ライフサイエンスコーパス: atezolizumab

1 pression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab.

2 d, collected before and after treatment with atezolizumab.

3 s, of whom 119 received one or more doses of atezolizumab.

4 utcomes in urothelial carcinoma treated with atezolizumab.

5 after bevacizumab and after the addition of atezolizumab.

6 pression, had improved overall survival with atezolizumab.

7 expression ratio correlated with response to atezolizumab.

8 be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab.

9 All received atezolizumab.

10 ar AMN-like retinopathy after treatment with atezolizumab.

11 otomas 2 weeks after their first infusion of atezolizumab.

12 cy of adverse events among patients assigned atezolizumab.

13 nts underwent a baseline biopsy and received atezolizumab 1,200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intraveno

14 All patients received atezolizumab (1,200 mg) once every 3 weeks.

15 lock design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice

16 signed (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wee

17 e voice or web system to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) once every

18 on, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intraveno

19 venously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day

20 ive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus

21 In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intrav

22 eived neoadjuvant treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) on day 1, nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/

23 colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or atezolizumab (1200 mg).

24 ents were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) onc

25 mab emtansine (3.6 mg/kg of bodyweight) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or trastuzumab emtansine plus pla

26 ndomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15

27 prophylaxis) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or atezolizumab (1200 mg).

28 Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks).

29 n analysis, including 206 patients receiving atezolizumab, 500 receiving docetaxel, and 2630 receivin

30 andomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68

31 plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]).

32 Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg or matching placebo intravenously on

33 disease progression or toxicity, plus either atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo once every 2 weeks until

34 interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus c

35 cohort II or III to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (840 mg, D1 and D15) and either paclitaxel

36 ent-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel

37 Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), whic

38 e responses, we conducted a phase 2 study of atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) in combination with ven

39 Immunotherapy with atezolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor targeting the progr

40 Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of eac

41 thy with or without retinal vasculitis after atezolizumab administration.

42 Atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy offers a promis

43 nous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response sys

44 n of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatoc

45 ificant increases in PFS or OS compared with atezolizumab alone, some patients demonstrated evidence

46 n-treated tumors was increased compared with atezolizumab alone.

47 After surgery, we sequentially administered atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy), autogene cev

48 The combination of EpAb2-6 with atezolizumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, almost completely

49 In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1

50 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plu

51 red in 43 (33%) of 132 patients who received atezolizumab and 13 (19%) of 68 patients who received pl

52 68 to 1.01; P = .06; median 14.2 months with atezolizumab and 13.0 months with placebo) and the hazar

53 142 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab and 135 received docetaxel.

54 ents was 21.0 months (95% CI 19.0-22.6) with atezolizumab and 18.7 months (16.9-20.3) with placebo (s

55 5 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive d

56 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo

57 56%) of 284 patients given cabozantinib plus atezolizumab and 74 (26%) of 284 patients given ARPI swi

58 months (IQR 6.1-11.5) for patients assigned atezolizumab and 8.4 months (5.3-11.1) for those assigne

59 ntly different between the cabozantinib plus atezolizumab and ARPI switch groups (median 14.8 months

60 3 clinical trial showed that combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab achieved better overall and

61 In this study, atezolizumab and bevacizumab demonstrated safety and res

62 UC was associated with increased response to atezolizumab and chemotherapy.

63 eatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine ph

64 median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical signi

65 Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimen

66 ously resected right colon adenocarcinoma on atezolizumab and recently treated Clostridioides diffici

67 Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibit

68 s cobimetinib, 7.10 months (6.05-10.05) with atezolizumab, and 8.51 months (6.41-10.71) with regorafe

69 ar cells and tumors of patients treated with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) from multi

70 e aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevaci

71 hase 3 randomized controlled trial comparing atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy to chemotherapy in

72 Atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), but not anti-PD-1, reduced ce

73 Atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), combined with carboplatin and

74 Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)) an

75 This study assessed atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) as

76 e aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) ve

77 April 2022, 127 of 507 patients (25%) in the atezolizumab arm and 124 of 498 (24.9%) in the BSC arm h

78 ithdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm.

79 interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm.

80 Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for pat

81 Atezolizumab-associated acute macular neuroretinopathy (

82 e, there are 3 previously published cases of atezolizumab-associated AMN with retinal vasculitis.

83 of 90 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab at 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg and were evaluable f

84 :1) to receive chemotherapy plus intravenous atezolizumab at 840 mg or placebo every 2 weeks.

85 iable PD-L1 expression and its saturation by atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab can be quantified

86 d that PD-L1-targeted monoclonal antibodies (atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) and a high-affin

87 patients received 1 or more doses of an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimum

88 All patients received an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimum

89 ting that PD-L1 expression is predictive for atezolizumab benefit.

90 Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered

91 Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab +

92 While sunitinib and atezolizumab + bevacizumab are effective in subsets with

93 effective in subsets with high angiogenesis, atezolizumab + bevacizumab improves clinical benefit in

94 e systemic therapy until it was overtaken by atezolizumab-bevacizumab in 2020; durvalumab-tremelimuma

95 improved overall survival when treated with atezolizumab but not with chemotherapy.

96 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receivi

97 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabo

98 on of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with atezolizumab can induce durable clinical benefit (DCB) i

99 Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastati

100 Additional options are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/ca

101 zumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel.

102 nclude pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atez

103 are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinu

104 Triple combination therapy with atezolizumab + cobimetinib + vemurafenib, after a 28-d r

105 his multicenter phase II trial, we evaluated atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab in patients with

106 survival rate of 24% (95% CI 19.3-29.4) with atezolizumab compared with 12% (6.7-18.0) with chemother

107 pulation, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall sur

108 nts) and pharmacokinetics (assessed by serum atezolizumab concentrations).

109 Atezolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile an

110 Although the combination of CMB305 and atezolizumab did not result in significant increases in

111 Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard r

112 One patient who received atezolizumab died due to a treatment-related adverse eve

113 Patients were given 1200 mg intravenous atezolizumab every 21 days until progression.

114 mg/kg and young adults receiving 1200 mg of atezolizumab every 3 weeks.

115 ing BM in the cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab for EX-SCLC.

116 py, are appropriate considerations, but only atezolizumab for patients with tumor programmed death-li

117 deaths occurred in two (<1%) patients in the atezolizumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atez

118 4 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258).

119 rbinectedin plus atezolizumab group than the atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [9

120 ta cutoff, 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group).

121 sed (32.2% vs 27.4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped

122 low-up was 18.5 months (IQR 9.6-22.8) in the atezolizumab group and 17.5 months (8.4-22.4) in the pla

123 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo

124 %) of 242 patients in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group and 53 (22%) of 240 patients in the a

125 7%) of 284 patients in the cabozantinib plus atezolizumab group and in 42 (15%) of 284 patients in th

126 us (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.54-0.98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or

127 differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (

128 le patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patient

129 11 (8%) patients in the atezolizumab group discontinued because of adverse event

130 ab group and 53 (22%) of 240 patients in the atezolizumab group had grade 3-4 adverse events.

131 on of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (media

132 urvival was longer in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group than the atezolizumab group (stratifi

133 16 (11%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus 52 (39%) patients in the docet

134 adverse events, and one (<1%) patient in the atezolizumab group versus three (2%) patients in the doc

135 neutropenia (38 [8%] of 453 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 36 [8%] of 437 patients in the pla

136 ch; the most common in the cabozantinib plus atezolizumab group were hypertension (24 [8%] of 284 pat

137 atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib

138 144 patients were randomly allocated to the atezolizumab group, and 143 to the docetaxel group.

139 the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafeni

140 lus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafeni

141 ezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group).

142 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 advers

143 tion-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adver

144 and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse event

145 targeting PD-1 or its ligand 1 PD-L1 such as atezolizumab, have great efficacy in a proportion of met

146 se single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 exp

147 Atezolizumab improved overall survival compared with che

148 he safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity of atezolizumab in children and young adults with refractor

149 early-stage TNBC, neoadjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and anth

150 potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition with atezolizumab in mRCC.

151 el did not demonstrate improved survival for atezolizumab in patients overall, although a trend towar

152 s were associated with decreased efficacy of atezolizumab in patients with mUC and metastatic renal c

153 ese data indicate a positive trend favouring atezolizumab in PD-L1 subgroup analyses, primarily drive

154 guided ongoing studies and combinations with atezolizumab in RCC.

155 ved (P(int), .089), with higher benefit from atezolizumab in the Immunoscore IC-high group.

156 erall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations

157 onses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting.

158 This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemoth

159 Atezolizumab intravenous (IV) is approved for the treatm

160 Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand

161 Atezolizumab is an inhibitor of PD-L1, which can lead to

162 i-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab is clinically active against cancer, includ

163 Further study of trastuzumab emtansine plus atezolizumab is warranted in a subpopulation of patients

164 ents younger than 18 years received 15 mg/kg atezolizumab (maximum 1200 mg); patients aged 18-29 year

165 TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12.6 months vs 8.9

166 once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3

167 plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus plat

168 olizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two

169 olizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group).

170 zumab group and 6.7 months (4.2-8.2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free

171 vacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group.

172 TMB as a predictive biomarker for first-line atezolizumab monotherapy in locally advanced or metastat

173 mparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third

174 (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18, 2018, and Marc

175 etermine the safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (MPDL3280A), a humanized programmed death-l

176 , of whom 202 were randomly allocated either atezolizumab (n=133) or placebo (n=69).

177 /2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; med

178 o combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent

179 ents were randomly assigned to zanzalintinib-atezolizumab (n=451) or regorafenib (n=450).

180 igned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464).

181 patients were eligible for randomisation to atezolizumab (n=507) or best supportive care (n=498); 49

182 zumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atezolizumab [n=1] and septic shock related to nab-pacli

183 Adjuvant atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, generally administered fo

184 dverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo.

185 0-1.12; P = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab-paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo-p

186 n follow-up from a phase 1 trial of surgery, atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitory antibody), autogene cevum

187 s received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward.

188 nib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (cont

189 Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the standard

190 After the global approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy as first-

191 Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durval

192 These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment

193 nths (IQR 10.6-28.0) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 14.0 months (4.2

194 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in

195 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446

196 ted grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the s

197 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunit

198 ollow-up of 6.6 months (IQR 5.5-8.5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6.7 months (4.2-

199 ents occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patient

200 ression-free survival was 11.2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7.7 months in

201 umab group and 14.0 months (4.2-18.5) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group.

202 hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezoli

203 and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezoli

204 Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising t

205 n progression-free and overall survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus pacl

206 Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free

207 gression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alo

208 survival was improved in those who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance

209 C QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups we

210 ts of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-

211 howed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patien

212 Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with signif

213 ly 20, 2016, and July 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

214 s were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monoth

215 Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib after disease progression

216 Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel could b

217 Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed demonstrate

218 Atezolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed was given f

219 Here, we report the efficacy of ABCP or atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP) vers

220 re similar between arms and as expected with atezolizumab plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or capecitabin

221 ients, 165 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 168 to placebo plus c

222 om the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in th

223 vival (18.6 months [95% CI 16.0-21.2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13.9 months [12

224 n groups (18.5 months [IQR 15.2-23.6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19.2 months [15

225 low-up was 20.6 months (IQR 8.7-24.9) in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19.8 months (8.

226 reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232

227 survival (7.0 months [95% CI 6.2-7.3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.5 months [4.4

228 ed in 95 (58%, 95% CI 50-65) patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 69 (41%, 34-49)

229 ccurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 23

230 ade 5 adverse event (traffic accident in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and pneumonia in th

231 53 (69%, 95% CI 57-79) of 77 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 37 (49%, 38-

232 ts were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232

233 have predictive value in patients receiving atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting

234 0 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone

235 mprovement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as fi

236 reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in t

237 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizu

238 This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal c

239 Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherap

240 y endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus reg

241 The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those

242 val was 8.87 months (95% CI 7.00-10.61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7.10 months (6.05-10.05)

243 f whom 451 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 were assigned t

244 lly meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1

245 0 study assessing the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with unrese

246 ve metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therape

247 was given for four to six cycles followed by atezolizumab plus pemetrexed until progression for a max

248 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A),

249 These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a poten

250 ue were analyzed for potential biomarkers of atezolizumab response.

251 overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST

252 f 18.0 months (IQR 14.6-21.5), zanzalintinib-atezolizumab showed a significant overall survival benef

253 Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerabili

254 INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab showed encouraging durable response rates,

255 Atezolizumab showed encouraging durable response rates,

256 1.8 months (IQR 9.9-19.3), cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly improved progression-free sur

257 Atezolizumab significantly improved survival compared wi

258 Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum reg

259 ammed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab to chemotherapy improves overall survival (

260 Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy increased QALYs by 0.721 at

261 phase II trial comparing the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab to docetaxel did not demonstrate improved s

262 At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-

263 Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-lin

264 The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and co

265 Addition of atezolizumab to trastuzumab emtansine did not show a cli

266 Addition of atezolizumab to trastuzumab emtansine might potentiate a

267 Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an

268 Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided pr

269 Among patients without pCR, 14 of 70 (20%) atezolizumab-treated and 33 of 99 (33%) placebo-treated

270 Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did

271 27.4-38.3) in the stage II-IIIA population, atezolizumab treatment improved disease-free survival co

272 rt results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevan

273 rt results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevan

274 re randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab

275 survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with

276 ival was 25.0 months (95% CI 19.6-30.7) with atezolizumab versus 18.0 months (13.6-20.1) with placebo

277 nths (95% CI 5.8-10.7) for patients assigned atezolizumab versus 6.8 months (4.0-11.1) for those assi

278 lation was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.7-16.4) for atezolizumab versus 9.7 months (8.6-12.0) for docetaxel

279 nvestigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15.1 vs 10.6 months; hazard

280 We assessed efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in previously treated NSCL

281 IMpassion031 compared efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus placebo combined with nab-paclitaxel

282 astases, the stratified HR for zanzalintinib-atezolizumab versus regorafenib was 0.79 (95% CI 0.61-1.

283 rvival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib.

284 regorafenib and 1.19 (0.83-1.71; p=0.34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib.

285 ival was 15.7 months [95% CI 12.6-18.0] with atezolizumab vs 10.3 months [8.8-12.0] with docetaxel; H

286 ia (17 [13%] among 132 patients who received atezolizumab vs three [4%] among 68 who received placebo

287 Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intra

288 ter adjustment for baseline characteristics, atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer

289 However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy,

290 INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longe

291 S was not met, durable antitumor activity to atezolizumab was observed in a subset of patients.

292 Although response to atezolizumab was restricted, atezolizumab was well toler

293 ugh response to atezolizumab was restricted, atezolizumab was well tolerated with generally comparabl

294 Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile d

295 Serum concentrations of atezolizumab were above the target exposure level in all

296 rticipants who received one or more doses of atezolizumab were included in the primary and safety ana

297 Adverse events of special interest for atezolizumab were observed in 68% (grades 3 and 4: 11%)

298 Mean serum concentrations of atezolizumab were overlapping and comparable between chi

299 of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy

300 to test the activity of the PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, with carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel given