Publications by authors named "Saby George"

70 Publications

T-cell CX3CR1 expression as a dynamic blood-based biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Nat Commun 2021 03 3;12(1):1402. Epub 2021 Mar 3.

Center for Immunotherapy, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized treatment for various cancers; however, durable response is limited to only a subset of patients. Discovery of blood-based biomarkers that reflect dynamic change of the tumor microenvironment, and predict response to ICI, will markedly improve current treatment regimens. Here, we investigate CX3C chemokine receptor 1 (CX3CR1), a marker of T-cell differentiation, as a predictive correlate of response to ICI therapy. Successful treatment of tumor-bearing mice with ICI increases the frequency and T-cell receptor clonality of the peripheral CX3CR1CD8 T-cell subset that includes an enriched repertoire of tumor-specific and tumor-infiltrating CD8 T cells. Furthermore, an increase in the frequency of the CX3CR1 subset in circulating CD8 T cells early after initiation of anti-PD-1 therapy correlates with response and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Collectively, these data support T-cell CX3CR1 expression as a blood-based dynamic early on-treatment predictor of response to ICI therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21619-0DOI Listing
March 2021

Axitinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma: Long-term efficacy and safety from a phase Ib trial.

Eur J Cancer 2021 Mar 4;145:1-10. Epub 2021 Jan 4.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address:

Background: Axitinib plus pembrolizumab showed superior overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus sunitinib in a randomised phase III trial in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). We report long-term efficacy and safety of the axitinib/pembrolizumab from the phase I trial (NCT02133742), after 46-55 months from study initiation (data cut-off date, 23rd July 2019).

Methods: Fifty-two treatment-naïve patients with advanced RCC were treated with oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily and intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. PFS, duration of response (DoR) and OS were summarised using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: At a median follow-up of 42.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.1-44.1), median OS was not reached; 38 (73.1%) patients were alive. The probability of being alive at 4 years was 66.8% (95% CI: 49.1-79.5). Median PFS in the overall population was 23.5 months (95% CI: 15.4-30.4). ORR was 73.1%; five patients had complete response. Median DoR was 22.1 months (95% CI: 15.1-34.5). Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were reported in 38 (73.1%) patients and 20 (38.5%) discontinued treatment because of AEs: 17 (32.7%) discontinued axitinib, 13 (25.0%) discontinued pembrolizumab, and 10 (19.2%) discontinued both drugs. Common AEs included diarrhoea (84.6%), fatigue (80.8%), hypertension (53.8%), cough (48.1%) and dysphonia (48.1%). There were no new AE terms reported and no treatment-related deaths.

Conclusions: In patients with advanced RCC with ~4 years of follow-up, combination axitinib/pembrolizumab continued to demonstrate clinical benefit, with no new safety signals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.12.009DOI Listing
March 2021

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Oncologist 2021 Mar 19;26(3):182-e361. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Lessons Learned: The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met. Median progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107-2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Background: AGS-16C3F is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets cell-surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods: Patients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS-16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1).

Results: In the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107-2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS-16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681-1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%).

Conclusion: The investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/onco.13628DOI Listing
March 2021

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

ESMO Open 2020 11;5(6):e001079

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.

Purpose: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

Methods: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).

Results: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.

Conclusion: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.

Trial Registration Details: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703447PMC
November 2020

Proliferative potential and response to nivolumab in clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients.

Oncoimmunology 2020 06 10;9(1):1773200. Epub 2020 Jun 10.

R&D, OmniSeq, Inc, Buffalo, NY, USA.

Background: Biomarkers predicting immunotherapy response in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) are lacking. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry is a complementary diagnostic for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in mRCC, but has shown minimal clinical utility and is not used in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Tumor specimens from 56 patients with mRCC who received nivolumab were evaluated for PD-L1, cell proliferation (targeted RNA-seq), and outcome.

Results: For 56 patients treated with nivolumab as a standard of care, there were 2 complete responses and 8 partial responses for a response rate of 17.9%. Dividing cell proliferation into tertiles, derived from the mean expression of 10 proliferation-associated genes in a reference set of tumors, poorly proliferative tumors (62.5%) were more common than moderately (30.4%) or highly proliferative (8.9%) counterparts. Moderately proliferative tumors were enriched for PD-L1 positive (41.2%), compared to poorly proliferative counterparts (11.4%). Objective response for moderately proliferative (29.4%) tumors was higher than that of poorly (11.4%) proliferative counterparts, but not statistically significant ( = .11). When cell proliferation and negative PD-L1 tumor proportion scores were combined statistically significant results were achieved ( = .048), showing that patients with poorly proliferative and PD-L1 negative tumors have a very low response rate (6.5%) compared to moderately proliferative PD-L1 negative tumors (30%).

Conclusions: Cell proliferation has value in predicting response to nivolumab in clear cell mRCC patients, especially when combined with PD-L1 expression. Further studies which include the addition of progression-free survival (PFS) along with sufficiently powered subgroups are required to further support these findings.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2020.1773200DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458647PMC
June 2020

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 1.2021.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020 09;18(9):1160-1170

National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.0043DOI Listing
September 2020

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clin Cancer Res 2021 Jan 1;27(1):78-86. Epub 2020 Sep 1.

Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purpose: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC.

Patients And Methods: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics.

Results: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.

Conclusions: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population..
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2063DOI Listing
January 2021

Angiogenic and Immune-Related Biomarkers and Outcomes Following Axitinib/Pembrolizumab Treatment in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clin Cancer Res 2020 Nov 18;26(21):5598-5608. Epub 2020 Aug 18.

Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC.

Purpose: Combined axitinib/pembrolizumab is approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This exploratory analysis examined associations between angiogenic and immune-related biomarkers and outcomes following axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment.

Patients And Methods: Prospectively defined retrospective correlative exploratory analyses tested biospecimens from 52 treatment-naïve patients receiving axitinib and pembrolizumab (starting doses 5 mg twice daily and 2 mg/kg respectively, every 3 weeks). Tumor tissue, serum, and whole blood samples were collected at baseline, at cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and end of treatment (EOT) for blood-based samples. Clinical outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: Higher baseline tumor levels of CD8 showed a trend toward longer PFS (HR 0.4; = 0.091). Higher baseline serum levels of CXCL10 ( = 0.0197) and CEACAM1 ( = 0.085) showed a trend toward better ORR and longer PFS, respectively. Patients for whom IL6 was not detected at baseline had longer PFS versus patients for whom it was detected (HR 0.4; = 0.028). At C2D1 and/or EOT, mainly immune-related biomarkers showed any association with better outcomes. The genes ( = 0.084), ( = 0.064), and ( = 0.073) showed trending associations with ORR, and ( = 0.0145), ( = 0.0726), ( = 0.0666), (; = 0.0267), and ( = 0.0287) with PFS.

Conclusions: With combined axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment in patients with aRCC, mostly immune-related biomarkers are associated with better treatment outcomes. This exploratory analysis has identified some candidate biomarkers to consider in future prospective testing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1408DOI Listing
November 2020

Cancer and Leukemia Group B 90203 (Alliance): Radical Prostatectomy With or Without Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy in Localized, High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2020 09 24;38(26):3042-3050. Epub 2020 Jul 24.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Purpose: Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) over RP alone.

Patients And Methods: Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS).

Results: In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, -0.01 to 0.11; = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone.

Conclusion: The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00315DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7479762PMC
September 2020

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

Cancer 2020 Sep 16;126(18):4156-4167. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus.

Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus.

Conclusions: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC.

Lay Summary: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33033DOI Listing
September 2020

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

J Immunother Cancer 2020 07;8(2)

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.

Background: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.

Methods: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.

Results: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.

Conclusions: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.

Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-000891DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359377PMC
July 2020

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020 Dec 14;18(6):469-476.e4. Epub 2020 Jun 14.

US Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Background: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort.

Patients And Methods: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

Results: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable).

Conclusions: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.06.002DOI Listing
December 2020

Safety and efficacy of CDX-014, an antibody-drug conjugate directed against T cell immunoglobulin mucin-1 in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Invest New Drugs 2020 12 29;38(6):1807-1814. Epub 2020 May 29.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Boston, MA, USA.

CDX-014 is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against TIM-1, a surface marker highly expressed in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and ovarian carcinoma. This phase I, first-in-human trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of CDX-014 in patients with advanced refractory RCC, following a dose-escalation and dose expansion design. CDX-014 was administered intravenously at doses ranging from 0.15 to 2.0 mg/kg every 2 or 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Sixteen patients received at least one dose of CDX-014. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Most frequent adverse grade 1 or 2 adverse events included nausea (38%), fatigue, alopecia, elevation of AST and decreased appetite (25% each). Adverse events of grade 3 or more included hyperglycemia (19%), urosepsis (6%), and one multi-organ failure (6%) responsible for one treatment-related death. Two patients discontinued therapy for adverse events including fatigue grade 2 and urosepsis grade 4. CDX-014 showed antitumor activity with one prolonged partial response and a clinical benefit rate (objective response or stable disease >6 months) of 31%. The two patients that exhibited the most marked tumor shrinkage had high TIM-1 expression on tumor tissue. Overall, CDX-014 exhibited a manageable toxicity profile and early signs of activity, supporting further evaluation of antibody-drug conjugates in patients with advanced RCC and potentially other TIM-1 expressing cancers. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02837991 NCT02837991; July 20, 2016.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10637-020-00945-yDOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578086PMC
December 2020

Randomized Double-Blind Phase II Study of Maintenance Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2020 06 9;38(16):1797-1806. Epub 2020 Apr 9.

Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA.

Purpose: Platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer is typically administered for a fixed duration followed by observation until progression. "Switch maintenance" therapy with PD-1 blockade at the time of chemotherapy cessation may be attractive for mechanistic and pragmatic reasons.

Patients And Methods: Patients with metastatic urothelial cancer achieving at least stable disease on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned double-blind 1:1 to switch maintenance pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks versus placebo for up to 24 months. Patients with disease progression on placebo could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included determining overall survival as well as treatment outcomes according to PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS).

Results: Between December 2015 and November 2018, 108 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53). The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 10% with placebo. Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 59% receiving pembrolizumab and 38% of patients receiving placebo. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance pembrolizumab versus placebo (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.1 to 7.3 months] 3.0 months [95% CI; 2.7 to 5.5 months]; hazard ratio, 0.65; log-rank = .04; maximum efficiency robust test = .039). Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 12.9 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab and 18.7 months (95% CI, 11.4 months to not reached) with placebo. There was no significant interaction between PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall survival.

Conclusion: Switch maintenance pembrolizumab leads to additional objective responses in patients achieving at least stable disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and prolongs progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03091DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255983PMC
June 2020

Complete response to anti-PD-L1 antibody in a metastatic bladder cancer associated with novel MSH4 mutation and microsatellite instability.

J Immunother Cancer 2020 03;8(1)

Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA.

Background: Microsatellite instability (MSI) occurs in 3% of urothelial carcinomas as a result of germline or somatic loss of function mutation in mismatch repair (MMR) proteins.1 Although MSH4 is a member of the DNA MMR mutS family, the association of MSH4 mutation with MSI has not been described. We report a complete responder to PD-L1 blockade who had MSH4 mutated metastatic bladder cancer with mixed histology and MSI. The genomics of urothelial, plasmacytoid and squamous histology was characterized individually through microdissection.

Case Presentation: An 81-year-old man was diagnosed with metastatic urothelial carcinoma 8 months after a cystectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. His disease was primary refractory to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but attained complete response to second-line atezolizumab. PCR-based assay revealed MSI high. The tumor mutational burden was elevated to 36.7 mut/Mb. However, immunohistochemistry of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 was intact. Whole exome sequencing confirmed that the above mentioned four classic MMR genes were wild type but revealed a deleterious MSH4 L359I mutation with variant allele fraction of 30% and Polyphen2 score of 0.873. The association of MSH4 alterations and MSI-H was independently verified in two publicly available MSI-H colorectal cancer datasets.

Conclusions: The novel MSH4 L359I mutation is associated with MSI and high mutational burden leading to remarkable response to PD-L1 blockade. More studies are warranted to establish the causality relationship between MSH4 and MSI.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2019-000128DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7206971PMC
March 2020

Adenosine 2A Receptor Blockade as an Immunotherapy for Treatment-Refractory Renal Cell Cancer.

Cancer Discov 2020 01 15;10(1):40-53. Epub 2019 Nov 15.

Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Burlingame, California.

Adenosine mediates immunosuppression within the tumor microenvironment through triggering adenosine 2A receptors (A2AR) on immune cells. To determine whether this pathway could be targeted as an immunotherapy, we performed a phase I clinical trial with a small-molecule A2AR antagonist. We find that this molecule can safely block adenosine signaling . In a cohort of 68 patients with renal cell cancer (RCC), we also observe clinical responses alone and in combination with an anti-PD-L1 antibody, including subjects who had progressed on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Durable clinical benefit is associated with increased recruitment of CD8 T cells into the tumor. Treatment can also broaden the circulating T-cell repertoire. Clinical responses are associated with an adenosine-regulated gene-expression signature in pretreatment tumor biopsies. A2AR signaling, therefore, represents a targetable immune checkpoint distinct from PD-1/PD-L1 that restricts antitumor immunity. SIGNIFICANCE: This first-in-human study of an A2AR antagonist for cancer treatment establishes the safety and feasibility of targeting this pathway by demonstrating antitumor activity with single-agent and anti-PD-L1 combination therapy in patients with refractory RCC. Responding patients possess an adenosine-regulated gene-expression signature in pretreatment tumor biopsies...
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0980DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6954326PMC
January 2020

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019 11;17(11):1278-1285

National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0054DOI Listing
November 2019

Complete Remission of Bone Metastases in Renal Cell Carcinoma with Nivolumab.

Cureus 2019 Aug 30;11(8):e5531. Epub 2019 Aug 30.

Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA.

A 60-year-old female, who presented with abdominal discomfort, was noted to have an enhancing left renal mass, with central necrosis on a CT scan. She underwent radical nephrectomy and biopsy revealed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, Fuhrman grade 4. After 1.5 years of her surgery, she developed metastatic disease with pulmonary nodules and was started on sunitinib. She had disease progression with development of a new 8.2 x 7.6 cm expansile, lytic bony lesion with a complete destruction of the left scapula and 5th left rib lesion. She was treated with Nivolumab for three years. Scans revealed complete resolution of the left scapular metastasis, left rib lesion and the pulmonary nodules. The patient experienced no skeletal-related event (SRE), and no bisphosphonates or receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor was used. The patient remains in complete remission, three years out of treatment. This case highlights the importance of exploring this particular class of drugs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with bone metastasis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5531DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6819060PMC
August 2019

Phase I study of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Invest New Drugs 2020 08 25;38(4):1108-1116. Epub 2019 Oct 25.

Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, 535 Barnhill Drive, RT 400, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.

Background Preclinical studies suggested synergistic anti-tumor activity when pairing mTOR inhibitors with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. We completed a phase I, dose-finding trial for the mTOR inhibitor everolimus combined with the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients. We additionally investigated expression of microRNA 605 (miR-605) in serum samples obtained from trial participants. Patients and Methods Twenty-one patients completed our single institution, non-randomized, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 trial. miR-605 levels were measured at cycle 1/day 1 (C1D1) and C2D1. Delta Ct method was utilized to evaluate miR-605 expression using U6B as an endogenous control. Results There were 3 dosing-limiting toxicities (DLTs): grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and grade 3 neutropenia (n = 1). Everolimus 5 mg PO daily and panobinostat 10 mg PO 3 times weekly (weeks 1 and 2) given in 21-day cycles was the recommended phase II dosing based on their maximum tolerated dose. The 6-month progression-free survival was 31% with a median of 4.1 months (95% confidence internal; 2.0-7.1). There was higher baseline expression of miR-605 in patients with progressive disease (PD) vs those with stable disease (SD) (p = 0.0112). PD patients' miR-605 levels decreased after the 1st cycle (p = 0.0245), whereas SD patients' miR-605 levels increased (p = 0.0179). Conclusion A safe and tolerable dosing regimen was established for combination everolimus/panobinostat therapy with myelosuppression as the major DLT. This therapeutic pairing did not appear to improve clinical outcomes in our group of patients with advanced ccRCC. There was differential expression of miR-605 that correlated with treatment response. Clinical trial information: NCT01582009.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10637-019-00864-7DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7182475PMC
August 2020

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Lancet Oncol 2019 10 16;20(10):1370-1385. Epub 2019 Aug 16.

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Background: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting.

Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment.

Findings: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related.

Interpretation: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories.

Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497870PMC
October 2019

Metastatic sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Oncoimmunology 2019;8(8):1606639. Epub 2019 Apr 25.

Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.

: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with sarcomatoid component carries a poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved for the treatment of metastatic RCC, but their efficacy in patients with sarcomatoid component is not known. : We conducted a retrospective chart review of 30 consecutive patients at our center who were treated for metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid component. : Ten patients were treated with CPI group while 20 patients were in No-CPI group. There were no significant differences in age, sex, race, and stage at diagnosis between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 3 of 10 patients in CPI arm and 5 of 20 patients in No-CPI group were alive. The median overall survival was 33.8 m in immunotherapy group compared to 8.8 m in nonimmunotherapy group ( = .001). : In our experience, CPI therapy resulted in better outcomes compared to traditional therapy with molecular-targeted agents or chemotherapy in these patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2019.1606639DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6682356PMC
April 2019

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

Lancet Oncol 2019 04 28;20(4):581-590. Epub 2019 Feb 28.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address:

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

Methods: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment.

Findings: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status.

Interpretation: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options.

Funding: None.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30907-0DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849381PMC
April 2019

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

Lancet Oncol 2019 02 15;20(2):297-310. Epub 2019 Jan 15.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Background: In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib.

Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment.

Findings: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80).

Interpretation: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL.

Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30778-2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701190PMC
February 2019

PD-L2 amplification and durable disease stabilization in patient with urothelial carcinoma receiving pembrolizumab.

Oncoimmunology 2018;7(12):e1460298. Epub 2018 May 29.

OmniSeq Inc., 700 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY, US.

We report the immunological profile of a patient with upper-tract urothelial carcinoma experiencing stable disease on pembrolizumab for 20 months. The tumor exhibited extensive infiltration by CD8 cytotoxic T lymphocytes, low-to-moderate mutational burden, no PD-L1 staining by commercially available immunohistochemical assays, but amplification of (coding for PD-L1) and/or (encoding PD-L2) by fluorescence hybridization. RNA-seq revealed multiple biomarkers of an ongoing immune response and compensatory immune evasion, including moderate PD-L1 levels coupled with robust PD-L2 expression. Pending validation in additional patients, these findings suggest that PD-L2 expression levels may constitute a biomarker of response to immune checkpoint blockade in urothelial carcinoma.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2018.1460298DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279415PMC
May 2018

Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint.

Eur Urol 2019 06 4;75(6):929-937. Epub 2018 Dec 4.

Department of Medicine, Genitourinary Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise.

Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures.

Design, Setting, And Participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide.

Intervention: Cabozantinib 60mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12mg/m every 3wk plus prednisone 5mg twice daily orally.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power.

Results And Limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate a survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N=61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N=58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15% versus 17%, a -2% difference (95% confidence interval: -16% to 11%, p=0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing.

Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation.

Patient Summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.033DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6876845PMC
June 2019

Emerging Role of Combination Immunotherapy in the First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Review.

JAMA Oncol 2019 03;5(3):411-421

Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Kidney Cancer Program, Dallas, Texas.

Importance: Novel immunotherapies, notably the immune checkpoint inhibitors, have been shown to be efficacious in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, but innate or adaptive resistance is observed with single-agent immunotherapy. New combination treatment strategies are needed that can improve efficacy in a broader patient population, without exacerbating the toxic effects.

Observations: Numerous late-phase trials are ongoing to investigate (1) dual immune checkpoint inhibition or (2) combined inhibition of immune checkpoints and vascular endothelial growth factor. Initial results from studies of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combinations have demonstrated efficacy compared with sunitinib malate in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma; moreover, the safety profile of these combinations compare favorably with sunitinib. Nevertheless, immune checkpoint inhibition is associated with unique immune-related adverse events, and practicing physicians must be educated on how to best identify and manage these events.

Conclusions And Relevance: Evidence suggests that immunotherapy-based combination regimens will be an important addition to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in both the first- and later-line setting; however, clinical study data and clinical practice experience indicate that optimizing the management of the associated immune-related adverse events is essential to maximizing the advantages of these therapies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4604DOI Listing
March 2019

Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tivantinib in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Invest New Drugs 2018 10 7;36(5):919-926. Epub 2018 Aug 7.

Taussig Cancer Institute, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195-0001, USA.

Background Tivantinib is a non-ATP competitive inhibitor of c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase that may have additional cytotoxic mechanisms including tubulin inhibition. Prostate cancer demonstrates higher c-MET expression as the disease progresses to more advanced stages and to a castration resistant state. Methods 80 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were assigned (2:1) to either tivantinib 360 mg PO BID or placebo (P). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results Of the 80 pts. enrolled, 78 (52 tivantinib, 26 P) received treatment and were evaluable. Median follow up is 8.9 months (range: 2.3 to 19.6 months). Patients treated with tivantinib had significantly better PFS vs. those treated with placebo (medians: 5.5 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively; HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Grade 3 febrile neutropenia was seen in 1 patient on tivantinib while grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was recorded in 1 patient each on tivantinib and placebo. Grade 3 sinus bradycardia was recorded in two men on the tivantinib arm. Conclusions Tivantinib has mild toxicity and improved PFS in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10637-018-0630-9DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153554PMC
October 2018

Apatorsen plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial carcinoma (Borealis-2).

Br J Cancer 2018 05 16;118(11):1434-1441. Epub 2018 May 16.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.

Background: A randomised study to assess the addition of apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits Hsp27 expression, to docetaxel in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) relapsed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy.

Methods: Multicentre, phase II study with 1:1 randomisation to apatorsen (three loading doses at 600 mg intravenous followed by weekly doses) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m intravenous every 21 days) (A/D) or docetaxel alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point with a P value <0.1 (one-sided) being positive. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and effect of Hsp27 levels on outcomes were secondary end points.

Results: Patients randomised to A/D (n = 99) had improved OS compared to docetaxel alone (n = 101): HR: 0.80, 80% CI: 0.65-0.98, P = 0.0784, median 6.4 vs 5.9 months. PFS and ORR were similar in both arms. A/D had more incidence of sepsis and urinary tract infections. Patients with baseline Hsp27 levels <5.7 ng/mL had improved OS compared to those with levels ≥5.7 ng/mL. Patients with a decline or ≤20.5% increase in Hsp27 from baseline benefited more from A/D than those with >20.5% increase.

Conclusions: A/D met its predefined OS end point in patients with platinum-refractory mUC in this phase II trial. This trial is hypothesis generating requiring further study before informing practice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0087-9DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5988804PMC
May 2018

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

N Engl J Med 2018 Apr 21;378(14):1277-1290. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

From Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (R.J.M.), and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo (S.G.) - both in New York; University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (N.M.T., P. Sharma); Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (D.F.M.), and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School (T.K.C.), Boston; Centro Internacional de Estudios Clínicos (O.A.F.) and Fundación Arturo López Pérez (P. Salman), Santiago, Chile; Palacký University and University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic (B.M.); Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia (E.R.P.); Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg (P.B.), Bordeaux University Hospital, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux (A.R.), and Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (B.E.) - all in France; Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Matteo University Hospital Foundation, Pavia (C.P.), and Ospedale San Donato, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Toscana Sud-Est, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Arezzo (S.B.) - both in Italy; Barts Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Royal Free NHS Trust (T.P.), and Cancer Research UK (R.H.), London; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (F.D.); Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv - both in Israel (V.N.); British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada (C.K.K.); Westmead Hospital and Macquarie University, Sydney (H.G.); Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany (M.-O.G.); Centro de Pesquisa em Oncologia, Hospital São Lucas, Porto Alegre, Brazil (C.H.B.); Niigata University, Niigata, Japan (Y.T.); Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid (D.C.); Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland (B.I.R.); Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (A.C.C., S.M., M.B.M., M.W.-R., J.D.); and Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore (H.J.H.).

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.

Methods: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.

Results: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.

Conclusions: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1712126DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5972549PMC
April 2018