Summary The clinical development of checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy has ushered in an exciting era of anticancer therapy. Durable responses can be seen in patients with melanoma and other ...malignancies. Although monotherapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 agents are typically well tolerated, the risk of immune-related adverse events increases with combination regimens. The development of predictive biomarkers is needed to optimise patient benefit, minimise risk of toxicities, and guide combination approaches. The greatest focus has been on tumour-cell PD-L1 expression. Although PD-L1 positivity enriches for populations with clinical benefit, PD-L1 testing alone is insufficient for patient selection in most malignancies. In this Review, we discuss the status of PD-L1 testing and explore emerging data on new biomarker strategies with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, mutational burden, immune gene signatures, and multiplex immunohistochemistry. Future development of an effective predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy will integrate multiple approaches for optimal characterisation of the immune tumour microenvironment.
•The first-line treatment landscape for RCC is evolving rapidly.•New options include cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab.•Evidence from pivotal trials helps to inform treatment selection and ...sequencing.•There is a need for biomarkers to individualize treatment.•Novel combinations with an immunotherapy backbone are in development.
There has been significant progress in the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), with improved knowledge of disease biology and the introduction of targeted agents and immunotherapies. In this review, we discuss current and emerging first-line treatment options, including recent approvals of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib and the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (anti-programmed cell death 1 PD-1)/ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 CTLA-4), and initial outcomes with the combination of atezolizumab (anti-PD-ligand 1 PD-L1)/bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor VEGF). Key clinical data are reviewed, as these novel first-line treatments offer significant improvement, particularly for patients classified as intermediate/poor risk for whom previously available therapies have demonstrated limited efficacy. Treatment recommendations based on clinical evidence and expert opinion are discussed. We also review ongoing studies investigating combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with TKIs, including cabozantinib and axitinib, and with other novel immunomodulatory agents, and the potential role of single-agent immunotherapy for select patients. With a growing treatment armamentarium, identification and validation of biomarkers will be crucial for optimizing first-line selection and treatment sequences.
Summary Therapeutic targeting of integral biological pathways, including those involving vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), has produced robust ...clinical effects and revolutionised the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). However, some patients are inherently resistant to these approaches and most, if not all, patients acquire resistance over time. As such, the biological basis for resistance to these targeted therapies and the clinical approach in this setting is of heightened interest. Emerging preclinical evidence suggests resistance is mediated via tumour and environmental changes, which allow for continued perfusion and tumour growth that is less reliant on VEGF. Furthermore, elements upstream of receptor blockade, such as hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) and protein kinase B (AKT), in addition to pathways independent of VEGF or mTOR, could drive tumour growth despite adequate target blockade. These considerations provide a rational basis for combination or sequential therapy targeting these elements. Clinical data support activity of several agents in resistant patient populations, with large-scale clinical trials ongoing to more thoroughly test several postulations regarding the optimum clinical approach.
Kidney cancer has unique features that make this malignancy attractive for therapeutic approaches that target components of the immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a well-established part ...of kidney cancer treatment, and rapid advances continue to be made in this field. Initial preclinical studies that elucidated the biology of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoints led to a series of clinical trials that resulted in regulatory approval of nivolumab and the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Subsequent data led to approvals of combination strategies of immune checkpoint inhibition plus agents that target the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and a shift in the current standard of renal cell carcinoma care. However, controversies remain regarding the optimal therapy selection and treatment strategy for individual patients, which might be eventually overcome by current intensive efforts in biomarker research. That work includes evaluation of tumour cell PD-L1 expression, gene expression signatures, CD8
T cell density and others. In the future, further advances in the understanding of immune checkpoint biology might reveal new therapeutic targets beyond PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA-4, as well as new combination approaches.
The toxicities of immunotherapy for cancer are as diverse as the type of treatments that have been devised. These range from cytokine therapies that induce capillary leakage to vaccines associated ...with low levels of autoimmunity to cell therapies that can induce damaging cross-reactivity with normal tissue to checkpoint protein inhibitors that induce immune-related adverse events that are autoinflammatory in nature. The thread that ties these toxicities together is their mechanism-based immune nature and the T-cell-mediated adverse events seen. The basis for the majority of these adverse events is a hyperactivated T-cell response with reactivity directed against normal tissue, resulting in the generation of high levels of CD4 T-helper cell cytokines or increased migration of cytolytic CD8 T cells within normal tissues. The T-cell immune response is not tissue specific and may reflect a diffuse expansion of the T-cell repertoire that induces cross-reactivity with normal tissue, effectively breaking tolerance that is active with cytokines, vaccines, and checkpoint protein inhibitors and passive in the case of adoptive cell therapy. Cytokines seem to generate diffuse and nonspecific T-cell reactivity, whereas checkpoint protein inhibition, vaccines, and adoptive cell therapy seem to activate more specific T cells that interact directly with normal tissues, potentially causing specific organ damage. In this review, we summarize the toxicities that are unique to immunotherapies, emphasizing the need to familiarize the oncology practitioner with the spectrum of adverse events seen with newly approved and emerging modalities.
Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy ...for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma.
In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population.
At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval CI, 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment.
Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).
To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.
ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.
A systematic review, one ...meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma.
In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D
wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in
-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with
wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in
-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.
Summary Patients with metastatic melanoma had few treatment options until 2011, when two drugs—ipilimumab and vemurafenib—were approved following advances in the understanding of melanoma biology and ...tumour immunology. Almost 50% of melanomas harbour mutations in BRAF, mainly at codon 600, which result in constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway. The selective inhibitors of mutant BRAF Val600, vemurafenib and dabrafenib, showed major tumour responses, resulting in improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with metastatic disease, compared with chemotherapy. Antitumour activity was also recorded in brain metastases. The growth of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas is a unique side-effect of BRAF inhibitor therapy that is induced by the paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in cells with RAS mutations. Trametinib, which targets MEK downstream of BRAF, also produced an overall survival benefit compared with chemotherapy, although tumour responses were less frequent than they were with BRAF inhibitors. Despite this robust antitumour activity, most responses to these drugs are partial and disease progression is typically seen at a median of 5–7 months. Multiple resistance mechanisms have been identified, including those that lead to reactivation of the MAPK pathway and other pathways, such as the PI3K-AKT-mTOR and VEGF pathways. Some patients with BRAF Val600 mutant melanoma seem to also benefit from immunotherapies such as high-dose interleukin 2 and ipilimumab, which, by contrast with BRAF inhibitors, can produce durable complete responses. We review the available data to best guide initial treatment choice and the sequence of treatments for patients with BRAF Val600 mutant melanoma.
Integrated multi-omics evaluation of 823 tumors from advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients identifies molecular subsets associated with differential clinical outcomes to angiogenesis blockade ...alone or with a checkpoint inhibitor. Unsupervised transcriptomic analysis reveals seven molecular subsets with distinct angiogenesis, immune, cell-cycle, metabolism, and stromal programs. While sunitinib and atezolizumab + bevacizumab are effective in subsets with high angiogenesis, atezolizumab + bevacizumab improves clinical benefit in tumors with high T-effector and/or cell-cycle transcription. Somatic mutations in PBRM1 and KDM5C associate with high angiogenesis and AMPK/fatty acid oxidation gene expression, while CDKN2A/B and TP53 alterations associate with increased cell-cycle and anabolic metabolism. Sarcomatoid tumors exhibit lower prevalence of PBRM1 mutations and angiogenesis markers, frequent CDKN2A/B alterations, and increased PD-L1 expression. These findings can be applied to molecularly stratify patients, explain improved outcomes of sarcomatoid tumors to checkpoint blockade versus antiangiogenics alone, and develop personalized therapies in RCC and other indications.
Display omitted
•Genomics of 823 RCC tumors, including 134 sarcomatoid tumors, reveals 7 subtypes•Subtype specific angiogenesis, immune, metabolic, stromal, and cell-cycle profiles•Differential prevalence of PBRM1, KDM5C, CDKN2A/2B, and TP53 alterations in subsets•Differential outcomes to VEGF blockade alone or in combination with anti-PD-L1
Motzer et al. perform integrative multi-omics analyses of 823 renal cancer tumors from a randomized clinical trial. A robust molecular classification scheme, based on transcriptional and gene alteration profiles and differential clinical outcomes to VEGF blockade alone or in combination with anti-PD-L1, informs personalized treatment strategies and future therapeutic development in RCC.
Summary Background Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and ...sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00326898. Findings Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 44% of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 45% of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6–8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio HR 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85–1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7–not estimable NE) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80–1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5–NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 17% patients on sunitinib and 102 16% patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 15% patients on sunitinib and 208 33% patients on sorafenib), rash (15 2% patients on sunitinib and 95 15% patients on sorafenib), and fatigue (110 17% patients on sunitinib and 44 7% patients on sorafenib). There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity. Interpretation Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis. Funding US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer.
PDF
