The PD-1 pathway, comprising the immune cell co-receptor Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) and its ligands, PD-L1 (B7-H1) and PD-L2 (B7-DC), mediates local immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. ...Drugs designed to block PD-1 or PD-L1 "release the brakes" on anti-tumor immunity and have demonstrated clinical activity in several types of advanced cancers, validating this pathway as a target for cancer therapy. Two such drugs have recently been approved to treat melanoma and lung cancers, and regulatory approvals in first- and second-line settings for additional cancer types are anticipated. The manageable safety profile of PD-1/PD-L1 blocking drugs identifies them as suitable for outpatient administration and the development of combinatorial therapies. Ongoing studies aim to identify biomarkers to guide patient selection, which would further improve the risk:benefit ratio for these drugs.
Summary Background Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the ...mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. Methods In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01865747. Findings Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1–21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0–21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7–not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7–18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio HR 0·66 95% CI 0·53–0·83; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 95% CI 0·41–0·62; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% 13–22 with cabozantinib vs 3% 2–6 with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 15% in the cabozantinib group vs 12 4% in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 13% vs 7 2%), fatigue (36 11% vs 24 7%), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 8% vs 3 1%), anaemia (19 6% vs 53 17%), hyperglycaemia (3 1% vs 16 5%), and hypomagnesaemia (16 5% vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). Interpretation Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. Funding Exelixis Inc.
Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, ...dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs.
Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting.
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.
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common primary brain tumor in adults, and radiation is one of the main treatment modalities. However, cure rates remain low despite best available therapies. ...Immunotherapy is a promising modality that could work synergistically with radiation, which has been shown to increase antigen presentation and promote a proinflammatory tumor microenvironment. Programmed-death-1 (PD-1) is a surface receptor expressed on activated and exhausted T cells, which mediate T cell inhibition upon binding with its ligand PD-L1, expressed on many tumor types including human GBMs. We tested the combination of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy with stereotactic radiosurgery in a mouse orthotopic GBM model.
We performed intracranial implantation of mouse glioma cell line GL261 transfected with luciferase into C57BL/6 mice. Mice were stratified into 4 treatment groups: (1) control; (2) radiation only; (3) anti-PD-1 antibody only; and (4) radiation plus anti-PD-1 antibody. Overall survival was quantified. The mice were killed on day 21 after implantation to assess immunologic parameters in the brain/tumor, cervical lymph nodes, and spleen.
Improved survival was demonstrated with combination anti-PD-1 therapy plus radiation compared with either modality alone: median survival was 25 days in the control arm, 27 days in the anti-PD-1 antibody arm, 28 days in the radiation arm, and 53 days in the radiation plus anti-PD-1 therapy arm (P<.05 by log-rank Mantle-Cox). Long-term survival was seen only in the combined treatment arm, with a fraction (15%-40%) of animals alive at day 180+ after treatment. Immunologic data on day 21 after implantation showed increased tumor infiltration by cytotoxic T cells (CD8+/interferon-γ+/tumor necrosis factor-α+) and decreased regulatory T cells (CD4+/FOXP3) in the combined treatment group compared with the single modality arms.
The combination of PD-1 blockade and localized radiation therapy results in long-term survival in mice with orthotopic brain tumors. These studies provide strong preclinical evidence to support combination trials in patients with GBM.
In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced ...renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib.
In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment.
Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0–27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus −3·14 (−6·03 to −0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus −4·32 (−8·54 to −0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (−1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio HR 0·54; 95% CI 0·46–0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52–0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63–0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57–0·80).
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL.
Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for ...previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.
A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval CI, 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.
Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).
Insights into the biology of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and the development of agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway have positively impacted the outcomes ...for patients with aRCC. With the recent approval of the dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), nivolumab and ipilimumab, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the era of VEGF monotherapy for untreated aRCC appears to be coming to an end for patients with access to the combination therapy. The frontline treatment options for renal cell carcinoma are evolving rapidly and will lead to the approval of other combination immunotherapies-especially those with VEGF inhibitors. Here we review the clinical data for dual immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as the emerging data for ICI plus VEGF inhibitor combinations and discuss the challenges these will pose for the clinical practitioner.
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.
PDF
