Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Nonsquamous NSCLC: Results From the Randomized Phase 3 IMpower132 Trial

Introduction: We report the final results of the phase 3 IMpower132 study evaluating atezolizumab plus carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (APP) in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to receive four or six cycles of carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (PP) or APP every 3 weeks, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab plus pemetrexed or pemetrexed alone. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The intention-to-treat population included 578 patients (APP, n = 292; PP, n = 286). At the primary PFS analysis (May 22, 2018; median follow-up, 14.8 mo), APP exhibited significant PFS improvement versus PP (median = 7.6 versus 5.2 mo, stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.72, p < 0.0001). OS for the APP group was numerically better but not statistically significant at the interim (May 22, 2018; median = 18.1 versus 13.6 mo, stratified HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.03, p = 0.0797) and final analyses (July 18, 2019; median = 17.5 versus 13.6 mo; stratified HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.71-1.06, p = 0.1546). The OS and PFS results favored APP versus PP across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54.6% (APP) and 40.1% (PP) of patients; grade 5 treatment-related events occurred in 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively. Conclusions: IMpower132 met its co-primary PFS end point but not its co-primary OS end point, with numerical improvement for OS in the APP arm. APP had a manageable safety profile, with no new or unexpected safety signals identified. (C) 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Automated summary

The IMpower132 study demonstrated significant improvement in PFS with APP compared to PP, but the difference in OS between the two groups was not statistically significant. APP showed favorable OS and PFS results across subgroups, with a manageable safety profile and no new or unexpected safety signals identified.