Keynote 48: Is it really for everyone? ====================================== * Jonathan D. Schoenfeld * Geoffrey Fell * Robert I. Haddad * Lorenzo Trippa ## Abstract Burtness et al. recently published the landmark Keynote-48 study, demonstrating a survival benefit for pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab/chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab/chemotherapy, in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). These data are impactful and practice-changing, and have rapidly been adopted in practice, with increasing numbers of HNSCC patients receiving either pembrolizumab monotherapy, or pembrolizumab / chemotherapy, in the first line recurrent / metastatic setting. Pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for patients whose tumors express PD□L1 (Combined Positive Score [CPS] ≥1), while pembrolizumab / chemotherapy was approved for use in the United States for all patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression. Burtness et al. recently published the landmark Keynote-48 study, demonstrating a survival benefit for pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab/chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab/chemotherapy, in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).1 These data are impactful and practice-changing,2 and have rapidly been adopted in practice, with increasing numbers of HNSCC patients receiving either pembrolizumab monotherapy, or pembrolizumab / chemotherapy, in the first line recurrent / metastatic setting. Pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for patients whose tumors express PD□L1 (Combined Positive Score [CPS] ≥1), while pembrolizumab / chemotherapy was approved for use in the United States for all patients irrespective of PD-L1 expression.3 In the Keynote-48 study, based on an amended design, overall survival comparisons were made in the PD-L1 CPS >=20, >=1, and total populations; these results defined subsequent regulatory approval. However, these results offer little specific information describing outcomes specifically in patients with low CPS, the suitability of the CPS thresholds chosen, and hypotheses to be tested in future clinical trials. To address these gaps, we extracted data from Kaplan-Meier curves4 and estimated survival in the CPS<1 population (Figure), which was not reported in the manuscript. This was done by leveraging the fact that the overall survival function is a weighted average of CPS < and >= 1. These data suggest cetuximab/chemotherapy may retain benefit in PD-L1 negative tumors, an observation of potential clinical relevance directly affecting patient care. This approach also illustrates the possibility, in some cases, of estimating group-specific survival distributions for subpopulations of interest even when Kaplan-Meier curves are not provided that can be applied to other trials. ![Figure (below):](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.18.20070888/F1.medium.gif) [Figure (below):](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.18.20070888/F1) Figure (below): Left: Using an approach outlined in [4], we extracted Kaplan-Meier curves from the pembrolizumab/chemotherapy population and used the survival.function-CPS>=1.0 (red) survival.function-overall.population (black) to estimate survival.function-CPS<1.0 (green, *not reported in the original manuscript*) using the equation: weight × survival.function-CPS<1.0 + (1-weight) × survival.function-CPS>=1.0 =survival.function.overall.pop In this case with weight 39/281. Right: We compare overall survival following treatment with pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (red) to cetuximab/chemotherapy (black) in the CPS<1 population. Survival functions were estimated as in the left panel. ## Data Availability Not applicable ## Footnotes * **Disclosures** JDS reports research support paid to the institution: Merck, BMS, Regeneron; * Consulting / Scientific Advisory Board / Travel fees: Debiopharm, BMS, Nanobiotix, Tilos, AstraZeneca, LEK, Catenion, ACI Clinical, Immunitas; Expert witness fees. * RIH reports consulting for BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, Genentech, Celgene and Bayer and Reseaerch Support from GSK, Merck, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Genentech and Kura. * Received April 18, 2020. * Revision received April 18, 2020. * Accepted April 24, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, et al: Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet, 2019 2. 2.Ferris RL, Licitra L: PD-1 immunotherapy for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Lancet, 2019 3. 3.U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Available from: [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-pembrolizumab-first-line-treatment-head-and-neck-squamous-cell-carcinoma](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-pembrolizumab-first-line-treatment-head-and-neck-squamous-cell-carcinoma). 4. 4.Alexander BM, Schoenfeld JD, Trippa L: Hazards of Hazard Ratios - Deviations from Model Assumptions in Immunotherapy. N Engl J Med 378:1158–1159, 2018 [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29562148&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F04%2F24%2F2020.04.18.20070888.atom)