18 51

Cited 64 times in

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author신상준-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-22T06:10:15Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-22T06:10:15Z-
dc.date.issued2023-01-
dc.identifier.issn0732-183X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/198433-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naive to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at <= 4 x 10(6) plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by <= 4 x 10(8) PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. RESULTS Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade >= 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHDouble-Blind Method-
dc.subject.MESHHerpesvirus 1, Human*-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMelanoma* / drug therapy-
dc.subject.MESHOncolytic Virotherapy* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHSubstances-
dc.titleRandomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJason A Chesney-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAntoni Ribas-
dc.contributor.googleauthorGeorgina V Long-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJohn M Kirkwood-
dc.contributor.googleauthorReinhard Dummer-
dc.contributor.googleauthorIgor Puzanov-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChristoph Hoeller-
dc.contributor.googleauthorThomas F Gajewski-
dc.contributor.googleauthorRalf Gutzmer-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPiotr Rutkowski-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLev Demidov-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPetr Arenberger-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang Joon Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPier Francesco Ferrucci-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAndrew Haydon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJohn Hyngstrom-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJohannes V van Thienen-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSebastian Haferkamp-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJosep Malvehy Guilera-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBernardo Leon Rapoport-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAri VanderWalde-
dc.contributor.googleauthorScott J Diede-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJames R Anderson-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSheryl Treichel-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEdward L Chan-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSumita Bhatta-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJennifer Gansert-
dc.contributor.googleauthorFrank Stephen Hodi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHelen Gogas-
dc.identifier.doi10.1200/JCO.22.00343-
dc.contributor.localIdA02105-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01331-
dc.identifier.eissn1527-7755-
dc.identifier.pmid35998300-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameShin, Sang Joon-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor신상준-
dc.citation.volume41-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage528-
dc.citation.endPage540-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, Vol.41(3) : 528-540, 2023-01-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.