Outcomes of dostarlimab versus chemotherapy in post-platinum patients with recurrent/advanced endometrial cancer: data from the GARNET trial and the National Cancer Registration Service in England

Objectives Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as novel treatment options in patients with endometrial cancer. In this study we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of patients with recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer. These patients had received dostarlimab after platinum-based chemotherapy in the single-arm, Phase I GARNET trial. We compared them with a matched indirect real-world cohort. Methods The real-world cohort was established using National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service data, with five treatment-specific real-world sub-cohorts identified. To compare clinical outcomes between the GARNET trial and real-world cohorts, we performed matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. We used prognostic variables to create matching scenarios, including scenario 1 that incorporated grade, histology, and platinum-based chemotherapy number; scenario 2 that considered histology and platinum-based chemotherapy number; and scenario 3 that included race/ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, histology, and prior surgery. Overall survival was defined as the time between the first dostarlimab dose or second-line real-world treatment and death. Adjusted hazard ratios for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were estimated via weighted Cox proportional-hazards models. Progression-free survival, using time-to-next treatment as a proxy for real-world cohorts, was summarized descriptively. Results Distribution of baseline characteristics that were matched was similar between the GARNET cohort (n=153) and the real-world cohort (n=999). The most common International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage in both cohorts was stage III/IV (n=88; 57.5% and n=778; 77.9%, respectively), with endometroid histology predominating in the GARNET cohort (n=121; 79.1%) and non-endometrioid the predominant form in the real-world cohort (n=575; 57.6%). The median overall survival for dostarlimab was longer (range 27.1–40.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4–non-estimable and 19.4–non-estimable]) both before and after matching for all scenarios compared with the real-world cohort (10.3 months). Across all matching scenarios, patients in the GARNET cohort had a decreased risk of death, with a HR for overall survival of 0.32 (p<0.0001) before matching, as compared with the overall real-world cohort and most treatment-specific real-world cohorts. For all three scenarios, progression-free survival rates at 12 and 18 months were higher for patients on dostarlimab compared with the real-world cohort (0.48 and 0.43 respectively before matching in the GARNET cohort vs 0.28 and 0.16 respectively in the real-world cohort; using time to next treatment as proxy). The effective sample size for scenario 1 was low when compared with the other scenarios (scenario 1: n=18; scenario 2: n=62; scenario 3: n=67). Conclusion In this adjusted indirect dataset, patients with recurrent/advanced mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer post-platinum-based chemotherapy who received dostarlimab in the GARNET trial had significantly improved overall survival compared with patients receiving current second-line treatment in England.

[1]  C. Knott,et al.  Previously treated recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer in England: A real-world observational analysis. , 2022, Gynecologic oncology.

[2]  K. Yonemori,et al.  Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab for Advanced Endometrial Cancer. , 2022, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  A. Italiano,et al.  Pembrolizumab in Patients With Microsatellite Instability–High Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Results From the KEYNOTE-158 Study , 2022, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  A. Tinker,et al.  Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) or proficient/stable (MMRp/MSS) endometrial cancer: interim results from GARNET—a phase I, single-arm study , 2022, Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer.

[5]  P. Ghatage,et al.  272 Dostarlimab in advanced/recurrent mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability high or proficient/stable endometrial cancer: the GARNET study , 2021, Endometrial cancer.

[6]  A. Davies,et al.  Recommendations on the Use of Open Surgical and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for the Management of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm from the Guideline Development Committee Appointed by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. , 2021, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[7]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[8]  Cyrus Chargari,et al.  ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma , 2020, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[9]  Z. Rosenwaks,et al.  Gynecological Cancers Caused by Deficient Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability , 2020, Cancers.

[10]  A. Tinker,et al.  Clinical Activity and Safety of the Anti–Programmed Death 1 Monoclonal Antibody Dostarlimab for Patients With Recurrent or Advanced Mismatch Repair–Deficient Endometrial Cancer , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[11]  Yawen Jiang,et al.  Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes , 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  Jay J H Park,et al.  Synthetic and External Controls in Clinical Trials – A Primer for Researchers , 2020, Clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Atul J. Butte,et al.  Opportunities and challenges in using real-world data for health care. , 2020, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[14]  S. Sharpe Cancer Research UK , 2019, Annals of Oncology.

[15]  M. Leshno,et al.  Median Survival or Mean Survival: Which Measure Is the Most Appropriate for Patients, Physicians, and Policymakers? , 2019, The oncologist.

[16]  Katherine E Henson,et al.  Data Resource Profile: National Cancer Registration Dataset in England , 2019, International journal of epidemiology.

[17]  S. Kyo,et al.  Microsatellite instability is a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors in endometrial cancer , 2017, Oncotarget.

[18]  Russell Bonneville,et al.  Landscape of Microsatellite Instability Across 39 Cancer Types. , 2017, JCO precision oncology.

[19]  A. Walther,et al.  BGCS uterine cancer guidelines: Recommendations for practice. , 2017, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[20]  H. Morreau,et al.  Practical guidance for mismatch repair-deficiency testing in endometrial cancer , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  M. Kloor,et al.  The Immune Biology of Microsatellite-Unstable Cancer. , 2016, Trends in cancer.

[22]  B. Weigelt,et al.  Classification of endometrial carcinoma: more than two types. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  M. Kaneuchi,et al.  Multivariate survival analysis of the patients with recurrent endometrial cancer , 2011, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[24]  T. Oliver,et al.  Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. , 2006, Gynecologic oncology.

[25]  Roger B. Lee,et al.  Activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. , 2003, Gynecologic oncology.

[26]  Митрополита Василя Липківського National , 1897, The Journal of comparative medicine and veterinary archives.

[27]  H.J.M.M. Mertens,et al.  Factors predicting recurrent endometrial cancer , 2013, Facts, views & vision in ObGyn.