy plus durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib maintained a significant PFS benefit vs chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed non-tBRCA–mutated ovarian cancer but did not provide a meaningful OS benefit.
    • The median PFS among patients with non-tBRCA–mutated disease in the ITT populations of arms 1, 2, and 3 was 19.3 months, 20.6 months, and 25.1 months, respectively.
    • The median OS among patients with non-tBRCA–mutated disease in the ITT populations of arms 1, 2, and 3 was 49.6 months, 48.5 month, and 50.5 months, respectively.

    However, the median OS in arm 3 was 50.5 months compared with 49.6 months in arm 1 (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75-1.11; P = .378). Similarly, the median OS in arm 2 was 48.5 months, which did not represent a significant benefit vs arm 1 (HR, 0.97; 0.80-1.18; P = .785). In arm 3, the 24- and 48-month OS rates were 83% and 53%; these respective rates were 81% and 51% in arm 2 and 80% and 51% in arm 1.

    “DUO-O met both primary end points at data cutoff 1, with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS improvement for arm 3 vs arm 1 in the HRD-positive and ITT populations; this benefit was maintained at data cutoff 3 with an approximate median follow-up of 56 months,” Carol Aghajanian, MD, the chief of the Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service and the Avon Chair in Gynecologic Oncology Research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, said during the presentation. “At this final OS analysis, the observed PFS benefits did not translate into a statistically significant OS improvement.

    What Was the DUO-O Study Design?

    DUO-O was a double-blind, multicenter study that examined durvalumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab followed by maintenance durvalumab and bevacizumab or durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.2 Eligible patients needed to have FIGO stage III to IV ovarian, primary peritoneal cancer, and/or fallopian-tube cancer, as well as be candidates for cytoreductive surgery. Patients also needed to be at least 18 years old, or at least 20 years old if they enrolled in Japan, have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and have preserved organ and bone marrow function.

    Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to arms 1, 2, or 3. During the chemotherapy phase, all patients received chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab; those in arms 2 and 3 also received durvalumab. During the maintenance phase, patients in arms 1, 2, and 3 received bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus durvalumab, or bevacizumab plus durvalumab and olaparib, respectively. Maintenance therapy continued for up to 2 years.

    The primary end point was investigator-assessed PFS per RECIST 1.1 criteria in arm 3 vs arm 1 in both the non-BRCA–mutated HRD-positive and ITT populations. Key secondary end points included investigator-assessed PFS per RECIST 1.1 criteria in arm 2 vs arm 1 in the non-BRCA–mutated ITT population, OS, and safety.

    What Were the Additional Efficacy and Safety Results?

    Additional efficacy findings from DUO-O data cutoff 3 revealed that the median PFS among patients with non-tBRCA–mutated, HRD-positive disease was 45.1 months in arm 3 (n = 140) compared with 23.3 months in arm 1 (n = 143; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66). In arm 2 (n = 148), the median PFS was 25.6 months, conferring a PFS HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) vs arm 1. In arm 3, the 24- and 48-month PFS rates were 73% and 47%; these respective rates were 52% and 31% in arm 2 and 47% and 27% in arm 1.

    In terms of OS among patients with non-tBRCA–mutated, HRD-positive disease, the median value was not reached in arms 2 and 3. When compared with the 66.8-month median OS in arm 1, patients in arm 3 experienced a 20% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.54-1.18; P = .263) and those in arm 2 had a 16% reduction (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57-1.23). In arm 3, the 24- and 48-month OS rates were 96% and 71%; these respective rates were 92% and 71% in arm 2 and 89% and 68% in arm 1.

    In terms of safety, any-grade adverse effects (AEs) were reported in arms 1 (99.2%), 2 (99.5%), and 3 (99.2%). Grade 3 or higher AEs (62.0% vs 66.2% vs 72.5%), AEs leading to death (1.3% vs 2.4% vs 2.1%), serious AEs (35.1% vs 44.2% vs 40.2%), immune-mediated AEs (35.1% vs 56.6% vs 54.0%), AEs leading to dose modification (72.3% vs 80.2% vs 86.0%), and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (21.3% vs 27.1% vs 34.9%) were reported in all 3 arms. AEs of special interest associated with olaparib that occurred in all 3 arms consisted of new primary malignancies (0.8% vs 0.3% vs 1.9%) and pneumonitis (0.8% vs 1.6% vs 1.9%).

    “Safety continues to be generally consistent with the known profiles of each agent,” Aghajanian said in her conclusion.

    Disclosures: Aghajanian reported receiving institutional grants from AbbVie, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Artois, and AstraZeneca. She also reported participating in safety monitoring or advisory board roles for AstraZeneca, Merck, and WCG.

    References

    1. Aghajanian C, Trillisch F, Nishio S, et al. Durvalumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by durvalumab, bevacizumab + olaparib maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed non-tBRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer: final overall survival from DUO-O/ENGOT-ov46/GOG-3025. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA44.
    2. Durvalumab treatment in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, followed by maintenance durvalumab, bevacizumab and olaparib treatment in advanced ovarian cancer patients (DUO-O). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated January 1, 2025. Accessed October 19, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03737643

    Continue Reading