Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma Motzer, Robert J; Escudier, Bernard; McDermott, David F ...
New England journal of medicine/The New England journal of medicine,
11/2015, Letnik:
373, Številka:
19
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
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.
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.
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%).
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.).
To characterize the effect of concurrent stereotactic radiosurgery-stereotactic radiation therapy (SRS-SRT) and immune checkpoint inhibitors on patient outcomes and safety in patients with brain ...metastases (BMs).
We retrospectively identified metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and renal cell carcinoma patients who had BMs treated with SRS-SRT from 2010 to 2016 without prior whole-brain radiation therapy. We included SRS-SRT patients who were treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (ipilimumab) and anti-programmed cell death protein 1 receptor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab). Patients who were given immune checkpoint inhibitors on active or unreported clinical trials were excluded, and concurrent immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) was defined as ICI given within 2 weeks of SRS-SRT. Patients were managed with SRS-SRT, SRS-SRT with nonconcurrent ICI, or SRS-SRT with concurrent ICI. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for multivariate analysis. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of acute neurologic toxicity, immune-related adverse events, and new BMs.
A total of 260 patients were treated with SRS-SRT to 623 BMs. Of these patients, 181 were treated with SRS-SRT alone, whereas 79 received SRS-SRT and ICI, 35% of whom were treated with concurrent SRS-SRT and ICI. Concurrent ICI was not associated with increased rates of immune-related adverse events or acute neurologic toxicity and predicted for a decreased likelihood of the development of ≥3 new BMs after SRS-SRT (P=.045; odds ratio, 0.337). Median OS for patients treated with SRS-SRT, SRS-SRT with nonconcurrent ICI, and SRS-SRT with concurrent ICI was 12.9 months, 14.5 months, and 24.7 months, respectively. SRS-SRT with concurrent ICI was associated with improved OS compared with SRS-SRT alone (P=.002; hazard ratio HR, 2.69) and compared with nonconcurrent SRS-SRT and ICI (P=.006; HR, 2.40) on multivariate analysis. The OS benefit of concurrent SRS-SRT and ICI was significant in comparison with patients treated with SRS-SRT before ICI (P=.002; HR, 3.82) or after ICI (P=.021; HR, 2.64).
Delivering SRS-SRT with concurrent ICI may be associated with a decreased incidence of new BMs and favorable survival outcomes without increased rates of adverse events.
•Using the NCDB, patients undergoing CN with modern IO for mRCC exhibited better OS than those treated with IO alone.•CN after prior IO is safe with pathologically favorable tumor ...characteristics.•Defining the role for CN in the modern IO era warrants prospective validation.
Despite immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) approval for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2015, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is guided by extrapolation from earlier classes of therapy. We evaluated survival outcomes, timing, and safety of combining CN with modern immunotherapy (IO) for mRCC.
From 96,329 renal cancer cases reported to the NCDB between 2015 and 2016, we analyzed 391 surgical candidates diagnosed with clear cell mRCC treated with IO ± CN and no other systemic therapies. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) stratified by the performance of CN (CN + IO vs. IO alone). Secondary outcomes included OS stratified by the timing of CN, pathologic findings, and perioperative outcomes.
Of 391 patients, 221 (56.5%) received CN + IO and 170 (43.5%) received IO only. Across a median follow-up of 14.7 months, patients who underwent CN + IO had superior OS (median NR vs. 11.6 months; hazard ratio 0.23, P < 0.001), which was upheld on multivariable analyses. IO before CN resulted in lower pT stage, grade, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion rates compared to upfront CN. Two of 20 patients (10%) undergoing CN post-IO achieved complete pathologic response in the primary tumor (pT0). There were no positive surgical margins, 30-day readmissions, or prolonged length of stay in patients undergoing delayed CN.
Using a large, national, registry-based cohort, we provide the first report of survival outcomes in mRCC patients treated with CN combined with modern IO. Our findings support an oncologic role for CN in the ICI era and provide preliminary evidence regarding the timing and safety of CN relative to IO administration.
Background
CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis ...assesses the long‐term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus.
Methods
The randomized, open‐label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), safety, and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL).
Results
Eight hundred twenty‐one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow‐up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months 95% CI, 22.2‐29.8 months vs 19.7 months 95% CI, 17.6‐22.1 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62‐0.85) with 5‐year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 23% vs 17 of 411 4%; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment‐related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus.
Conclusions
The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow‐up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long‐term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC.
LAY SUMMARY
CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard‐of‐care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy.
After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long‐lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.
The results of the 5‐year follow‐up analysis of the CheckMate 025 trial demonstrate that the clinical benefits are sustained with nivolumab over everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the long term. Overall survival, progression‐free survival, and objective response rate benefits are maintained with nivolumab versus everolimus, and more patients treated with nivolumab experience improved health‐related quality of life; meanwhile, the safety of nivolumab is manageable and compares favorably with that of everolimus.
Novel immunotherapies, notably the immune checkpoint inhibitors, have been shown to be efficacious in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, but innate or adaptive resistance is observed with ...single-agent immunotherapy. New combination treatment strategies are needed that can improve efficacy in a broader patient population, without exacerbating the toxic effects.
Numerous late-phase trials are ongoing to investigate (1) dual immune checkpoint inhibition or (2) combined inhibition of immune checkpoints and vascular endothelial growth factor. Initial results from studies of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combinations have demonstrated efficacy compared with sunitinib malate in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma; moreover, the safety profile of these combinations compare favorably with sunitinib. Nevertheless, immune checkpoint inhibition is associated with unique immune-related adverse events, and practicing physicians must be educated on how to best identify and manage these events.
Evidence suggests that immunotherapy-based combination regimens will be an important addition to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in both the first- and later-line setting; however, clinical study data and clinical practice experience indicate that optimizing the management of the associated immune-related adverse events is essential to maximizing the advantages of these therapies.
Blockade of the programmed death-1 inhibitory cell-surface molecule on immune cells using the fully human immunoglobulin G4 antibody nivolumab mediates tumor regression in a portion of patients with ...advanced treatment-refractory solid tumors. We report clinical activity, survival, and long-term safety in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nivolumab in a phase I study with expansion cohorts.
A total of 34 patients with previously treated advanced RCC, enrolled between 2008 and 2012, received intravenous nivolumab (1 or 10 mg/kg) in an outpatient setting once every two weeks for up to 96 weeks and were observed for survival and duration of response after treatment discontinuation.
Ten patients (29%) achieved objective responses (according to RECIST version 1.0), with median response duration of 12.9 months; nine additional patients (27%) demonstrated stable disease lasting > 24 weeks. Three of five patients who stopped treatment while in response continued to respond for ≥ 45 weeks. Median overall survival in all patients (71% with two to five prior systemic therapies) was 22.4 months; 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates were 71%, 48%, and 44%, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18% of patients; all were reversible.
Patients with advanced treatment-refractory RCC treated with nivolumab demonstrated durable responses that in some responders persisted after drug discontinuation. Overall survival is encouraging, and toxicities were generally manageable. Ongoing randomized clinical trials will further assess the impact of nivolumab on overall survival in patients with advanced RCC.
Objective
Molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) provides a powerful means of identifying and characterizing cancerous processes, as well as providing a quantitative framework ...within which response to therapy can be ascertained. Unfortunately, the most commonly used PET radiotracer,
18
F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), has not demonstrated a definitive role in determining response to therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). As a result, new radiotracers able to reliably image RCC could be of tremendous value for this purpose.
Methods
Five patients with known metastatic RCC were imaged with the low-molecular weight radiotracer
18
F-DCFPyL, an inhibitor of the prostate-specific membrane antigen at 60 min post injection.
18
F-DCFPyL PET/CT and conventional images (either contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) were centrally reviewed for suspected sites of disease.
Results
In all five patients imaged, sites of putative metastatic disease were readily identifiable by abnormal
18
F-DCFPyL uptake, with overall more lesions detected than on conventional imaging. These PET-detected sites included lymph nodes, pancreatic parenchymal lesions, lung parenchymal lesions, a brain parenchymal lesion, and other soft tissue sites.
18
F-DCFPyL uptake ranged from subtle to intense with maximum standardized uptake values (SUV
max
) for the identified lesions of 1.6–19.3. Based upon this small patient series, limited pathology and imaging follow-up of these patients suggests a higher sensitivity for
18
F-DCFPyL compared to conventional imaging in the detection of metastatic RCC (94.7 versus 78.9 %).
Conclusions
PSMA expression in the tumor neovasculature of RCC has been previously established and is believed to provide the basis for the imaging findings presented here. PSMA-based PET/CT with radiotracers such as
18
F-DCFPyL may allow more accurate staging of patients with RCC and conceivably the ability to predict and follow therapy in patients treated with agents targeting the neovasculature.
Abstract 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 3 mg/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.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received ...prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy.
Patients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed.
Forty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients.
Ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.
Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal ...cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented.
Patients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint.
Arm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months.
The addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose.
Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081 . Registered 16 November 2011.
PDF
