PFS was defined as the time from randomization to the first documented progressive disease (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first, per RECIST 1.1 modified to use immune-related response criteria (irRC) confirmation and unidimensional tumor measurements as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR). PD was defined as ≥20% increase in tumor burden compared with nadir (at any single time point) in 2 consecutive observations ≥4 weeks apart. If there was no disease progression or death, participants were censored at the date of their last disease assessment. The PFS was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the electronic Case Report Form (eCRF). Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.

OS was determined for all participants and was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants were censored at the date of their last follow-up. The OS was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the eCRF. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.

DLTs will be evaluated during the safety run-in period. Any treatment emergent Grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE) that occurs in the first 42 days after initiation of study treatment, that is deemed possibly, probably or definitely related to the combination of CMB305 and atezolizumab will be considered a DLT with the following exceptions:

• Alopecia or vomiting (unless not controlled by optimal anti-emetics)
• Hepatic enzyme elevations associated with the baseline Grade 2 abnormalities
• Grade 3 laboratory AEs that are asymptomatic and return to baseline or to Grade 1 within 3 days, unless identified specifically as DLT by the investigator or the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC)
• Grade 3 fatigue
• Grade 3 systemic reactions (such as fever, headache, influenza like symptoms, myalgia, malaise, or nausea) that return to baseline or Grade 1 within 3 days of study inoculation

The analysis population included all participants who participated in the safety run-in period and received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab.

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant administered a study treatment and which does not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign, symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure, whether or not considered related to the study treatment or protocol-specified procedure. Any worsening (i.e., any clinically significant adverse change in frequency and/or intensity) of a pre-existing condition that was temporally associated with the use of study treatment, was also an AE. The number of participants who experienced at least one AE is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab.

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant administered a study treatment and which does not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign, symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure, whether or not considered related to the study treatment or protocol-specified procedure. Any worsening (i.e., any clinically significant adverse change in frequency and/or intensity) of a pre-existing condition that was temporally associated with the use of study treatment, was also an AE. The number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab.

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to the first documented PD or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first, per RECIST 1.1 modified to use irRC confirmation and unidimensional tumor measurements as assessed by BICR. PD was defined as ≥20% increase in tumor burden compared with nadir (at any single time point) in 2 consecutive observations ≥4 weeks apart. If there was no disease progression or death, participants were censored at the date of their last disease assessment. The PFS was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data. Participants were evaluated every 6 weeks with radiographic imaging to assess their response to treatment. The PFS rate was calculated as the percentage of participants with PFS at Month 3.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the eCRF. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to the first documented PD or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first, per RECIST 1.1 modified to use irRC confirmation and unidimensional tumor measurements as assessed by BICR. PD was defined as ≥20% increase in tumor burden compared with nadir (at any single time point) in 2 consecutive observations ≥4 weeks apart. If there was no disease progression or death, participants were censored at the date of their last disease assessment. The PFS was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data. Participants were evaluated every 6 weeks with radiographic imaging to assess their response to treatment. The PFS rate was calculated as the percentage of participants with PFS at Month 6.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the eCRF. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.

TTNT was the time from date of randomization to the start date of subsequent treatment. Participants were treated for up to approximately 2 years and then followed until next treatment or death. Participants who did not receive subsequent treatment were censored at the date of last contact or death. The TTNT was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab.

DMFS was the time between the date of randomization and the date of first distant metastasis or date of death (whatever the cause), whichever occurs first. Participants without metastasis and death were censored at the date of last contact or death. The DMFS was analyzed using the product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the eCRF. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.

The number of participants with anti-NY-ESO-1 antibodies at baseline was measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with recombinant NY-ESO1 protein. A titer of >1:100 was considered positive. The number of participants that were anti-NY-ESO-1 antibody positive at baseline is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab and had data available for baseline antibody analysis.

The number of participants with anti-NY-ESO-1 antibodies induced after treatment was measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with recombinant NY-ESO1protein. A titer of >1:100 was considered positive. The induction of anti-NY-ESO-1 antibody response was defined as a ≥4-fold increase in the titer or the presence of a newly positive response after the first dose of treatment. The number of participants that were anti-NY-ESO-1 antibody positive after induction with treatment is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab and had data available for induction after treatment antibody analysis.

Anti-NY-ESO-1 CD4 and CD8 positive T-cell responses were measured by interferon gamma detecting enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot (ELISPOT) using isolated CD4 and CD8 positive T cells from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) expanded in vitro with a NY-ESO-1 peptide pool (20-mer peptides, 10-mer overlap) and considered positive if there were >50 spot-forming units/50,000 cells observed for NY-ESO-1 peptides and a ≥2-fold increase in spot-forming units compared with a negative control. The number of participants that were anti-NY-ESO-1 T cell positive at baseline is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab and had data available for baseline T cell analysis.

Anti-NY-ESO-1 CD4 and CD8 positive T-cell responses were measured by interferon gamma detecting enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot (ELISPOT) using isolated CD4 and CD8 positive T cells expanded with a NY-ESO-1 peptide (20-mer peptides, 10-mer overlap) and considered positive if there were >50 spot-forming units (SPU)/50,000 cells observed for NY-ESO-1 peptides and a ≥2-fold increase in SPU compared with a negative control. The induction of an anti-NYESO-1 CD4 or CD8 positive T-cell response was defined as de novo positive or ≥2-fold rise in the number of SPU after the first dose. A fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)-based intracellular cytokine staining assay for interferon gamma or tumor necrosis factor alpha after stimulation with NY-ESO-1 peptide was also used and staining ≥2-fold above the baseline value was considered positive for T-cell responses. The number of participants that were anti-NY-ESO-1 T cell positive after induction with treatment is presented.

The analysis population included all participants who received ≥1 dose of any of the CMB305 components (LV305, G305) or atezolizumab and had data available for induction after treatment T cell analysis.

ORR was determined in all participants and was defined as the percentage of participants who had a confirmed Complete Response (CR: Disappearance of all lesions in 2 consecutive observations ≥4 weeks apart) or a Partial Response (PR: ≥30% decrease in tumor burden compared with baseline in 2 observations ≥4 weeks apart) per RECIST 1.1 modified to use irRC confirmation and unidimensional tumor measurements as assessed by BICR. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders. The percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR is presented.

The analysis population included all randomized participants who met eligibility criteria for the study and had data recorded in the eCRF. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized.