Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab ...(anti-programmed death-ligand 1 PD-L1) versus chemotherapy in this patient population.
We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% IC0 or 1% to <5% IC1 of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells IC2/3), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807.
Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months 95% CI 8·6–15·5; n=116 vs 10·6 months 8·4–12·2; n=118; stratified hazard ratio HR 0·87, 95% CI 0·63–1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months 95% CI 10·4 to not estimable vs 8·3 months 5·6–13·2; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26–1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 20% of 459 vs 189 43% of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 7% vs 78 18% patients).
Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting.
F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.
MiTF/TFE translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of RCC representing the most prevalent RCC in the pediatric population (up to 40%) and making up 4% of all RCCs in ...adults. It is characterized by translocations involving either TFE3 (TFE3-tRCC), TFEB (TFEB-tRCC) or MITF, all members of the MIT family (microphthalmia-associated transcriptional factor). TFE3-tRCC was first recognized in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of kidney cancers in 2004. In contrast to TFEB-tRCC, TFE3-tRCC is associated with many partners that can be detected by RNA or exome sequencing. Both diagnoses of TFE3 and TFEB-tRCC are performed on morphological and immunohistochemical features, but, to date, TFE break-apart fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) remains the gold standard for diagnosis. The clinical behavior of tRCC is heterogeneous and more aggressive in adults. Management of metastatic tRCC is challenging, especially in the younger population, and data are scarce. Efficacy of the standard of care-targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors remains low. Recent integrative exome and RNA sequencing analyses have provided a better understanding of the biological heterogeneity, which can contribute to a better therapeutic approach. We describe the clinico-pathological entities, the response to systemic therapy and the molecular features and techniques used to diagnose tRCC.
BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, is an immune checkpoint inhibitor particularly used in the treatment of malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and renal cell ...carcinoma. Immune-related adverse events are frequent under immunotherapies. Cardiotoxic side effects, initially thought to be rare, are more often encountered paralleling the expanding use of immune checkpoint blockade. Among them, pericardial effusion and tamponade deserve attention as they may present with unusual symptomatology.Case presentationWe report three cases of pericardial effusion under nivolumab for lung adenocarcinoma. Two cases of early and late-onset pericardial effusion were symptomatic with tamponade and one case occurred without any symptoms. Pericardiocentesis with pericardial biopsy was performed in symptomatic pericardial effusion followed by the administration of a corticotherapy. Pericardial biopsies showed infiltration of T-lymphocytes, mostly CD4+. Nivolumab was stopped in two cases and resumed for one patient. Pericardial effusion evolved positively in all cases with or without treatment.ConclusionsWe review the literature on pericardial effusion under nivolumab to further discuss the hallmarks of pericardial effusion under nivolumab and the management of nivolumab therapy in this situation. In conclusion, pericardial effusion as an immune-related adverse event under nivolumab appears less rare than initially thought and may require particular attention.
Summary
Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved rapidly over the last two decades as major pathways involved in pathogenesis have been elucidated. These include the vascular ...endothelial growth factor (VEGF) axis and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Therapies targeting the VEGF pathway include bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib, whereas temsirolimus and everolimus inhibit the mTOR pathway. All of these novel therapies—VEGF and mTOR inhibitors—are associated with a variety of unique toxicities, some of which may necessitate expert medical management, treatment interruption, or dose reduction. Common adverse events with newer drugs include hypertension, skin reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, thyroid dysfunction, and fatigue. Skilled management of these toxicities is vital to ensure optimal therapeutic dosing and maximize patient outcomes, including improved survival and quality of life. This review describes and compares the toxicity profiles of novel molecularly targeted agents used in the treatment of mRCC and presents guidance on how best to prevent and manage treatment-related toxicities. Particular attention is given to axitinib, the newest agent to enter the armamentarium. Axitinib is a second-generation receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent VEGF receptor inhibition that provides durable responses and superior progression-free survival in advanced RCC compared with sorafenib.
Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. ...FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m
(C20) or 25 mg/m
(C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m
(D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.
Abstract Context The natural history of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is highly unpredictable. Small renal masses may be accompanied by metastatic disease. Conversely, patients with locally advanced ...disease may enjoy long-term disease-free survival. Objective To review the status of prognostic factors in RCC. Evidence acquisition A literature review was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases for articles published as of February 15, 2010. Electronic articles published ahead of print were also considered. Search was limited to the English language. Search was conducted using the following keywords: renal cell carcinoma, molecular, tissue, markers, blood, urine, progression, prognosis, risk factor, and survival. Studies were selected according to the relevance of the study, the number of patients included, originality, actuality, and clinical applicability of the results. Evidence synthesis Four areas of prediction were examined: (1) new RCC diagnostics, (2) RCC grade and stage at diagnosis, (3) disease progression, and (4) disease-specific mortality. All identified reports represented either case series or controlled studies. Although a large number of markers were identified, only a few were validated. Several prognostic factors were integrated in predictive or prognostic models. Conclusions Several prognostic factors can help discriminate between favourable and unfavourable RCC phenotypes. Of those, several clinical, pathologic, and biologic markers have been tested and validated, and they are used in predictive and prognostic models. Nonetheless, the search continues, especially for informative markers predicting the response to targeted therapies.
Summary Background Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, ...randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Methods Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00410124. Findings All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 37% events in the everolimus group, 90 65% in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·30, 95% CI 0·22–0·40, p<0·0001; median progression-free survival 4·0 95% CI 3·7–5·5 vs 1·9 1·8–1·9 months). Stomatitis (107 40% patients in the everolimus group vs 11 8% in the placebo group), rash (66 25% vs six 4%), and fatigue (53 20% vs 22 16%) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity. Interpretation Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies. Funding Novartis Oncology.
Complete remission (CR) is uncommon during treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but it may occur in some patients. It remains a matter of ...debate whether therapy should be continued after CR.
A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a series of patients with mRCC who obtained CR during treatment with TKIs (sunitinib or sorafenib), either alone or with local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or radiofrequency ablation), was performed.
CR was identified in 64 patients; 36 patients had received TKI treatment alone and 28 had also received local treatment. Most patients had clear cell histology (60 of 64 patients), and all had undergone previous nephrectomy. The majority of patients were favorable or intermediate risk; however, three patients were poor risk. Most patients developed CR during sunitinib treatment (59 of 64 patients). Among the 36 patients who achieved CR with TKI alone, eight continued TKI treatment after CR, whereas 28 stopped treatment. Seventeen patients who stopped treatment (61%) are still in CR, with a median follow-up of 255 days. Among the 28 patients in CR after TKI plus local treatment, 25 patients stopped treatment, and 12 of these patients (48%) are still in CR, with a median follow-up of 322 days.
CR can occur after TKI treatment alone or when combined with local treatment. CR was observed at every metastatic site and in every prognostic group.
The phase 3 SPARTAN study evaluated apalutamide versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤10 mo. At ...primary analysis, apalutamide improved median metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 2 yr and overall survival (OS) data were immature.
We report the prespecified event-driven final analysis for OS.
A total of 1207 patients with nmCRPC (diagnosed by conventional imaging) were randomised 2:1 to apalutamide (240mg/d) or placebo, plus on-going androgen deprivation therapy. After MFS was met and the study was unblinded, 76 (19%) patients still receiving placebo crossed over to apalutamide.
OS and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTChemo) were analysed by group-sequential testing with O’Brien-Fleming-type alpha spending function.
At median 52-mo follow-up, 428 deaths had occurred. The median treatment duration was 32.9 mo for apalutamide group and 11.5 mo for placebo group. Median OS was markedly longer with apalutamide versus placebo, reaching prespecified statistical significance (73.9 vs 59.9 mo, hazard ratio HR: 0.78 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64–0.96; p=0.016). Apalutamide also lengthened TTChemo versus placebo (HR: 0.63 95% CI, 0.49–0.81; p=0.0002). Discontinuation rates in apalutamide and placebo groups due to progressive disease were 43% and 74%, and due to adverse events 15% and 8.4%, respectively. Subsequent life-prolonging therapy was received by 371 (46%) patients in the apalutamide arm and by 338 (84%) patients in the placebo arm including 59 patients who received apalutamide after crossover. Safety was consistent with previous reports; when adverse events were adjusted for treatment exposure, rash had the greatest difference of incidence between the apalutamide and placebo groups.
Extension of OS with apalutamide compared with placebo conferred impactful benefit in patients with nmCRPC. There was a 22% reduction in the hazard of death in the apalutamide group despite 19% crossover (placebo to apalutamide) and higher rates of subsequent therapy in the placebo group.
With data presented herein, all primary and secondary study end points of SPARTAN were met; findings demonstrate the value of apalutamide as a treatment option for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Apalutamide increased overall survival and delayed time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Prior analyses had demonstrated clinically impactful improvement in metastasis-free survival, time to symptomatic progression, and second progression-free survival with apalutamide.
PDF
