Combined, patient-level, analysis of two randomised trials evaluating the addition of denosumab to standard first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC – The ETOP/EORTC SPLENDOUR and AMGEN-249 trials

Introduction

The efficacy of adding denosumab to standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients has been evaluated in two separate randomised trials (SPLENDOUR and AMGEN-249). In this pooled analysis, we will assess the combination-treatment effect in the largest available population, in order to conclude about the potential impact of denosumab in NSCLC.

Methods

Both trials included in this combined analysis, were randomised (SPLENDOUR 1:1, AMGEN-249 2:1) multi-centre trials stratified by histology, bone metastasis, geographical region and for SPLENDOUR only, ECOG PS. Cox proportional hazards models, were used to assess the treatment effect with respect to overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary endpoint). Heterogeneity between trials was assessed, and subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

The pooled analysis was based on 740 randomised patients (SPLENDOUR:514; AMGEN-249:226), with 407 patients in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm and 333 in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

In the chemotherapy-denosumab arm, at a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 277 (68.1%) deaths were reported with median OS 9.2 months (95%CI:[8.0–10.7]), while in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with similar median follow-up of 20.3 months, 230 (69.1%) deaths with median OS 9.9 months (95%CI:[8.2–11.2]). No significant denosumab effect was found (HR = 0.98; 95%CI:[0.82–1.18]; P = 0.85).

Among subgroups, interaction was found between treatment and histology subtypes (P = 0.020), with a statistically significant benefit in the squamous group (HR = 0.70; 95%CI:[0.49–0.98]; P = 0.038), from 7.6 to 9.0 months median OS.

With respect to PFS, 363 (89.2%) and 298 (89.5%) events were reported in the chemotherapy-denosumab and chemotherapy-alone arms, respectively, with corresponding medians 4.8 months (95%CI:[4.4–5.3]) and 4.9 months (95%CI:[4.3–5.4]). HR for PFS was 0.97 (95%CI:[0.83–1.15]; P = 0.76), indicating that no significant denosumab benefit existed for PFS.

Conclusion

In this pooled analysis, no statistically significant improvement was shown in PFS/OS with the combination of denosumab and chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC and no meaningful benefit in any of the subgroups.