Saby George

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.).

Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial

PURPOSE Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting.

Metastatic Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor–Targeted Therapy

PURPOSE Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with sarcomatoid differentiation is an aggressive disease that is associated with poor outcomes to chemotherapy or immunotherapy. The utility of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in patients with this disease is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who had mRCC with sarcomatoid features in the primary tumor and who were treated with VEGF-targeted therapy were retrospectively identified. Pathology slides were reviewed to determine the percentage of sarcomatoid differentiation. Objective response rate, percentage of tumor burden shrinkage, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined. RESULTS Forty-three patients who had sarcomatoid mRCC were identified. The median percentage of sarcomatoid features was 14% (range, 3% to 90%). Patients were treated with either sunitinib (49%), sorafenib (28%), bevacizumab (19%), or sunitinib plus bevacizumab (5%). Partial responses were observed in eight patients (19%); 21 patients (49%) had stable disease; and 14 patients (33%) had progressive disease as their best response. Partial responses were limited to patients who had underlying clear-cell histology and less than 20% sarcomatoid elements. Median tumor shrinkage was -2% (range, -85% to 127%), and 53% achieved some degree of tumor shrinkage on therapy. Median PFS and OS were estimated to be 5.3 months and 11.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Patients who have mRCC and sarcomatoid differentiation can demonstrate objective responses and tumor shrinkage to VEGF-targeted therapy. Patients who have clear-cell histology and a lower percentage of sarcomatoid differentiation may have better outcomes with VEGF-targeted therapy.

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.)

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated Beyond Progression: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Response patterns with immunotherapy may differ from those of other treatments. This warrants further investigation because some patients may benefit from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and potential benefit of treatment with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, beyond investigator-assessed first progression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Subgroup analysis of a blinded, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 dose-ranging trial initiated May 31, 2011, including patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with antiangiogenic therapy. Data cutoffs for this subgroup analysis were May 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall survival and duration of response. In this analysis, patients treated beyond first progression received their last dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated beyond first progression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression. INTERVENTIONS Nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment. RESULTS Of 168 patients (median [range] age, 61 [37-81] years; 72% male) randomized to nivolumab, 154 experienced progression (36 were treated beyond first progression, 26 were treated beyond first progression for ≤6 weeks, and 92 were not treated beyond first progression), 13 were treated and did not experience progression, and 1 was not treated. Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15 patients), and median progression-free survival was 4.2 (95% CI, 2.8-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-3.9) months in patients treated and not treated beyond progression, respectively. Following initial progression, 25 (69%) patients treated beyond progression experienced subsequent tumor reduction or stabilization in target lesion size. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients treated beyond progression (n = 29 [81%]) vs those not treated beyond progression (n = 61 [66%]); however, after adjusting for length of treatment exposure, incidence was lower in patients treated beyond progression (322.9 vs 518.7 incidence rate/100 patient-years for patients treated vs not treated beyond progression). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this subgroup analysis, a proportion of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained reductions in tumor burden or stabilization in the size of target lesions, with an acceptable safety profile. Further analysis will help define the clinical benefit for patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab beyond progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354431.

CheckMate 025 Randomized Phase 3 Study: Outcomes by Key Baseline Factors and Prior Therapy for Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND The randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 025 study of nivolumab (n=410) versus everolimus (n=411) in previously treated adults (75% male; 88% white) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). OBJECTIVE To investigate which baseline factors were associated with OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Subgroup OS analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. INTERVENTION Nivolumab 3mg/kg every 2 wk or everolimus 10mg once daily. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The minimum follow-up was 14 mo. Baseline subgroup distributions were balanced between nivolumab and everolimus arms. Nivolumab demonstrated an OS improvement versus everolimus across subgroups, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups; age <65 and ≥65 yr; one and two or more sites of metastases; bone, liver, and lung metastases; number of prior therapies; duration of prior therapy; and prior sunitinib, pazopanib, or interleukin-2 therapy. The benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus was noteworthy for patients with poor MSKCC risk (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.70). The mortality rate at 12 mo for all subgroups was lower with nivolumab compared with everolimus. ORR also favored nivolumab. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events across subgroups was lower with nivolumab. Limitations include the post hoc analysis and differing sample sizes between groups. CONCLUSION The trend for OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab for multiple subgroups, without notable safety concerns, may help to guide treatment decisions, and further supports nivolumab as the standard of care in previously treated patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the impact of demographic and pretreatment features on survival benefit and tumor response with nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Survival benefit and response were observed for multiple subgroups, supporting the use of nivolumab as a new standard of care across a broad range of patients with previously treated aRCC. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01668784.

Treatment Beyond Progression in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in CheckMate 025

BACKGROUND Response patterns to nivolumab differ from those seen with other approved targeted therapies. OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy of nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who were treated beyond (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) RECIST progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a subgroup analysis of patients treated with nivolumab in the phase 3 CheckMate 025 study. Patients continuing to tolerate therapy and exhibiting investigator-assessed clinical benefit were eligible to be treated beyond RECIST progression (TBP) and received therapy for ≥4 wk after first progression; patients not treated beyond RECIST progression (NTBP) received 0 wk to <4 wk of therapy after progression. INTERVENTIONS Nivolumab 3mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 406 nivolumab-treated patients, 316 (78%) progressed by RECIST criteria. Of those who progressed, 48% were TBP, 52% were NTBP. Before being TBP, objective response rate (95% confidence interval) was 20% (14-28) and 14% (9-21) in patients TBP and NTBP, respectively. Differences in clinical characteristics assessed at first progression between patients TBP versus NTBP included better Karnofsky performance status, less deterioration in Karnofsky performance status, shorter time to response, lower incidence of new bone lesions, and improved quality of life. Postprogression, 13% of all patients TBP (20/153) had ≥30% tumor burden reduction including patients with preprogression and postprogression tumor measurements (n=142) and complete/partial response (28%, 8/29), stable disease (6%, 3/47), and progressive disease (14%, 9/66) as their best response before being TBP. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events in patients TBP was lower after (59%) versus before (71%) progression. Limitations included potential bias from the nonrandomized nature of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and RECIST progression experienced tumor reduction postprogression with nivolumab, and had an acceptable safety profile. Clinical judgment remains essential when switching therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668784. PATIENT SUMMARY A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and disease progression may continue to benefit from nivolumab treatment beyond progression as evidenced by tumor reduction postprogression and an acceptable safety profile.

Phase I Study of Flavopiridol in Combination with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of flavopiridol/ paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as well as the pharmacokinetics and activity of flavopiridol when used in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients aged 18-75 years with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours followed by carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 over 1 hour and flavopiridol 30-85 mg/m2 over 24 hours every 3 weeks for 3 cycles. RESULTS Eighteen patients were enrolled at 4 sites in the United States and received flavopiridol 30 mg/m2 (n = 3), 50 mg/m2 (n = 6), 70 mg/m2 (n = 3), or 85 mg/m2 (n = 6). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at the 50-mg/m2 or 70-mg/m2 dose levels. Two patients treated at the 85-mg/m2 dose level experienced cardiovascular events that did not meet the criteria for DLT but were fatal in 1 case, prompting no further flavopiridol dose escalations and establishment of 70 mg/m2 as the maximum tolerated dose. The most frequently reported adverse events across all dose levels combined were nausea (89%), asthenia (67%), and diarrhea (56%). Flavopiridol concentrations increased rapidly, reached a plateau, and showed a multiphasic decline after the 24-hour infusion. Of 12 patients evaluable for efficacy, 8 achieved a partial response, and 4 had stable disease. CONCLUSION Flavopiridol in doses <or= 70 mg/m2 in a 24-hour infusion can safely be combined with a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and a 1-hour infusion of carboplatin AUC 5.

Axitinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding, and dose-expansion phase 1b trial

BACKGROUND Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742. FINDINGS Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0-84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response). INTERPRETATION The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331). FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Understanding Avoidance, Refusal, and Abandonment of Chemotherapy Before and After Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer

OBJECTIVE To analyze trends in perioperative chemotherapy and optimize use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer. METHODS From 2005-2012, 284 consecutive patients underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy at our facility. Patients with disease ≥ T2 and nodal involvement and positive surgical margins were reviewed and considered candidates for referral to medical oncology for chemotherapy. The study was conducted in two phases: phase 1 included 242 consecutive patients between 2005 and 2011, and phase 2 analyzed the effect of changes in 42 patients during a 1-year period (2011-2012). RESULTS In phase 1, 148 patients (61%) were candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Consultation for NAC was sought for 44 patients (29%), and 104 (71%) did not receive consultation. Of the 44 patients, 36% received NAC, 7% refused, 32% were recommended for immediate cystectomy, and 25% did not receive NAC for other reasons. Phase 2 was more stringent, with a multidisciplinary approach. Significant improvement in referral and NAC use was seen. About 78% vs 30% of patients were seen by medical oncology for consideration of NAC before robot-assisted radical cystectomy and 71% vs 36% received NAC compared with phase 1. The NAC utilization rate improved from 10.8% to 55% over 1 year with a diligent multidisciplinary approach. Medical comorbidities were the main reason for patients not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (AC; 30% and 33%). CONCLUSION A multidisciplinary approach and coordination of services can help optimize the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer.