Cited by 194Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesGenetic factors in colorectal cancerCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 Study

Andre, Thierry, Shiu, Kai-Keen, Kim, Tae Won, Jensen, Benny Vittrup, Jensen, Lars Henrik, Punt, Cornelis J. A., Smith, Denis Michel, Garcia-Carbonero, Rocio +12 more·2020·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

LBA4 Background: KEYNOTE-177 (NCT02563002) is a phase 3, randomized open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus standard of care chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo) as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with microsatellite-instability high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the final PFS analysis. Methods: A total of 307 pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC as determined locally and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years or investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Q2W ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo chosen prior to randomization). Treatment continued until PD, unacceptable toxicity, pt/investigator decision to withdraw, or completion of 35 cycles (pembro only). Patients receiving chemo could crossover to pembro for up to 35 cycles after confirmed PD. Primary end points were PFS (RECIST v1.1, central review) and OS. Key secondary end points included ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review), and safety. The data cutoff date for this interim analysis was Feb 19, 2020. The study will continue without changes to evaluate OS. Results: At data cutoff, 153 pts were randomized to pembro and 154 to chemo. Median (range) study follow-up was 28.4 mo (0.2-48.3) with pembro vs 27.2 mo (0.8-46.6) with chemo. Pembro was superior to chemo for PFS (median 16.5 mo vs 8.2 mo; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; P=0.0002). The 12- and 24-mo PFS rates were 55.3% and 48.3% with pembro vs 37.3% and 18.6% with chemo. Confirmed ORR was 43.8% vs 33.1%; median (range) duration of response was not reached (2.3+ to 41.4+) with pembro vs 10.6 mo (2.8 to 37.5+) with chemo. Grade 3-5 treatment related adverse event (AE) rates were 22% vs 66% for pembro vs chemo. One pt in the chemo arm died due to a treatment-related AE. Conclusions: Pembro provided a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS versus chemo as first-line therapy for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, with fewer treatment-related AEs observed and should be the new standard of care for these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02563002 .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2020.38.18_suppl.lba4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The KEYNOTE-177 phase III study showed pembrolizumab had increased efficiency over first-line systemic treatment with or without additional targeted therapy, irrespective of BRAF mutational status.

    “Furthermore, the KEYNOTE-177 phase III study showed pembrolizumab’s increased efficiency over first-line systemic treatment with or without additional targeted therapy, irrespective of BRAF mutational status [52].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andre, T., Shiu, K.-K., Kim, T. W., Jensen, B. V., Jensen, L. H., Punt, C. J. A., Smith, D. M., Garcia-Carbonero, R., Benavides, M., Gibbs, P., De La Fouchardiere, C., Rivera, F., Elez, E., Bendell, J. C., Le, D. T., Yoshino, T., Yang, P., Farooqui, M. Z. H., Marinello, P., & Diaz, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Sorbonne University and Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France;
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Asan Medical Center (KR)
  • Herlev Hospital (DK)
  • Vejle Sygehus (DK)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR)
  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain;
  • Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria (ES)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • Leon Berard Cancer Centre, Lyon, France;
  • Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital (ES)
  • Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain;
  • Sarah Cannon (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • National Cancer Center Hospital East (JP)
  • MSD (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (China) (CN)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2020-06-20
Volume
38
Issue
18_suppl
Pages
LBA4-LBA4
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W3033652843
Cited by
194
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Merck & Co., Inc.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Keywords
pembrolizumab, microsatellite instability-high, mismatch repair deficiency, metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, bevacizumab, cetuximab, progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, mFOLFOX6, FOLFIRI, PD-L1 expression, predictive biomarkers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review