Molecular characterization of oncogenic mutations within genes in the MAPK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways has led to the rational development of targeted therapies. Combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors to ...target two steps in the MAPK pathway (vertical inhibition) is now standard of care in advanced-stage melanoma harboring
V600 mutation. Encouraging results have been seen in several tumor types with the same mutation, including
V600-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. Yet similar results in other tumors, such as colorectal cancer, have not been observed, highlighting the unique nature of different tumors. Furthermore, considerable cross talk occurs between signaling pathways, and cancer cells usually harbor multiple aberrations and/or develop compensatory mechanisms that drive resistance. Therefore, it is logical to target multiple pathways simultaneously (horizontal inhibition) by combining selective inhibitors or engineering multitargeted agents. Yet horizontal inhibition has proven to be a significant challenge, primarily due to dose-limiting toxicities. This review focuses on ongoing or completed clinical trials with combination targeted therapies for solid tumors and highlights the successes and ongoing challenges. Novel strategies to overcome these obstacles include new delivery technologies, combinations with emerging agents, and treatment schedule optimization.
.
Summary Background Few effective treatments exist for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of ...nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra at 16 sites in Finland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Patients were not selected by PD-L1 expression, but tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed retrospectively. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were included in the analyses. We report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01928394. Findings Between June 5, 2014, and April 24, 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled in the nivolumab monotherapy group and 78 received at least one dose of treatment. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), the minimum follow-up was 9 months (median 15·2 months, IQR 12·9–16·8). A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%, 95% CI 15·3–35·4) of 78 patients. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (22%) of 78 patients; the most common were elevated lipase (four 5%), elevated amylase (three 4%), and fatigue, maculopapular rash, dyspnoea, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased neutrophil count (two 3% each). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46%) of 78 patients and eight (10%) had a serious adverse event judged to be treatment related. Two (3%) of 78 patients discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 4 pneumonitis and grade 4 thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died. Interpretation Nivolumab monotherapy was associated with a substantial and durable clinical response and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Nivolumab was assessed in patients with virus-associated tumors in the phase I/II CheckMate 358 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488759). We report on patients with recurrent/metastatic ...cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancers.
Patients received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Although patients with unknown human papillomavirus status were enrolled, patients known to have human papillomavirus-negative tumors were ineligible. The primary end point was objective response rate. Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, and overall survival were secondary end points. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points.
Twenty-four patients (cervical, n = 19; vaginal/vulvar, n = 5) were enrolled. Most patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease (cervical, 78.9%; vaginal/vulvar, 80.0%). Objective response rates were 26.3% (95% CI, 9.1 to 51.2) for cervical cancer and 20.0% (95% CI, 0.5 to 71.6) for vaginal/vulvar cancers. At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, median DOR was not reached (range, 23.3 to 29.5+ months; + indicates a censored observation) in the five responding patients in the cervical cohort; the DOR was 5.0 months in the single responding patient in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 12 of 19 patients (63.2%) in the cervical cohort and all five patients in the vaginal/vulvar cohort; there were no treatment-related deaths. In the cervical cohort, nivolumab treatment generally resulted in stabilization of patient-reported outcomes associated with health status and health-related quality of life.
The efficacy of nivolumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal or vulvar cancers is promising and warrants additional investigation. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab treatment in this population.
Summary Background Treatments for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. We assessed safety and activity of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in ...patients with SCLC who progressed after one or more previous regimens. Methods The SCLC cohort of this phase 1/2 multicentre, multi-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 23 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in six countries. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older, had limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, and had disease progression after at least one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) every 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg, or 3 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were either assigned to nivolumab monotherapy or assessed in a dose-escalating safety phase for the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination beginning at nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Depending on tolerability, patients were then assigned to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All analyses included patients who were enrolled at least 90 days before database lock. This trial is ongoing; here, we report an interim analysis of the SCLC cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01928394. Findings Between Nov 18, 2013, and July 28, 2015, 216 patients were enrolled and treated (98 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, three with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 61 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 54 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg). At database lock on Nov 6, 2015, median follow-up for patients continuing in the study (including those who had died or discontinued treatment) was 198·5 days (IQR 163·0–464·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 302 days (IQR not calculable) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 361·0 days (273·0–470·0) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 260·5 days (248·0–288·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg, one (33%) of three patients receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 14 (23%) of 61 receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and ten (19%) of 54 receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg cohort, 18 (30%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg cohort, and ten (19%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (none vs 5 8% vs none) and diarrhoea (none vs 3 5% vs 1 2%). No patients in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event. Six (6%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, seven (11%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group, and four (7%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. Two patients who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg died from treatment-related adverse events (myasthenia gravis and worsening of renal failure), and one patient who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg died from treatment-related pneumonitis. Interpretation Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed antitumour activity with durable responses and manageable safety profiles in previously treated patients with SCLC. These data suggest a potential new treatment approach for a population of patients with limited treatment options and support the evaluation of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in phase 3 randomised controlled trials in SCLC. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, ...open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort.
Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review.
Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively.
Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.
Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGFRs), as well as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immune checkpoint receptor programmed death 1 (PD‐1) ...signaling pathway have improved clinical outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) pazopanib and sunitinib are FDA‐approved first‐line treatment options for advanced RCC; however, other treatment options in this setting are available, including the recently approved combination of nivolumab (anti‐PD‐1) and ipilimumab (anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated protein‐4 CTLA‐4) for patients with intermediate or poor risk. Unfortunately, treatment guideline recommendations provide little guidance to aid first‐line treatment choice. In addition, several ongoing randomized phase III trials of investigational first‐line regimens may complicate the RCC treatment paradigm if these agents gain approval. This article reviews clinical trial and real‐world evidence for currently approved and investigational first‐line treatment regimens for advanced RCC and provides clinical evidence to aid first‐line treatment selection.
Implications for Practice
Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as first‐line treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, the treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving. The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was recently approved for intermediate‐ and poor‐risk patients, and other combination strategies and novel first‐line agents will likely be introduced soon.
This article reviews clinical trial and real‐world evidence for currently approved and investigational first‐line treatment regimens for advanced renal cell carcinoma and provides clinical evidence to aid first‐line treatment selection.
SummaryBackgroundPre-clinical and clinical evidence suggests that simultaneous blockade of VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) and PD-1 or PD-L1 enhances antigen-specific T-cell migration, antitumour activity, ...and has favourable toxicity. In this study, we aimed to assess the safety and preliminary antitumour activity of ramucirumab (an IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist) combined with pembrolizumab (an IgG4 PD-1 antagonist) in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, or urothelial carcinoma. MethodsWe did a multicohort, non-randomised, open-label, phase 1a/b trial at 16 academic medical centres, hospitals, and clinics in the USA, France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. We enrolled adult patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (cohorts A and B), non-small-cell lung cancer (cohort C), or urothelial carcinoma (cohort D), whose disease had progressed on one or two lines of previous therapy (for those with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma) or one to three lines of previous therapy (for those with non-small-cell lung cancer and urothelial carcinoma) that included platinum (for all tumour types) or fluoropyrimidine or both (for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma). Eligibility criteria included presence of measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Patients with previously untreated gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and non-small-cell lung cancer were also enrolled (in two additional separate cohorts); the results for these cohorts will be reported separately. The first 21-day treatment cycle was a dose-limiting toxicity observation period (phase 1a; safety run-in), followed by a phase 1b cohort expansion stage. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously on day 1, and intravenous ramucirumab was administered at 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 for cohort A or at 10 mg/kg on day 1 for cohorts B, C, and D, every 3 weeks, until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab assessed by the incidence of adverse events in both phase 1a and 1b and as dose-limiting toxicities during phase 1a. The safety and activity analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02443324, and is no longer enrolling patients. FindingsBetween July 30, 2015 and June 24, 2016, we enrolled and treated 92 patients (41 with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, 27 with non-small-cell lung cancer, and 24 with urothelial carcinoma). Median follow-up was 32·8 months (IQR 28·1–33·6). During the first cycle of treatment (phase 1a safety run-in; n=11), one patient with gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who received the 8 mg/kg dose of ramucirumab had grade 3 abdominal pain, colitis, hepatitis, interstitial lung disease, and jaundice, and grade 4 cholestasis, and died on treatment on day 40; the death was deemed related to progressive disease. No additional dose-limiting toxicities occurred and the decision was made to maintain the full planned doses of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab in phase 1b (n=81). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (82%) of 92 patients, the most common of which was fatigue (in 33 patients 36%), predominantly of grade 1 or 2 severity. 22 patients (24%) had one or more treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse, most commonly hypertension (six patients; 7%) and colitis (five patients; 5%). Serious adverse events occurred in 53 (58%) of 92 patients, and were deemed related to treatment in 22 (24%) patients. The most common treatment-related serious adverse events were abdominal pain in patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (in three 7% of 41 patients); asthenia and myocardial infarction in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (two 7% of 27 patients), and colitis in patients with urothelial carcinoma (two 8% of 24 patients). Six (7%) of 92 patients discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, and one death (from pulmonary sepsis in a patient with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma) was deemed related to treatment. The number of patients achieving an objective response was three (7%; 95% CI 1·5–19·9) of 41 in the gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma cohort, eight (30%; 13·8–50·2) of 27 in the non-small-cell lung cancer cohort, and three (13%, 2·7–32·4) in the urothelial carcinoma cohort. InterpretationRamucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab showed a manageable safety profile with favourable antitumour activity in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and urothelial carcinoma. Our results contribute to the growing evidence that supports dual inhibition of the VEGF–VEGFR2 and PD-1–PD-L1 pathways. This combination could be further explored with or without chemotherapy, especially for patients with tumours for which single-agent checkpoint inhibitors have shown no additional benefit over chemotherapy. FundingEli Lilly and Company, and Merck and Co.
The identification of somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their correlation with response to EGFR ...inhibitors has become an important event in the fields of cancer genetics and therapeutics. The initial observation of a higher response to gefitinib and erlotinib in patients of Asian origin was followed by the discovery that they harbor more frequent EGFR mutations in NSCLC; this raises the issue of ethnic diversity in the pathogenesis of given tumors. In a similar fashion, amplification of the closely related HER2 gene, which could also have implications for the treatment of NSCLC, is also more frequent in East Asian patients. On the other hand, EGFR gene amplification may be more prevalent in Western populations. The implication of these findings is that ethnicity may indicate different genetic backgrounds in common tumors that may influence clinical outcome and response to therapy. Therefore, in clinical trials with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and other molecular-targeted therapies, the inclusion of a global population appears to be required.
Even though the immuno-oncology (IO) era has achieved many successes, some signs of research development deceleration are arising. Recently, the number of FDA immunotherapy approvals has decreased ...concurrently with a decline in the relative number of patients recruited to these trials. Identifying the unique features of IO treatments and taking them into consideration on clinical research will lead to a better evaluation of these agents and patient outcomes. In this review, we discuss current challenges and new potential approaches to implement rationally designed clinical trials of IO drugs, particularly those targeting immune checkpoints.
BackgroundWe assessed the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of the transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) receptor inhibitor galunisertib co-administered with the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 ...(PD-L1) antibody durvalumab in recurrent/refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with ≤2 systemic regimens.MethodsThis was a two-part, single-arm, multinational, phase Ib study. In a dose-finding phase, escalating oral doses of galunisertib were co-administered on days 1–14 with fixed-dose intravenous durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks (Q4W), followed by an expansion cohort phase.ResultsThe galunisertib recommended phase II dose (RP2D) when co-administered with durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W was 150 mg two times per day. No dose-limiting toxicities were recorded. Among 32 patients treated with galunisertib RP2D, 1 patient had partial response, 7 had stable disease, 15 had objective progressive disease, and 9 were not evaluable. Disease control rate was 25.0%. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 5.72 months (95% CI: 4.01 to 8.38) and 1.87 months (95% CI: 1.58 to 3.09), respectively. Pharmacokinetic profiles for combination therapy were comparable to those published for each drug. There was no association between potential biomarkers and treatment outcomes.ConclusionGalunisertib 150 mg two times per day co-administered with durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W was tolerable. Clinical activity was limited. Studying this combination in patients in an earlier line of treatment or selected for predictive biomarkers of TGFβ inhibition might be a more suitable approach.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02734160.
PDF
