Daniel Castellano

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population. METHODS For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: an expanded-access trial

BACKGROUND Results from clinical trials have established sunitinib as a standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients, particularly those with a poorer prognosis, do not meet inclusion criteria and little is known about the activity of sunitinib in these subgroups. The primary objective of this trial was to provide sunitinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regulatory approval had not been granted. METHODS Previously treated and treatment-naive patients at least 18 years of age with metastatic RCC were eligible. All patients received open-label sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on schedule 4-2 (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Safety was assessed regularly, tumour measurements done per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of sunitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00130897. FINDINGS As of December, 2007, 4564 patients were enrolled in 52 countries. 4371 patients were included in the modified ITT population. This population included 321 (7%) patients with brain metastases, 582 (13%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, 588 (13%) non-clear-cell RCC, and 1418 (32%) aged 65 years or more. Patients received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-25). Reasons for discontinuation included lack of efficacy (n=1168 [27%]) and adverse events (n=362 [8%]). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (n=1936 [44%]) and fatigue (n=1606 [37%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (n=344 [8%]) and thrombocytopenia (n=338 [8%]) with incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events similar across subgroups. In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subgroup ORR as follows: brain metastases (26 of 213 [12%]), ECOG performance status 2 or higher (29 of 319 [9%]), non-clear-cell RCC (48 of 437 [11%]) and age 65 years or more (176 of 1056 [17%]). Median progression-free survival was 10.9 months (95% CI 10.3-11.2) and overall survival was 18.4 months (17.4-19.2). INTERPRETATION In a broad population of patients with metastatic RCC, the safety profile of sunitinib 50 mg once-daily (initial dose) on schedule 4-2 was manageable and efficacy results were encouraging, particularly in subgroups associated with poor prognosis who are not usually entered into clinical trials. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Incidence, patterns of care and prognostic factors for outcome of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs): results from the National Cancer Registry of Spain (RGETNE)

BACKGROUND Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are an unusual family of neoplasms with a wide and complex spectrum of clinical behavior. Here, we present the first report of a National Cancer Registry of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from a Southern European country. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data was provided online at www.retegep.net by participating centers and assessed for internal consistency by external independent reviewers. RESULTS The study cohort comprised 907 tumors. The most common tumor types were carcinoids (55%), pancreatic nonfunctional tumors (20%), metastatic NETs of unknown primary (9%), insulinomas (8%) and gastrinomas (4%). Forty-four percent presented with distant disease at diagnosis, most often those from small intestine (65%), colon (48%), rectum (40%) and pancreas (38%), being most unusual in appendix primaries (1.3%). Stage at diagnosis varied significantly according to sex, localization of primary tumor, tumor type and grade. Overall 5-year survival was 75.4% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 79.5%) and was significantly greater in women, younger patients and patients with hormonal syndrome and early stage or lower grade tumors. Prognosis also differed according to tumor type and primary tumor site. However, stage and Ki-67 index were the only independent predictors for survival. CONCLUSION This national database reveals relevant information regarding epidemiology, current clinical practices and prognosis of NETs in Spain, providing valuable insights that may contribute to understand regional disparities in the incidence, patterns of care and survival of this heterogeneous disease across different continents and countries.

Single nucleotide polymorphism associations with response and toxic effects in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line sunitinib: a multicentre, observational, prospective study

BACKGROUND Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with proven efficacy in renal-cell carcinoma, but some patients do not respond or need dose reductions due to toxicity. Because there are no validated molecular predictors of response or toxicity to sunitinib, we aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of outcome and toxic effects. METHODS In our observational, prospective study we enrolled previously untreated adults (≥ 18 years) with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at 15 institutions in the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group in Spain. Patients received sunitinib according to local practice guidelines. We assessed RECIST response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and toxicity of sunitinib with 16 key polymorphisms in nine genes: VEGFR2 (rs2305948 and rs1870377), VEGFR3 (rs307826, rs448012, and rs307821), PDGFR-α (rs35597368), VEGF-A (rs2010963, rs699947, and rs1570360), IL8 (rs1126647), CYP3A4 (rs2740574), CYP3A5 (rs776746), ABCB1 (rs1045642, rs1128503, and rs2032582), and ABCB2 (rs2231142). We assessed associations with efficacy and toxicity by use of univariable and multivariable analyses (with clinical factors associated with outcomes as covariates). We adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni method; p values of less than 0·0031 before adjustment were deemed to still be significant after adjustment. FINDINGS We enrolled 101 patients between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 13, 2010. 95 of these patients were included in toxicity analyses and 89 in the efficacy analyses. Two VEGFR3 missense polymorphisms were associated with reduced PFS with sunitinib on multivariable analysis: rs307826 (hazard ratio [HR] per allele 3·57, 1·75-7·30; p(unadjusted)=0·00049, p(adjusted)=0·0079) and rs307821 (3·31, 1·64-6·68; p(unadjusted)=0·00085, p(adjusted)=0·014). The CYP3A5*1 (rs776746) high metabolising allele was associated in a multivariable analysis with an increased risk of dose reductions due to toxicity (HR per allele 3·75, 1·67-8·41; p(unadjusted)=0·0014, p(adjusted)=0·022). No other SNPs were associated with sunitinib response or toxicity. INTERPRETATION Polymorphisms in VEGFR3 and CYP3A5*1 might be able to define a subset of patients with renal-cell carcinoma with decreased sunitinib response and tolerability. If confirmed, these results should promote interventional studies testing alternative therapeutic approaches for patients with such variants. FUNDING Pfizer.

Phase I-II Study of Gemcitabine and Fluorouracil as a Continuous Infusion in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and efficacy of gemcitabine combined with fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with measurable, locally advanced, nonresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were candidates for the study. 5-FU was given via protracted venous infusion (PVI) at a fixed dosage of 200 mg/m2/d, and gemcitabine was administered weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 4 weeks. The initial dose of gemcitabine was 700 mg/m2 and was escalated in increments of 100 mg/m2/wk until the appearance of severe toxicity. Measurements of efficacy included the following: response rate; clinical benefit response, which is a composite measurement of pain, performance status, and weight loss; time to disease progression; and survival. RESULTS Twenty-six patients received a total of 109 courses. Dose-limiting toxicity, which consisted of grade 4 neutropenia with fever (one patient) and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (one patient), was observed in two of three patients treated with 1,100 mg/m2/wk of gemcitabine. On the basis of these results, the MTD of gemcitabine with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2. Sixteen patients developed grade 3-4 neutropenia, and three patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity consisted of diarrhea (two patients) and cutaneous toxicity, asthenia, edema, mucositis, and nausea and vomiting (one patient each). The delivered dose-intensity of gemcitabine was similar at the 1,000 mg/m2 dose level (599 mg/m2/wk) as at the 900 mg/m2 (601 mg/m2/wk) dose level. For this reason, the recommended dose of gemcitabine for phase II evaluation on this schedule was 900 mg/m2. Five patients had objective responses (one complete response and four partial responses; response rate, 19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 39.3), and 10 patients had improvement of disease-related symptoms (45%; 95% CI, 24 to 67). After a median follow-up of 17.7 months (range, 7.8 to 24.8 months), the median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 11.4) and 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 12.5), respectively. CONCLUSION The MTD of gemcitabine when combined with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2/ wk; however, on the basis of administered dose-intensity, the recommended dose for additional investigation is 900 mg/m2. This combination chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and showed promising antitumor activity in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Current knowledge on diagnosis and staging of neuroendocrine tumors

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) consist of a heterogeneous group of malignancies with various clinical presentations and growth rates. The incidence has been estimated to 2.5–5 per 100,000 people per year and prevalence of 35 per 100,000. The largest group is the gastroenteropancreatic NETs. Small intestinal NETs are the most common followed by pancreatic NETs in the gastrointestinal tract. A classification system (World Health Organization) was established in year 2000 and recently updated in 2010, taking into consideration the histopathology and tumor biology of the tumors. To further refine the classification a “tumor node metastasis” staging has been suggested by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society. The same organization has also proposed a grading system (G1, G2, and G3). The diagnosis of a NET is based on histopathology on tumor specimens, circulating biomarkers as well as imaging. Traditional radiology, such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, is still the basis but is complemented with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and positron emission tomography with specific isotopes such 68Ga-DOTA-octreotate, F18-dopamine, or C11-5 hydroxytryptamine. Molecular imaging will increase in importance in the near future. There is still an unmet need for more sensitive biomarkers for diagnosis and follow-up.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

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.)

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Sunitinib Plus Prednisone Versus Prednisone Alone in Progressive, Metastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE We evaluated angiogenesis-targeted sunitinib therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/d continuously or placebo. Patients also received oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Two interim analyses were planned. RESULTS Overall, 873 patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289). The independent data monitoring committee stopped the study for futility after the second interim analysis. After a median overall follow-up of 8.7 months, median OS was 13.1 months and 11.8 months for sunitinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.914; 95% CI, 0.762 to 1.097; stratified log-rank test, P = .168). PFS was significantly improved in the sunitinib arm (median 5.6 v 4.1 months; HR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.890; stratified log-rank test, P < .001). Toxicity and rates of discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs; 27% v 7%) were greater with sunitinib than placebo. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (9% v 1%), asthenia (8% v 2%), and hand-foot syndrome (7% v 0%). Frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities were lymphopenia (20% v 11%), anemia (9% v 8%), and neutropenia (6% v < 1%). CONCLUSION The addition of sunitinib to prednisone did not improve OS compared with placebo in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. The role of antiangiogenic therapy in mCRPC remains investigational.