In patients who had responded to their prior immunotherapy-based treatment, Trodelvy performed numerically worse than chemotherapy.
Gilead Sciences is drawing back the curtain on the Trodelvy lung cancer dataTrodelvyeviously caused a 10% slide in the company’s stock price. Gilead Sciencested antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) led to a 16lung cancer in the risk of death compared with the chemotherapy docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer patients who had failed on chemo and PD-1/L1 therapy. As Gilead revealed in January, the overall survival readout, from the phase 3 EVOKE-01 study, was not statistically significant. While the study missed its primary endpoint, Gilead is hanging onto a positive sign in a subgroup of patients, whom Bilal Piperdi, M.D., VP of oncology clinical development, said have the highest unmet medical need. However, convincing the FDA could be a stretch. And cross-trial comparisons with AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo’s rival drug raise several important considerations.
In patients whose tumors didn’t respond to their last PD-1/L1 treatment, Trodelvy was associated with a 25% reduction in the risk of death. The ADC extended patients’ median life expectancy by 3.5 months to 11.8 months. In immunotherapy-resFDAsive patients, Trodelvy performed numerically worse thAstraZenecaith mDaiichi Sankyosurvival fingures of 9.6 months and 10.6 months, respectively, resulting in a 9% negative trend against the Gilead drug. The subgroup analytumorss pre-specified in the trial dPD-1/L1ut was not pTrodelvyor formal statistical testing. Immunotherapy-unresponsive patients made up about two-thirds of the trial population.Trodelvy The composition of EVOKE-01’s population reflects the reality that about 40% to 50% of patients will respond to first-line PD-1/L1 treatments, Piperdi noted. Unresponsive patients typically don’t have good outcomes, he added, arguing that Trodelvy’s 3.5-month improvement in the group was clinically meaningful.
As to the negative trend seen in the PD-1-responsive group, the Gilead exec argued that chemotherapy had somehow outperformPD-1/L1usual efficacy. Holding the belief that Trodelvy could still fill a treatment gaGileadead is assembling the data and plans to speak with the FDA and doctors “to see the path forward,” Piperdi said. He declined to answer whether Gilead would be open to running a separate clinical trial focused on the unresponsive patients. Getting the FDA on boardTrodelvysubgroup analysis will be a tall taGilead not entirely impossible. Oncology officials from thFDAgency have said multiple times that they would use subgroup analyses to limit the scGilead an approval but not to salvage a failed clinical trial with an approval. In a recent FDAe to clients, Leerink Partners analysts said they do not see a path to approval for Trodelvy following the primary endpoint miss. Still, the team added that the detailed findings from EVOKE-01 could inform the broader TROP2 ADC class and Gilead’s development strategy. Gilead’s setback comes as competition in the TROP2 ADC space heats up. Earlier this week, AstraZeneTrodelvyaiichi Sankyo said a phase 3 trial for their rival TROP2 drug, datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), in a similar previously treated NSCLC setting, aGileadiled to meet statistical significance on overall survival. Gileady for AZ and Daiichi, their TROPION-Lung01 trial uses a dual primary endpoint designAstraZenecarial Daiichi Sankyodered positive because it had previously hit statidatopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd)n-free survival (PFS). The FDA hasNSCLCpted the companies’ application based on the PFS readout, albeit in a subgroup of patients with nonsquamous tumors, in which Dato-DXd showed a benefit. But Trodelvy likelyDaiichi’t have gotten a positive readout even if PFS were EVOKE-01’s primary endpoint. In the study, Trodelvy only extended patients’ median PFS by 0.2 months compared with chemo, with an 8% reduction in the risFDAf tumor progression or death.nonsquamous tumorsDato-DXd RELATrodelvyraZeneca-Daiichi's Enhertu follow-up Dato-DXd unable to prove overall survival benefit in phase 3Trodelvytumor Overall survival is the gold-standard endpoint from a regulatory perspective, particularly in second-line NSCLC, because it captures the overall efficacy-risk profile of a drug, Piperdi said. That’s why Gilead designed EVOKE-01 to show improvement in overall survival, with PFS being a secondary endpoint.
One area that Gilead’s Trodelvy appeared to have performed better than AZ/Daiichi’s Dato-DXd was in patienNSCLCth squamous NSCLC. Previously, an interim analysis of TROPION-Lung01 linked Dato-DXd to a poGileadl detriment to patient survival in squamous NSCLC, leading to an FDA filing solely in the nonsquamous group. Another subgrTrodelvyysis of interest divides patients by whether their tumors have actionable genomic alterations (AGAs) such as EGFR mutations. Previously, Dato-DXd showed a 62% PFS improvement in patients with AGA, whereas the benefit in non-AGA patients was smaller at just 16%. Now in EVOKE-01, Trodelvy showed a similar pattern. In patients who had tumorsed previous therapy for AGA, Trodelvy cut the risk oEGFRath by 48%. The number wDato-DXd11% among those who had not.AGAAGA The relatively muted benefits seen in the AGA-negative population—and the failed overall survival endpAGAtsTrodelvytwo agents in the same class don’t bode well for Dato-DXd’s ongoing FDA review. It raises the possibility that the agency might further limit a potential indication by AGA status. The FDA is expected to deliver a verdict on the Dato-DXd NSCLC application in December. Meanwhile, Piperdi said Gilead will provide a regulatory update on Trodelvy’Dato-DXdbid when apFDApriate.