Background: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1–42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. Findings: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1–29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [–1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [–0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (−3·1 [–4·57 to −1·60] vs −3·5 [–5·68 to −1·29]), fatigue (−3·0 [–4·53 to −1·50] vs −5·2 [–7·45 to −2·98]), appetite loss (−5·8 [–7·28 to −4·36] vs −7·0 [–9·17 to −4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [–1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [–0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI −1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, −0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, −2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, −0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, −1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (−1·9, −3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, −1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. Funding: AstraZeneca.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Data underlying the findings of this study can be obtained in accordance with AstraZeneca's data sharing policy described online . Acknowledgments This study was funded by AstraZeneca. We thank the patients, their families and caregivers, and all investigators involved in this study. Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines, was provided by Elizabeth Andrew and Lauren Donaldson of Cirrus Communications (Macclesfield, UK), an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes