Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (Pembro) monotherapy in elderly patients (Pts) with PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC: Pooled analysis from KEYNOTE-010, -024, and -042
Authors: K. Nosaki, Y. Hosomi, H. Saka, P. Baas, G. de Castro, M. Reck, Y.-L. Wu, J.R. Brahmer, E. Felip, T. Sawada, K. Noguchi, S.R. Han, B. Piperdi, D.A. Kush, G. Lopes
Journal: Annals of Oncology (2019)

Background: Approximately 70% of newly-diagnosed NSCLC cases occur in the elderly, and more than half are locally advanced/metastatic. We present a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety in elderly pts (aged ≥75 y) enrolled in 3 randomized controlled trials of pembro monotherapy vs standard chemotherapy (chemo) for PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC. Methods: Pts were aged ≥18 y with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1% (KEYNOTE-010, -042) or TPS ≥50% (KEYNOTE-024). In KEYNOTE-010, pts were randomized to pembro 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel, as second- or later-line therapy. In KEYNOTE-024 and -042, pts were randomized to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W or platinum-based chemo. OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The 3 trials included 264 pts aged ≥75 (range, 75–90) y with TPS ≥1%; 132 pts had TPS ≥50%. Independent of line of treatment, HRs (95% CI) for OS favored pembro vs chemo: 0.76 (0.56–1.02) in pts with TPS ≥1% and 0.40 (0.25–0.64) in pts with TPS ≥50%. Pembro also improved OS vs chemo in the pooled analysis of pts with TPS ≥50% who received first-line therapy (KEYNOTE-024 and -042): HR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23–0.73). Overall, fewer treatment-related AEs across various categories were observed with pembro vs chemo, in particular, grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs in pts aged ≥75 y (Table). Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions were more frequent with pembro vs chemo, with similar frequency in pts receiving pembro aged ≥75 y and <75 y (Table).Table103O_PR Summary of pooled safety results by age group (75 y and <75 y) in pts with PD-L1 TPS 1% from KEYNOTE-010, -024, and -042AEs, n (%)PembroChemo≥75 y n = 149<75 y n = 1323≥75 y n = 105<75 y n = 969Any treatment-related AE102 (68)862 (65)99 (94)840 (87)Grade 3–5 treatment-related AE36 (24)224 (17)64 (61)379 (39)Serious treatment-related AE24 (16)170 (13)28 (27)136 (14)Treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation16 (11)90 (7)16 (15)93 (10)Treatment-related AEs leading to death2 (1)17 (1)2 (2)20 (2)Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions37 (25)331 (25)7 (7)57 (6) Open table in a new tab Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of pts aged ≥75 y with PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, pembro monotherapy improved OS vs chemo, both in pts with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% and PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. The safety profile of pembro was similar in pts aged ≥75 y and <75 y, with lower rates of grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs vs chemo. Clinical trial identification: NCT01905657 (KEYNOTE-010); NCT02142738 (KEYNOTE-024); NCT02220894 (KEYNOTE-042). Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Michael S. McNamara, MS, of C4 MedSolutions, LLC (Yardley, PA), a CHC Group company and funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure: K. Nosaki: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, MSD; Institutional research funding: MSD. Y. Hosomi: Personal fees: MSD, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly Japan, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb. H. Saka: Grants/research support: AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical; Honoraria: AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyorin Pharmaceutical. P. Baas: Consulting role: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer; Research support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck. G. de Castro Jr: Consulting/advisory role: AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim; Speakers' bureau: MSD, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca; Travel/accommodation expenses: MSD, BMS, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca. M. Reck: Personal fees: Amgen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie. Y-L. Wu: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi; Consulting/advisory role: AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research funding to institution: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. J.R. Brahmer: Grant, personal fees, Advisory boards, consulting: Merck; Uncompensated advisor and consultant: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Grants: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MedImmune/AstraZeneca; Personal fees: Amgen, Celgene, Lilly. E. Felip: Consulting, advisory role, speaker's bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; Research funding: Fundación Merck Salud; Grant for Oncology Innovation EMD Serono. T. Sawada, K. Noguchi, S.R. Han: Employee: MSD K.K., Tokyo, Japan. B. Piperdi, D.A. Kush: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. G. Lopes: Research funding to institution: Merck & Co., Inc., EMD Serono, AstraZeneca.