Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Dec;8(6):e00685.
doi: 10.1002/prp2.685.

Pan-cancer population pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety and -efficacy analyses of atezolizumab in patients with high tumor mutational burden

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Pan-cancer population pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety and -efficacy analyses of atezolizumab in patients with high tumor mutational burden

Colby S Shemesh et al. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

We retrospectively investigated the pharmacokinetics and exposure-efficacy/safety relationships of single-agent atezolizumab based on tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status (high vs low [≥16 vs <16 mutations/megabase]) in a pan-tumor population from seven clinical trials. Data sources included the OAK, POPLAR, BIRCH, FIR, IMvigor210, IMvigor211, and PCD4989g studies; 986 of 2894 treated patients (34%) had TMB data. Exposure metrics were obtained using a prior two-compartment intravenous-infusion population-pharmacokinetics model, merged with prognostic, biomarker, efficacy, and safety variables. Baseline demographic/clinical characteristics and prognostic factors were well balanced between patients with high (n = 175) and low (n = 811) tTMB. Exposure was similar in the high- and low-tTMB subgroups, with no difference seen in the evaluable vs total treated populations. The objective response rate (ORR) was 29.7% vs 13.4%, complete response rate was 6.9% vs 3.2%, and median duration of response (95% CI) was 29.0 (18.6-NE) months vs 15.9 (12.5-20.5) months for patients with high-tTMB vs low-tTMB tumors, respectively. A flat exposure-efficacy relationship was seen for ORR in patients with high-tTMB based on the cycle 1 minimum atezolizumab concentration and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC). A nonsignificant exposure-safety profile was seen for grade 3/4 adverse events and adverse events of special interest based on the AUC of atezolizumab in the high-tTMB population. tTMB is an additional predictive biological factor affecting response to atezolizumab, and quantitative investigations of atezolizumab exposure and relationships of exposure with safety and efficacy support the use of a 1200-mg, every 3-week regimen in a tumor-agnostic high-tTMB population.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02008227 NCT01903993 NCT02031458 NCT01846416 NCT02302807 NCT02108652 NCT01375842.

Keywords: atezolizumab; biomarkers; clinical pharmacology; mutation; pharmacokinetics; tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors disclose medical writing support funded by F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd. All authors are employees of Genentech, Inc (part of the Roche Group), F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd., or Roche Products Ltd. and are stockholders of F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart of the analysis populations. AESI, adverse event of special interest; ER, exposure‐response; mUC, metastatic urothelial carcinoma; NSCLC, non‐small cell lung cancer; popPK, population pharmacokinetics; SLD, sum of longest diameters; TMB, tumor mutational burden
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Atezolizumab exposure distribution by tTMB status. Post hoc analysis of exposures across 880 patients treated with atezolizumab 1200 mg are shown, including 709 patients with tTMB <16 mut/Mb and 171 patients with tTMB ≥16 mut/Mb. The dotted line indicates the therapeutic target exposure of 6 µg/mL. The height of the bar represents the number of patients within that concentration range, while the width represents binning of patients from 0 to 160 µg/mL by multiples of 10. A cumulative distribution trend (dark and light grey lines) is superimposed over the frequency distribution histogram for each subgroup. tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Proportion of tTMB‐high patients who were responders (CR + PR) to atezolizumab by (A) cycle 1 AUC and (B) cycle 1 C min and the proportion of tTMB‐high patients with grade 3/4 AEs by AUC (C) and (D) any‐grade AESI by AUC. AUC and C min values for each response event (yes, 1.00; no, 0) are represented by open grey circles. Solid black circles with standard error bars: proportion of response from binned observations by quartiles of the log‐transformed exposure (y value); median exposure value within the bin (x value). Black line: model‐fitted curve of the probability of response across atezolizumab exposure. Dashed lines: binning boundaries. Shaded area: 95% confidence band for the logistic regression curve. Observed data points are based on 171 and 167 patients for efficacy and safety, respectively. AESI, adverse event of special interest; AUC, area under the curve; C min, minimum concentration; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Change in SLD from baseline by TMB status and atezolizumab exposure. (A) Tumor size change across 713 tTMB efficacy‐evaluable patients with available tumor scan data (gray). Mean changes in tumor size from baseline are represented by the solid black line for the tTMB‐high subgroup (≥16 mut/Mb; n = 145) and by the dotted black line for the tTMB‐low subgroup (<16 mut/Mb; n = 568). (B) tTMB efficacy and cycle 1 atezolizumab C min PK‐evaluable patients (n = 703). Mean tumor size changes from baseline as a function of cycle 1 atezolizumab C min exposure quartile are shown in red (n = 176), yellow (n = 176), blue (n = 176), and green (n = 175). C min, minimum concentration; PK, pharmacokinetics; SLD, sum of longest diameter; tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden

References

    1. McCune JS. Rapid advances in immunotherapy to treat cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(4):540‐544. - PubMed
    1. Kruger S, Ilmer M, Kobold S, et al. Advances in cancer immunotherapy 2019 ‐ latest trends. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2019;38(1):268. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang J, Yu JX, Hubbard‐Lucey VM, Neftelinov ST, Hodge JP, Lin Y. Trial watch: the clinical trial landscape for PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(12):854‐855. - PubMed
    1. Ingles Garces AH, Au L, Mason R, Thomas J, Larkin J. Building on the anti‐PD1/PD‐L1 backbone: combination immunotherapy for cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2019;28(8):695‐708. - PubMed
    1. Shindo Y, Hazama S, Tsunedomi R, Suzuki N, Nagano H. Novel biomarkers for personalized cancer immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(9):1223. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data