Summary 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.
A randomized trial involving patients with metastatic prostate cancer whose disease progressed after receipt of docetaxel and hormonal therapy showed that cabazitaxel was superior to an ...androgen-signaling–targeted agent in extending imaging-based progression-free survival, overall survival, and PSA response.
Antibodies targeting PD-1 or its ligand 1 PD-L1 such as atezolizumab, have great efficacy in a proportion of metastatic urothelial cancers
. Biomarkers may facilitate identification of these ...responding tumors
. Neoadjuvant use of these agents is associated with pathological complete response in a spectrum of tumors, including urothelial cancer
. Sequential tissue sampling from these studies allowed for detailed on-treatment biomarker analysis. Here, we present a single-arm phase 2 study, investigating two cycles of atezolizumab before cystectomy in 95 patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02662309). Pathological complete response was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints focused on safety, relapse-free survival and biomarker analysis. The pathological complete response rate was 31% (95% confidence interval: 21-41%), achieving the primary efficacy endpoint. Baseline biomarkers showed that the presence of preexisting activated T cells was more prominent than expected and correlated with outcome. Other established biomarkers, such as tumor mutational burden, did not predict outcome, differentiating this from the metastatic setting. Dynamic changes to gene expression signatures and protein biomarkers occurred with therapy, whereas changes in DNA alterations with treatment were uncommon. Responding tumors showed predominant expression of genes related to tissue repair after treatment, making tumor biomarker interpretation challenging in this group. Stromal factors such as transforming growth factor-β and fibroblast activation protein were linked to resistance, as was high expression of cell cycle gene signatures after treatment.
Summary 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.
Summary 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; punadjusted =0·00049, padjusted =0·0079) and rs307821 (3·31, 1·64–6·68; punadjusted =0·00085, padjusted =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; punadjusted =0·0014, padjusted =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.
Atezolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, is approved for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma. SAUL evaluated atezolizumab in a broader, pretreated population, ...including patients ineligible for the pivotal IMvigor211 phase 3 trial of atezolizumab.
To determine the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in an international real-world setting.
Between November 2016 and March 2018 (median follow-up 12.7mo), 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma who experienced progression during or after one to three prior therapies for inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease were enrolled. Patients with renal impairment, treated central nervous system metastases, or stable controlled autoimmune disease were eligible; 10% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 and 98% were platinum pretreated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928406).
Atezolizumab 1200mg every 3wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR).
The median treatment duration was 2.8mo (range 0–19); 22% remained on treatment and 8% discontinued because of toxicity. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 45% of patients. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, asthenia, colitis, and hypertension (each in 1%). Median OS was 8.7mo (95% confidence interval CI 7.8–9.9). The 6-mo OS rate was 60% (95% CI 57–63%), median PFS was 2.2mo (95% CI 2.1–2.4), and the ORR was 13% (95% CI 11–16%; 3% complete responses). Among IMvigor211-like patients (excluding ECOG PS 2 and other IMvigor211 exclusion criteria), median OS was 10.0mo (95% CI 8.8–11.9) and 6-mo OS was 65% (95% CI 61–69%).
SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in a real-world pretreated population with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy overall and in the IMvigor211-like subgroup is consistent with previous pivotal anti-PD-L1/PD-1 urothelial carcinoma trials. These results support the use of atezolizumab in urinary tract carcinoma, including patients with limited treatment options.
In this international study we investigated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab treatment for advanced urinary tract cancer in a large population of pretreated patients, including those who would not normally be candidates for clinical trials. Patients tolerated the treatment well, even if they had autoimmune disease, were being treated with corticosteroids, or had disease that had spread to their brain. Life expectancy in this study for patients typical of everyday clinical practice was similar to that seen in trials that enrolled only selected fitter patients.
SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in real-world patients with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy in the IMvigor211-like subgroup and the broader unselected population was consistent with previous anti-PD-L1/PD-1 pivotal trials, supporting the use of atezolizumab in these patients.
Abstract 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 3 mg/kg every 2 wk or everolimus 10 mg 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.
Summary 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.
Bladder cancer is lethal in its advanced, muscle-invasive phase with very limited therapeutic advances
. Recent molecular characterization has defined new (epi)genetic drivers and potential targets ...for bladder cancer
. The immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown remarkable efficacy but only in a limited fraction of bladder cancer patients
. Here, we show that high G9a (EHMT2) expression is associated with poor clinical outcome in bladder cancer and that targeting G9a/DNMT methyltransferase activity with a novel inhibitor (CM-272) induces apoptosis and immunogenic cell death. Using an immunocompetent quadruple-knockout (Pten
; Trp53
; Rb1
; Rbl1
) transgenic mouse model of aggressive metastatic, muscle-invasive bladder cancer, we demonstrate that CM-272 + cisplatin treatment results in statistically significant regression of established tumors and metastases. The antitumor effect is significantly improved when CM-272 is combined with anti-programmed cell death ligand 1, even in the absence of cisplatin. These effects are associated with an endogenous antitumor immune response and immunogenic cell death with the conversion of a cold immune tumor into a hot tumor. Finally, increased G9a expression was associated with resistance to programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition in a cohort of patients with bladder cancer. In summary, these findings support new and promising opportunities for the treatment of bladder cancer using a combination of epigenetic inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade.
PurposeTo 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).MethodsPatients 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).ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionAfter long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.
PDF
