Tiragolumab/Atezolizumab Shows No Benefit in NSCLC

A trial testing the combination of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab and atezolizumab vs atezolizumab in previously untreated programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–high locally advanced unresectable or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) failed to meet its primary endpoints.
Although the SKYSCRAPER-01 trial did not meet its primary endpoints, numerical advantages observed with the tiragolumab/atezolizumab combination suggest that TIGIT remains a potentially valid target in NSCLC, said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the new results at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.
'More data are needed to identify the patient population who potentially could benefit from combining an anti–PD-L1 strategy with the inhibition of the TIGIT pathway,' she said during her talk.
Peters, of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland, described the importance of checkpoint inhibitors in the management of advanced NSCLC without actionable genomic alterations, particularly in patients with high PD-L1 expression. However, she noted that most patients, 'probably more than 85%,' eventually experience disease progression. According to Peters, this high rate of progression despite treatment indicates an unmet need for new treatment options for this patient population.
Peters explained that TIGIT, a T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine–based activation motifs domains, has emerged as a promising immune checkpoint target. TIGIT binds to poliovirus receptor (PVR), also called CD155, on cancer cells and antigen-presenting cells, inhibiting the immune activity of T cells and natural killer cells.
'In lung cancer cells, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, particularly exhausted CD8+ T cells, may express high levels of TIGIT and PD-1,' Peters noted during her presentation. 'Therefore, a human anti-TIGIT monoclonal antibody that blocks TIGIT binding to PVR could restore the interaction between CD226 and PVR, allowing activation of T cells and NK cells.'
Study Design
SKYSCRAPER-01 was a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial that recruited patients between March 2020 and August 2021 at 122 sites across 20 countries. The study enrolled patients with previously untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, good performance status (ECOG 0-1), and without EGFR / ALK alterations.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either tiragolumab 600 mg intravenously (IV) plus atezolizumab 1200 mg IV or placebo plus atezolizumab 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks until disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. The final analysis included 534 randomized patients.
The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the primary analysis set, which included patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%, as determined with the 22C3 assay.
Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and investigator-assessed duration of response (DOR) in the primary analysis set, as well as OS in the secondary analysis set (patients with PD-L1 tumor cell ≥ 50%, as determined using the SP263 assay).
No Significant Benefit With Tiragolumab Plus Atezolizumab
At the data cutoff in March 2022, the median investigator-assessed PFS was 7.0 months with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab vs 5.6 months with placebo plus atezolizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97; P = .02). Although there was a slight numerical difference in the median PFS between the groups, this difference did not meet the prespecified significance threshold of P < .01.
At the final OS analysis (data cutoff September 2024), the median OS was 23.1 months with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab vs 16.9 months with placebo plus atezolizumab (HR, 0.87; 95% CI = 0.71-1.08; P = .22). Patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab arm showed a higher ORR (45.8% vs 35.1%) and longer median DOR (18.0 months vs 14.6 months).
Peters said that although the primary endpoints of investigator-assessed PFS and OS were not met, 'numerical improvements in both PFS and OS with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab suggest potential antitumor activity of combination PD-L1/TIGIT targeting in NSCLC.'
Safety Profile
Safety analysis revealed increased toxicity with combination therapy. The median treatment duration was 7.5 months in the experimental arm vs 5.5 months in the control arm. The rates of any-grade toxicity, adverse events related to any treatment, adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal, and immune-related adverse events were all higher in the experimental arm than in the control arm.
The most frequent adverse events in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab arm were pruritus, rash, decreased appetite, cough, and anemia. Immune-mediated adverse events observed in more than 5% of patients included rash, hepatitis, hypothyroidism, infusion-related reactions, hyperthyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, and pneumonitis.
Expert Perspective: What Went Wrong?
In his discussion session, Ramaswamy Govindan, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, provided context for the SKYSCRAPER-01 results, which he described as 'disappointing.'
Govindan compared SKYSCRAPER-01 with the earlier phase 2 CITYSCAPE study, which yielded positive results and provided the rationale for the phase 3 trial.
'If you look at the combination arm, the response rates in SKYSCRAPER-01 are a little lower, the PFS is half of what was seen in the CITYSCAPE study, and OS is much less impressive,' he said. On the contrary, the atezolizumab arm in the two trials was 'roughly the same.'
Govindan pointed out several differences between the populations in the two studies, including a higher proportion of participants with liver and brain metastases and a greater proportion of men in the SKYSCRAPER-01 study. He also highlighted the sample size issue, noting, 'Although the CITYSCAPE results were promising, findings were based on a small number of patients.' He further explained that the study had a population of 67, and only about half had PD-L1 ≥ 50%.
Govindan stated that variations in cohort sizes and characteristics, as well as differences in tumor biology and the tumor microenvironment, also could have contributed to the discrepancies in the findings of the two studies.
Future Directions for TIGIT Inhibitors
Despite these setbacks, both Peters and Govindan emphasized that the TIGIT pathway remains an interesting target, with other TIGIT inhibitors still under development, including domvanalimab, rilvegostomig, and belrestotug.
Govindan also said that not all TIGIT inhibitors are the same and that there is a controversy in the TIGIT field about 'whether we should keep' the fragment crystallizable region of the monoclonal antibody (Fc) 'active,' meaning able to engage Fc receptors and potentially trigger antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or 'inactive,' meaning engineered to minimize Fc receptor engagement.
Govindan also discussed the importance of biomarker development, noting, 'We should look at biomarkers before we say that TIGIT-targeted therapies do not work.'
He explained that in the CITYSCAPE study, an agnostic approach was used, and transcriptomic studies showed tumor-associated macrophages, Tregs, and monocytes as potential biomarkers of response. He added that 'tumors that were enriched in macrophages, monocytes, and Tregs did well with the TIGIT combination,' suggesting that these could serve as markers for better patient selection.
Peters reported financial relationships with Lausanne University/Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (employment), AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BioNTech, BerGenBio, Bicycle Therapeutics, Biocartis, Biolnvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly and Company, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genmab, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GSK, HUTCHMED, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos Therapeutics, Janssen, Qlucore, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Nuvation Bio, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, PharmaMar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Zymeworks. Govindan reported financial relationships with Washington University School of Medicine (employment) and Amgen, Verastem, MOMA Therapeutics, and Prelude Therapeutics.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

2 days ago

• Yahoo

ArriVent Announces Investor Event on Firmonertinib Path Forward for EGFR PACC Mutant NSCLC

Virtual webinar on June 23, 2025 at 8:00 am ET NEWTOWN SQUARE, Pa., June 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ArriVent BioPharma, Inc. (Company or ArriVent) (Nasdaq: AVBP), a clinical-stage company dedicated to accelerating the global development of innovative biopharmaceutical therapeutics, today announced the Company will host a virtual investor event to discuss the firmonertinib clinical program for the treatment of EGFR PACC mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on June 23, 2025 at 8:00 am ET. To register for the event, please click here. About ArriVentArriVent is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the identification, development, and commercialization of differentiated medicines to address the unmet medical needs of patients with cancers. ArriVent seeks to utilize its team's deep drug development experience to maximize the potential of its lead development candidate, firmonertinib, and advance a pipeline of novel therapeutics, such as next-generation antibody drug conjugates, through approval and commercialization. About FirmonertinibFirmonertinib (formerly furmonertinib) is an oral, highly brain-penetrant, and broadly active mutation-selective epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor active against both classical and uncommon EGFR mutations, including PACC and exon 20 insertion mutations. In March 2021, firmonertinib was approved in China for first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations and for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR T790M mutation, otherwise known as EGFR classical mutations. Firmonertinib was granted U.S. Food and Drug Administration Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. Firmonertinib was also granted U.S. Food and Drug Administration Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations or HER4 mutations. Firmonertinib is currently being studied in a global Phase 3 trial for first-line NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations (FURVENT; NCT05607550) and in a global Phase 1b study, which includes a cohort evaluating firmonertinib in patients with EGFR PACC mutations (FURTHER; NCT05364073). In addition, firmonertinib is also being studied in a clinical combination study targeting advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with EGFR classical mutations, in partnership with Beijing InnoCare Pharma Tech Co., Ltd. About EGFR mutant NSCLCGlobally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women. NSCLC is the predominant subtype of lung cancer, accounting for approximately 85% of all cases. Mutational activation of the EGFR is a frequent and early event in the development of NSCLC. EGFR mutations are divided into classical and uncommon. EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations are a group of uncommon EGFR mutations and constitute approximately 9% of all EGFR mutations. PACC mutations are another group of uncommon EGFR mutations and represent approximately 12% of all EGFR mutations. Patients with NSCLC whose tumors harbor uncommon EGFR mutations have significantly lower life expectancy with available therapies and represent an area of unmet medical need. Forward-Looking Statements This press release includes certain disclosures that contain 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this press release, including statements regarding our future results of operations or financial condition, business strategy and plans, activity of firmonertinib compared to available therapies, anticipated clinical milestones, including the top-line pivotal global Phase 3 data for firmonertinib in previously untreated NSCLC patients whose tumors contain EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, expansion of firmonertinib into a pivotal trial for 1L EGFR PACC mutant NSCLC and the timing of the first patient enrolled in such study, participation in the global Phase 3 registrational study of firmonertinib in adjuvant uncommon mutant NSCLC, anticipated IND filings for ADC candidates, and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements because they contain words such as 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'contemplate,' 'continue,' 'could,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'potential,' 'predict,' 'project,' 'should,' 'target,' 'will,' or 'would' or the negative of these words or other similar terms or expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on ArriVent's current expectations and are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Factors that could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties that are described more fully in the section titled 'Risk Factors' in our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025 and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of this date, and ArriVent undertakes no duty to update such information except as required under applicable law. Contact:Joyce AllaireLifeSci Advisors, LLCjallaire@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Medscape

3 days ago

• Medscape

Key Abstracts in Early-Stage NSCLC From ASCO 2025

Dr Jonathan Goldman of the University of California, Los Angeles, highlights key abstracts in early-stage NSCLC from ASCO 2025. Dr Goldman begins with updated results from CheckMate 816, comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo + nivolumab. Median overall survival (OS) in the nivolumab arm remains unreached vs 73.7 months with chemo alone. Event-free survival (EFS) is durable at 59.6 vs 21.1 months, as evidenced by 5-year EFS of 49% in the combination arm. Next, he reviews the NeoADAURA trial evaluating neoadjuvant osimertinib ± chemo in resectable EGFR-mutated stage II-IIIB NSCLC. Major pathologic response was higher in osimertinib-containing arms (26% and 25%) vs 2% in the chemo arm, although long-term outcomes remain pending. Dr Goldman also discusses the SWOG/NRG S1914 trial of perioperative stereotactic body radiotherapy ± atezolizumab, which did not show improvements in OS or progression-free survival (PFS). He then highlights a prospective, low-dose CT screening study of the Mississippi Delta cohort, which showed a 4.7% lung cancer detection rate overall and 4.5% in patients with incidental pulmonary nodules — underscoring the utility of low-dose CT as a modality in early detection. In closing, he reports on two studies in small cell lung cancer. The IMforte study showed that lurbinectedin + atezolizumab in 1L maintenance improved PFS (HR, 0.54). In the DeLLphi-304 study, second-line tarlatamab improved OS compared to chemo (HR, 0.6), which is a potentially practice-changing update.

Medscape

4 days ago

• Medscape

Is It Worth Adding Chemo to ICI for NSCLC in Older Adults?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a cornerstone of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment, but it's not clear whether adding chemotherapy to ICI — a common practice with younger patients with NSCLC — helps older ones. No randomized trial has directly compared stand-alone ICI with chemoimmunotherapy in geriatric patients with NSCLC. Without strong data supporting the combined approach, oncologists may stay away from offering chemoimmunotherapy to older patients, especially to those with multiple comorbidities, given concerns about increased toxicity. To address the evidence gap, investigators linked Medicare and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to compare outcomes between 14,249 older patients with NSCLC who received ICI alone (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) and 3432 treated with ICI and platinum doublet chemotherapy. Patients were aged 74 years, on average, and at least 66 years. The median follow-up duration was 211 days. The team weighed the risks and benefits of chemoimmunotherapy vs stand-alone ICI to answer a key question: Is adding chemotherapy to ICI worth it for elderly patients with NSCLC? The findings were recently published in Jama Oncology . Benefits: Prolonged Survival in First Line In the upfront setting, chemotherapy add-on reduced patients' mortality risk by 34% compared with ICI alone. Benefits were slightly more notable in women (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62) than in men (HR, 0.72). Patients with autoimmune disease — who are often excluded from trials and who made up almost 20% of the study population — benefited the most, with a mortality risk reduction of 49%. A similar mortality benefit was observed in patients aged 66-75 years and those aged 76 years or older, 'which is notable given that immune senescence is hypothesized to lessen ICI treatment response in patients older than 75 years,' wrote the investigators, led by James Heyward, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. However, in the second or later lines of treatment, patients did not experience a significant survival benefit with chemoimmunotherapy (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). Risks: Increased Toxicity Adding chemotherapy in the first-line setting increased the risk for severe immune-related adverse events (AEs), which can include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, and myocarditis, by 18%. Severe AEs were more common in men (HR, 1.29) than in women (HR, 1.08). Patients aged 76 years or older had the highest risk (30%) for severe immune-related AEs. However, older patients did not have an increased risk for severe immune-related AEs in second and later lines. The study did not consider chemotherapy toxicities. Is It Worth It? The team extrapolated from their data to calculate the harm-benefit trade-off of adding ICI to chemotherapy in older patients. The researchers found that for each extra year of life gained with first-line chemoimmunotherapy, the risk for severe immune-related AEs would be 0.31. Put differently, 31% of patients predicted to gain 1 extra year of life were likely to experience one severe immune-related AE. Past studies have found that patients are often willing to accept one severe AE for 1 year of added survival, which indicates that chemoimmunotherapy in the first line may be worth it for older patients with NSCLC. 'Given patient prioritization of survival benefits vs prevention of adverse effects, patients may prefer to initiate treatment with ICI + chemotherapy, albeit with careful follow-up for mitigation of severe immune-related AEs,' the investigators wrote. But, the authors noted, 'men experienced more harm and less benefit than women' in the first-line setting, which is consistent with previous research. And patients with an autoimmune disorder who received chemoimmunotherapy had a slightly higher risk for severe immune-related AEs (HR, 1.22) than those without a disorder (HR, 1.16). Still, the authors said, 'the reduction in mortality was also the highest for this group of patients, suggesting that the potential benefits of treatment may outweigh the potential harms.' In the second and later lines, the researchers found no increased risk for immune-related AEs with chemoimmunotherapy. Given the lack of statistically significant mortality benefit, the results suggest that stand-alone ICI are a better approach in this setting. Overall, this study provides 'a valuable contribution to an ongoing and complex discussion,' said medical oncologist Alessio Cortellini, MD, PhD, an immunotherapy and lung cancer specialist at Imperial College London, London, England, who was not involved in the research. However, it will be important to closely monitor patients for severe immune-related AEs. 'While adding chemotherapy to immunotherapy may be appropriate for selected older adults with NSCLC, I remain cautious about its widespread use in frail patients,' Cortellini added. 'Until we have dedicated trials in frail populations, the decision to use [chemotherapy-ICI]combinations in older adults should be highly individualized.'