Efficacy
At the planned exploratory analysis at 3 years, after a median follow up of 39.4 months (range 0.1-47.5 months), the significant improvement in OS demonstrated in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group was maintained (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.60-0.86; P=0.0003]).r The median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI 11.3-14.7) in patients receiving durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, compared with only 10.5 months (95% CI 9.3–11.2) in those who received platinum–etoposide alone. 36 month OS rates were, 17.6% (95% CI 13.3-22.4) of patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide (EP) group were alive, compared with only 5.8% (95% CI 3.4-9.1) in those who received platinum–etoposide alone.r
PFS or response data were not collected beyond the previous data cut-off in January 2020 as PFS was sufficiently mature (87% data maturity). At that time, median PFS was not significantly different between the two groups, measuring 5.1 months (95% CI 4.7–6.2) with durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide and 5.4 months (4.8–6.2) with platinum-etoposide alone. 6-month PFS survival rates were 45% (39.3-51.3) vs 46% (39.3-51.7); however, the 12-month PFS rates were notably higher in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, at 18% (95% CI 13.1–22.5) compared with 5% (95% CI 2.4–8.0) in the platinum–etoposide group.r
At the January 2020 data cut-off, median follow-up was 25.1 months. Post hoc analysis demonstrated a confirmed objective response in 182 (68%) of the 268 patients who received durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, compared with 155 (58%) of the 269 patients who received platinum–etoposide alone, (OR 1.56 [1.10–2.22]).r
Kaplan-Meier of OS in the ITT population: durvalumab plus EP versus EPr

© ESMO open 2022
Kaplan-Meier of PFS for durvalumab plus EP versus EPr

© Lancet Oncol 2021