Analysis of disease-free survival in CheckMate 274 by PD-L1 combined positive score and tumor proportion score.
Authors: Matt D. Galsky, Dean F. Bajorin, J. Alfred Witjes, Jürgen E. Gschwend, Yoshihiko Tomita, Federico Nasroulah, Jun Li, Sandra Collette, Begoña Pérez-Valderrama, Marc-Oliver Grimm, Leonard Joseph Appleman, Gwenaelle Gravis, Andrea Necchi, Dingwei Ye, Frank Stenner, Megan Wind-Rotolo, Joshua Zhang, Keziban Unsal-Kacmaz
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

491 Background: CheckMate 274 demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) with nivolumab (NIVO) versus placebo (PBO) both in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 98.22% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.90; P &lt; 0.001) and in patients (pts) with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% assessed by the tumor proportion score (TPS) (HR, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35–0.85; P &lt; 0.001). An exploratory subgroup analysis showed a trend toward a DFS benefit with NIVO in pts with TPS &lt; 1% (0.82; 95% CI, 0.63–1.06). To further characterize the relationship between PD-L1 expression and NIVO efficacy, we report an analysis of DFS based on PD-L1 expression in both tumor and immune cells using the combined positive score (CPS). Methods: CheckMate 274 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of NIVO versus PBO in pts with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery. Pts were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg or PBO every 2 weeks intravenously for 1 year of adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoints of the study are DFS in the intent-to-treat population and in pts with TPS ≥ 1%. The Dako PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx assay was used to evaluate TPS. CPS was determined retrospectively from previously stained immunohistochemistry slides using the CPS algorithm. CPS was calculated as the number of both PD-L1 positive tumor and immune cells divided by the number of viable tumor cells in the evaluable tumor area, multiplied by 100; TPS was similarly calculated with the number of PD-L1 positive tumor cells as the numerator. This analysis only included pts with both quantifiable CPS and TPS. Results: Of the 629 pts with quantifiable TPS and CPS, 249 (40%) had TPS ≥ 1% (NIVO, n = 124; PBO, n = 125), 380 (60%) had TPS &lt; 1% (NIVO, n = 191; PBO, n = 189), 557 (89%) had CPS ≥ 1 (NIVO, n = 281; PBO, n = 276), and 72 (11%) had CPS &lt; 1 (NIVO, n = 34; PBO, n = 38). Within TPS &lt; 1% pts, 81% (n = 309) had CPS ≥ 1. The number of pts and the DFS outcomes in pts with TPS ≥ 1% and CPS ≥ 1 are shown in the Table. In pts with TPS &lt; 1% who also had CPS ≥ 1, median DFS (95% CI) was 19.2 (15.6–33.4) months with NIVO versus 10.1 (8.2–19.4) months with PBO. The HR for NIVO versus PBO in these pts was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.54–0.99). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis of PD-L1 expression by CPS showed a higher proportion of pts with CPS ≥ 1 than TPS ≥ 1%, and that most pts with TPS &lt; 1% had CPS ≥ 1. In the CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, median DFS with NIVO was more than double that with placebo. These results support the conclusion that pts with TPS &lt; 1% also benefit from adjuvant NIVO. Clinical trial information: NCT02632409. [Table: see text]