ライフサイエンスコーパス: durvalumab

1 cantly different from that with single-agent durvalumab.

2 anced benefits to the ATRi ceralasertib plus durvalumab.

3 after definitive chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab.

4 definitive chemoradiation and consolidative durvalumab.

5 onse associated with the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab.

6 andard chemotherapy with or without adjuvant durvalumab.

7 3; IC025 = 0.68), but it was not detected in durvalumab.

8 The RP2D was durvalumab 1,500 mg every 4 weeks with olaparib 300 mg t

9 mbination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1.5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks

10 omplications arising from myasthenia gravis (durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg

11 r chemoradiotherapy to receive consolidation durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 and day 15 o

12 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy gr

13 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.

14 eived four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg ev

15 up to four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg ev

16 g) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administe

17 to receive durvalumab at a dose of 1500 mg, durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab at a dose of 75 m

18 lizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2).

19 Durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg

20 tremelimumab 1 mg/kg), pericardial effusion (durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg

21 imumab 1 mg/kg), and neuromuscular disorder (durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 3 mg

22 ed dose was exceeded in the cohort receiving durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 3 mg

23 cology Group performance status 0 through 1 (durvalumab, 251 patients [90.9%] and nondurvalumab, 88 p

24 All patients received two cycles of durvalumab 3 weeks apart at a dose of 1.12 g by intraven

25 Most patients had a smoking history (durvalumab, 316 patients [95.2%] and nondurvalumab, 132

26 he overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelim

27 domised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisp

28 Biodistribution analysis showed (89)Zr-durvalumab accumulation in the blood pool, liver, and sp

29 Consolidative durvalumab after definitive chemoradiation for unresecta

30 nted to explain why patients did not receive durvalumab after its approval.

31 nts received tarlatamab with atezolizumab or durvalumab after standard-of-care first-line chemo-immun

32 zumab (40.3%; 95% CI, 28.1%-53.6%) than with durvalumab alone (23.9%; 95% CI, 14.3%-35.9%).

33 h oleclumab or monalizumab (Arms 1 and 2) or durvalumab alone (Arm 4).

34 but 54% achieved that result after Dato-DXd/durvalumab alone (block A) and 92% without doxorubicin-c

35 Both combinations prolonged PFS vs durvalumab alone (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio [HR], 0.5

36 andard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclon

37 Durvalumab alone, and with tremelimumab, demonstrated du

38 e CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not from durvalumab alone, when added to chemotherapy in the rand

39 tions increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone.

40 s with the combination therapy, but not with durvalumab alone.

41 not statistically significant compared with durvalumab alone.

42 nges in the MM tumor microenvironment versus durvalumab alone.

43 ab provided additional clinical benefit over durvalumab alone.

44 ached up to 55.9 months with the addition of durvalumab, an immunotherapy.

45 20, 770 women were randomly assigned (385 to durvalumab and 385 to placebo; median age 49 years [IQR

46 , 186 of whom were randomly assigned (123 to durvalumab and 63 to cetuximab).

47 ion-free survival was 76.0% (71.3-80.0) with durvalumab and 73.3% (68.4-77.5) with placebo.

48 Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab prolonged du

49 Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab were not sup

50 alone (same regimen using placebo instead of durvalumab and instead of bevacizumab).

51 More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo c

52 ntre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours.

53 d point in either cohort, the combination of durvalumab and platin-based chemotherapy, especially cis

54 ed in peripheral blood during treatment with durvalumab and pomalidomide, and combination therapy ind

55 ation treatment with the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab and the anti-CTLA-4 antibody tremelimumab mig

56 nefit from dual ICB with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and the CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not

57 1-high expression, OS was comparable between durvalumab and the EXTREME regimen.

58 BRAF-mutated melanoma (cohort A, n = 26), or durvalumab and trametinib given concomitantly (cohort B,

59 ith and without immune checkpoint inhibitors durvalumab and tremelimumab in 180 patients with mPDAC.

60 onal antibodies (atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) and a high-affinity PD-L1-binding peptide, W

61 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive pl

62 lus bevacizumab, 10.0 months (9.0-12.7) with durvalumab, and 8.2 months (6.9-11.1) with placebo.

63 The non-match substudies evaluated durvalumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for anti-PD-1

64 For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interv

65 SCCHN (PINCH) study, we performed (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 [programmed death ligand 1]) PET/

66 A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib

67 ty, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) combined with dabrafenib (BRAF i

68 For the durvalumab arm versus control, PFS HR was 0.87 (95% CI 0

69 mab followed by bevacizumab plus durvalumab (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab

70 In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage

71 ood and bone marrow of patients treated with durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination with pomalid

72 demonstrated noninferiority for single-agent durvalumab as well.

73 th programmed cell death-ligand 1 inhibitor, durvalumab, as the first sequence of therapy in the I-SP

74 olled trial, we assigned patients to receive durvalumab at a dose of 1500 mg, durvalumab (1500 mg) pl

75 ermitted the administration of consolidation durvalumab at the discretion of the treating investigato

76 amucirumab (AFP >=400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be consider

77 CLC treated with chemoradiation and adjuvant durvalumab between November 2013 and March 2020 who had

78 latin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by durvalumab, bevacizumab plus olaparib maintenance versus

79 indings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs.

80 ts saturation by atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab can be quantified independently of biophysica

81 Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was

82 Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immu

83 Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primar

84 RT duration was 1.6 (1.4-1.8) months for the durvalumab cohort and 1.5 (1.4-1.8) months for the nondu

85 ths (95% CI, 13.6-24.8 months) and NR in the durvalumab cohort and 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.8 months

86 n TFST and TTDM were not reached (NR) in the durvalumab cohort and 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.8 month

87 s with BCG-naive, high-risk NMIBC, 1 year of durvalumab combined with BCG induction and maintenance t

88 model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy ove

89 ease outcomes among patients who discontinue durvalumab: compared to patients who experienced early-o

90 Durvalumab concurrent with chemoradiotherapy was well to

91 Although concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) and durvalumab consolidation has become a standard treatment

92 status LACC were randomized 1 : 1 to receive durvalumab + CRT or CRT alone.

93 e 0.61 (0.28-1.35) and 0.55 (0.23-1.35) with durvalumab + CRT, and 0.49 (0.26-0.95) and 0.65 (0.33-1.

94 itor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide)

95 Durvalumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and

96 Cabozantinib plus durvalumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity, manageable

97 Median time to durvalumab discontinuation was 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.8-1

98 y-onset pneumonitis ( < 3 months) leading to durvalumab discontinuation, patients with late-onset pne

99 tients and Methods This phase I study tested durvalumab doublets in parallel 3 + 3 dose escalations.

100 d CALLA trial (NCT03830866), the addition of durvalumab during and after CRT did not significantly im

101 plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab plus durvalumab (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel,

102 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and EXTREME we

103 Durvalumab efficacy, with or without tremelimumab, versu

104 sition, patients were treated with 750 mg of durvalumab every 2 wk.

105 followed by radical cystectomy and adjuvant durvalumab every 4 weeks for eight cycles (durvalumab gr

106 In the immune-positive subtype, Dato-DXd/durvalumab exceeded the prespecified threshold for succe

107 l); carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab plus durvalumab (durv

108 or carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab, durvalumab plus olap

109 Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or wi

110 e lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of

111 definitive chemoradiation and consolidative durvalumab from June 2017 through May 2020.

112 ty were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis),

113 ed adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the

114 ow-up was 18.5 months (IQR 13.2-21.5) in the durvalumab group and 18.4 months (13.2-23.7) in the plac

115 1 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median fo

116 0 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median fo

117 e enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group.

118 In total, 533 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group and 530 to the comparison group.

119 fe was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.6 to 8.9) in the durvalumab group and 6.7 months (5.6 to 7.9) in the plac

120 Four (3%) patients in the durvalumab group and one (2%) in the cetuximab group die

121 ng infection, and respiratory failure in the durvalumab group and sudden death not otherwise specifie

122 ion 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-g

123 survival was 50.6% (95% CI 41.5-59.8) in the durvalumab group versus 63.7% (51.3-76.1) in the cetuxim

124 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 g

125 t durvalumab every 4 weeks for eight cycles (durvalumab group), or to receive neoadjuvant gemcitabine

126 A total of 264 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group, 200 to the durvalumab-tremelimumab gro

127 s occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durval

128 occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durval

129 However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in var

130 significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.8

131 In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression

132 therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared

133 of a phase Ib/II study of guadecitabine and durvalumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (

134 tal, 106 patients were treated with Dato-DXd/durvalumab in block A.

135 539822) evaluating cabozantinib plus the ICI durvalumab in chemorefractory gastrointestinal cancer.

136 We gave patients durvalumab in doses of 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 15 mg/kg, or 2

137 rib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or B

138 Exposure to durvalumab increased cediranib area under the curve and

139 (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab injection was safe.

140 ntravenously (1680 mg once every 4 weeks) or durvalumab intravenously (1500 mg once every 4 weeks) as

141 an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab).

142 an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab); 17

143 Durvalumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibi

144 Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab led to significantly longer overall survival

145 Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and

146 ry 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or stand

147 Durvalumab (MEDI4736, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) was admini

148 andomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenou

149 -year DFS was 63% (95% CI: 46.0-80.4) in the durvalumab monotherapy arm compared to 67% (95% CI: 49.6

150 al was 14.4 months (95% CI 10.4-17.3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12.1 months

151 enrolled and randomly assigned to either the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=30) or the durvalumab pl

152 .7% [95% CI 0.8-22.1]) of 30 patients in the durvalumab monotherapy group and 16 (53.3% [34.3-71.7])

153 occurred in five (17%) of 30 patients in the durvalumab monotherapy group and six (20%) of 30 patient

154 CC (DFBCC-IO), 222 (12.4%) were treated with durvalumab monotherapy on Study 1108, and 257 (14.3%) we

155 andomly assigned (1:1) to either neoadjuvant durvalumab monotherapy or neoadjuvant durvalumab plus st

156 to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies.

157 s were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the

158 oved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for

159 e randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342)

160 l (PFS; primary endpoint) was tested for the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control in the non-tBRC

161 with primary analysis; interim OS HR for the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control was 0.95 (95% C

162 ed by bevacizumab, durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm).

163 , 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.

164 : HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42

165 programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, durvalumab, olaparib, or cediranib combinations are tole

166 tibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvati

167 atirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody).

168 alumab plus bevacizumab (1500 mg intravenous durvalumab once every 4 weeks, then 1120 mg durvalumab p

169 med cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors durvalumab or atezolizumab followed by maintenance immun

170 king history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurren

171 py (atezolizumab/bevacizumab or tremelimumab/durvalumab) or lenvatinib between or between August 2018

172 mbination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated.

173 own the feasibility and safety of (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab PET/CT in a multicenter trial.

174 durvalumab once every 4 weeks, then 1120 mg durvalumab plus 15 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab once ev

175 patients were randomly allocated: 339 to the durvalumab plus BCG induction and maintenance group (of

176 67 (20%) disease-free survival events in the durvalumab plus BCG induction and maintenance group and

177 occurred in 71 (21%) of 336 patients in the durvalumab plus BCG induction and maintenance group, 52

178 high-risk disease or death by any cause with durvalumab plus BCG induction and maintenance versus the

179 d 180 [53%] completed treatment), 339 to the durvalumab plus BCG induction group (337 [99%] initiated

180 ction and maintenance group, 52 (15%) in the durvalumab plus BCG induction only group, and 13 (4%) of

181 or web response system, to TACE plus either durvalumab plus bevacizumab (1500 mg intravenous durvalu

182 eened, of whom 616 were randomly assigned to durvalumab plus bevacizumab (n=204), durvalumab plus pla

183 Durvalumab plus bevacizumab plus TACE has the potential

184 ival was 15.0 months (95% CI 11.1-18.9) with durvalumab plus bevacizumab, 10.0 months (9.0-12.7) with

185 met its primary PFS endpoints for first-line durvalumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab f

186 e seen in 12 evaluable patients who received durvalumab plus cediranib, for a 50% response rate and a

187 Concurrent durvalumab plus chemoradiotherapy warrants further explo

188 First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carbo

189 vasive bladder cancer to receive neoadjuvant durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin every 3 weeks for

190 mab plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (cohort 1) or durvalumab plus gemcitabine/carboplatin (cohort 2) once

191 Before RNU, patients received durvalumab plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (cohort 1) or durv

192 The RP2Ds of durvalumab plus olaparib and durvalumab plus intermittent cediranib are tolerable and

193 Durvalumab plus intermittent cediranib grade 3 and 4 AEs

194 (11.1 [-6.4 to 28.1] percentage points) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (16.9 [-0.8 to 33.4] percent

195 oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7

196 %, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectivel

197 mab plus durvalumab followed by bevacizumab, durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm).

198 The RP2Ds of durvalumab plus olaparib and durvalumab plus intermitten

199 months]) were seen in patients who received durvalumab plus olaparib, yielding an 83% disease contro

200 No dose-limiting toxicity was recorded with durvalumab plus olaparib.

201 However, the difference in ORR for durvalumab plus oleclumab (11.1 [-6.4 to 28.1] percentag

202 Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2)

203 s, confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (35.0%; 95% CI, 23.1%-48.4%) o

204 nts occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab,

205 gned to durvalumab plus bevacizumab (n=204), durvalumab plus placebo (n=207), or placebo alone (n=205

206 intravenous bevacizumab once every 3 weeks), durvalumab plus placebo (same regimen using placebo inst

207 survival by BICR per RECIST version 1.1 with durvalumab plus placebo versus placebo alone, overall su

208 SCLC) were randomized to receive neoadjuvant durvalumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy with olecl

209 These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of

210 toposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly

211 death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest

212 in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) o

213 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the

214 al was 13.0 months (95% CI 11.5-14.8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10.3 mon

215 We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the plat

216 oside group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] o

217 us platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) i

218 Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained impr

219 First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained over

220 First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improve

221 primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etopo

222 Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a

223 tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-

224 b plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposid

225 were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus trem

226 l ( NCT02899195 ) of the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab plus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy for 55

227 ferent in responders versus nonresponders to durvalumab plus pomalidomide with dexamethasone therapy.

228 e durvalumab monotherapy group (n=30) or the durvalumab plus radiotherapy group (n=30).

229 py group and six (20%) of 30 patients in the durvalumab plus radiotherapy group.

230 16 (53.3% [34.3-71.7]) of 30 patients in the durvalumab plus radiotherapy group.

231 b, a NKG2A inhibitor (Arm 2), or neoadjuvant durvalumab plus single-agent platinum chemotherapy with

232 juvant durvalumab monotherapy or neoadjuvant durvalumab plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (8 Gy x 3

233 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n

234 points of improving OS versus sorafenib for durvalumab plus tremelimumab and demonstrated noninferio

235 r anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-naive disease, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1

236 roup (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patie

237 ure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pne

238 survival was 15.1 months (13.1-18.0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12.1 months (1

239 lumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313

240 lumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of

241 lizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab have entered the clinical p

242 We aimed to assess durvalumab plus tremelimumab in patients with advanced s

243 l cancer were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to durvalumab plus tremelimumab or best supportive care alo

244 Durvalumab plus tremelimumab or best supportive care.

245 s were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide gro

246 neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide gro

247 d deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide gro

248 e primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide ver

249 -etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide ver

250 Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was

251 eened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 26

252 r web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, du

253 atio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or

254 Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab prolonged duration of respo

255 (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups

256 Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab were not superior to EXTREM

257 More recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab yielded superior overall su

258 lated adverse events (TRAEs) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and EXTREME were 8.9%, 19.

259 36%-62%) in patients without LM treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, compared with 14% (90% CI,

260 uvant trial ( NCT02812420 ) with anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) plus anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) in cisplatin

261 Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improve

262 other cardiovascular events was detected in durvalumab (PRR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.73-5.31; chi2 = 16.13;

263 oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively.

264 A dose of 10 mg of durvalumab resulted in highest tumor-to-blood ratios.

265 Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safe

266 Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for p

267 STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS)

268 juvant GC in combination with four cycles of durvalumab (start with GC cycle 2) were administered, fo

269 Also, on a lesion level, (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab SUV(peak) showed no substantial correlation t

270 1 the activity and safety of tremelimumab + durvalumab (T300/D) as neoadjuvant treatment of mismatch

271 anti-PD-L1 mAbs (atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) that were administered at equivalent doses,

272 Durvalumab therapy led to significantly longer overall s

273 which establishes a new care standard adding durvalumab to perioperative FLOT chemotherapy in resecta

274 For all patients (n = 33), durvalumab treatment (1,500 mg/4 wk, intravenously) was

275 ke was higher in patients with a response to durvalumab treatment but did not correlate with tumor PD

276 In this PD-L1 ImagiNg to prediCt durvalumab treatment response in SCCHN (PINCH) study, we

277 r-DFO-durvalumab uptake did not correlate to durvalumab treatment response.

278 the head and neck (SCCHN) before monotherapy durvalumab treatment.

279 Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered

280 rences in overall response rates between the durvalumab-tremelimumab alone group (three [11.5%, 90% C

281 ertaken by atezolizumab-bevacizumab in 2020; durvalumab-tremelimumab also became a common first-line

282 2011 and 2023, atezolizumab-bevacizumab and durvalumab-tremelimumab emerged as the most common first

283 assigned to the durvalumab group, 200 to the durvalumab-tremelimumab group, and 266 to the placebo gr

284 (89)Zr-durvalumab tumor uptake was higher in patients with a re

285 (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab uptake did not correlate to durvalumab treatm

286 Lesional (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab uptake did not correlate to PD-L1 combined po

287 (89)Zr-DFO-durvalumab uptake was measured in (18)F-FDG-positive les

288 8%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P

289 Durvalumab was administered at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or

290 In 2018, the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab was approved for patients with stage III lung

291 ompleted concurrent CRT without progression, durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progressi

292 , findings were consistent with PACIFIC, and durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progressi

293 Durvalumab was continued for 1 year after surgery.

294 Adjuvant durvalumab was given for 10 cycles.

295 Conclusion:(89)Zr-durvalumab was safe, without any tracer-related adverse

296 t study of 328 patients treated with CRT and durvalumab, we identify that very high PD-L1 tumor propo

297 followed by surgical resection and adjuvant durvalumab with oleclumab or monalizumab (Arms 1 and 2)

298 In the COAST trial, combining consolidation durvalumab with oleclumab or monalizumab provided additi

299 axel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a stati

300 The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination

301 Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, may have effic