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.
Abstract Purpose Blocking the interaction between the programmed cell death (PD)-1 protein and one of its ligands, PD-L1, has been reported to have impressive antitumor responses. Therapeutics ...targeting this pathway are currently in clinical trials. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are the first of this anti-PD-1 pathway family of checkpoint inhibitors to gain accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Nivolumab has been associated with improved overall survival compared with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated wild-type serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf proto-oncogene BRAF melanoma. Although the most mature data are in the treatment of melanoma, the FDA has granted approval of nivolumab for squamous cell lung cancer and the breakthrough therapy designation to immune- checkpoint inhibitors for use in other cancers: nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, for Hodgkin lymphoma, and MPDL-3280A, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, for bladder cancer and non–small cell lung cancer. Here we review the literature on PD-1 and PD-L1 blockade and focus on the reported clinical studies that have included patients with melanoma. Methods PubMed was searched to identify relevant clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1–targeted therapies in melanoma. A review of data from the current trials on clinicaltrial.gov was incorporated, as well as data presented in abstracts at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, given the limited number of published clinical trials on this topic. Findings The anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents have been reported to have impressive antitumor effects in several malignancies, including melanoma. The greatest clinical activity in unselected patients has been seen in melanoma. Tumor expression of PD-L1 is a suggestive, but inadequate, biomarker predictive of response to immune-checkpoint blockade. However, tumors expressing little or no PD-L1 are less likely to respond to PD-1 pathway blockade. Combination checkpoint blockade with PD-1 plus cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 blockade appears to improve response rates in patients who are less likely to respond to single-checkpoint blockade. Toxicity with PD-1 blocking agents is less than the toxicity with previous immunotherapies (eg, interleukin 2, CTLA-4 blockade). Certain adverse events can be severe and potentially life threatening, but most can be prevented or reversed with close monitoring and appropriate management. Implications This family of immune-checkpoint inhibitors benefits not only patients with metastatic melanoma but also those with historically less responsive tumor types. Although a subset of patients responds to single-agent blockade, the initial trial of checkpoint-inhibitor combinations has reported a potential to improve response rates. Combination therapies appear to be a means of increasing response rates, albeit with increased immune-related adverse events. As these treatments become available to patients, education regarding the recognition and management of immune-related effects of immune-checkpoint blockade will be essential for maximizing clinical benefit.
Summary Background Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged ...progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. Methods In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01927419 , and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. Findings Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1–25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3–72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1–66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43–1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were colitis (12 13% of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten 11%) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five 11% of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two 4%) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten 11% of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five 5%) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two 4% of 46 patients, colitis in one 2%, and hypophysitis in one 2%). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. Interpretation Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
PD-1 blockade has transformed the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), but the drivers and resistors of the PD-1 response remain incompletely elucidated. Here, we analyzed ...592 tumors from patients with advanced ccRCC enrolled in prospective clinical trials of treatment with PD-1 blockade by whole-exome and RNA sequencing, integrated with immunofluorescence analysis, to uncover the immunogenomic determinants of the therapeutic response. Although conventional genomic markers (such as tumor mutation burden and neoantigen load) and the degree of CD8
T cell infiltration were not associated with clinical response, we discovered numerous chromosomal alterations associated with response or resistance to PD-1 blockade. These advanced ccRCC tumors were highly CD8
T cell infiltrated, with only 27% having a non-infiltrated phenotype. Our analysis revealed that infiltrated tumors are depleted of favorable PBRM1 mutations and enriched for unfavorable chromosomal losses of 9p21.3, as compared with non-infiltrated tumors, demonstrating how the potential interplay of immunophenotypes with somatic alterations impacts therapeutic efficacy.
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 .).
The development of human cancer is a multistep process characterized by the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that drive or reflect tumour progression. These changes distinguish ...cancer cells from their normal counterparts, allowing tumours to be recognized as foreign by the immune system. However, tumours are rarely rejected spontaneously, reflecting their ability to maintain an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1; also called B7-H1 or CD274), which is expressed on many cancer and immune cells, plays an important part in blocking the 'cancer immunity cycle' by binding programmed death-1 (PD-1) and B7.1 (CD80), both of which are negative regulators of T-lymphocyte activation. Binding of PD-L1 to its receptors suppresses T-cell migration, proliferation and secretion of cytotoxic mediators, and restricts tumour cell killing. The PD-L1-PD-1 axis protects the host from overactive T-effector cells not only in cancer but also during microbial infections. Blocking PD-L1 should therefore enhance anticancer immunity, but little is known about predictive factors of efficacy. This study was designed to evaluate the safety, activity and biomarkers of PD-L1 inhibition using the engineered humanized antibody MPDL3280A. Here we show that across multiple cancer types, responses (as evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1) were observed in patients with tumours expressing high levels of PD-L1, especially when PD-L1 was expressed by tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Furthermore, responses were associated with T-helper type 1 (TH1) gene expression, CTLA4 expression and the absence of fractalkine (CX3CL1) in baseline tumour specimens. Together, these data suggest that MPDL3280A is most effective in patients in which pre-existing immunity is suppressed by PD-L1, and is re-invigorated on antibody treatment.
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.).
Blockade of programmed death 1 (PD-1), an inhibitory receptor expressed by T cells, can overcome immune resistance. We assessed the antitumor activity and safety of BMS-936558, an antibody that ...specifically blocks PD-1.
We enrolled patients with advanced melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or renal-cell or colorectal cancer to receive anti-PD-1 antibody at a dose of 0.1 to 10.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks. Response was assessed after each 8-week treatment cycle. Patients received up to 12 cycles until disease progression or a complete response occurred.
A total of 296 patients received treatment through February 24, 2012. Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 14% of patients; there were three deaths from pulmonary toxicity. No maximum tolerated dose was defined. Adverse events consistent with immune-related causes were observed. Among 236 patients in whom response could be evaluated, objective responses (complete or partial responses) were observed in those with non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, or renal-cell cancer. Cumulative response rates (all doses) were 18% among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (14 of 76 patients), 28% among patients with melanoma (26 of 94 patients), and 27% among patients with renal-cell cancer (9 of 33 patients). Responses were durable; 20 of 31 responses lasted 1 year or more in patients with 1 year or more of follow-up. To assess the role of intratumoral PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) expression in the modulation of the PD-1-PD-L1 pathway, immunohistochemical analysis was performed on pretreatment tumor specimens obtained from 42 patients. Of 17 patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, none had an objective response; 9 of 25 patients (36%) with PD-L1-positive tumors had an objective response (P=0.006).
Anti-PD-1 antibody produced objective responses in approximately one in four to one in five patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, or renal-cell cancer; the adverse-event profile does not appear to preclude its use. Preliminary data suggest a relationship between PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and objective response. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00730639.).
Despite remarkable success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, the majority of cancer patients have yet to receive durable benefits. Here, in order to investigate the metabolic alterations in response ...to immune checkpoint blockade, we comprehensively profile serum metabolites in advanced melanoma and renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab, an antibody against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1). We identify serum kynurenine/tryptophan ratio increases as an adaptive resistance mechanism associated with worse overall survival. This advocates for patient stratification and metabolic monitoring in immunotherapy clinical trials including those combining PD1 blockade with indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase/tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO/TDO) inhibitors.
Recently, an improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms governing the host response to tumors has led to the identification of checkpoint signaling pathways involved in limiting the ...anticancer immune response. One of the most critical checkpoint pathways responsible for mediating tumor‐induced immune suppression is the programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) pathway, normally involved in promoting tolerance and preventing tissue damage in settings of chronic inflammation. Many human solid tumors express PD ligand 1 (PD‐L1), and this is often associated with a worse prognosis. Tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes from patients with cancer typically express PD‐1 and have impaired antitumor functionality. Proof‐of‐concept has come from several preclinical studies in which blockade of PD‐1 or PD‐L1 enhanced T‐cell function and tumor cell lysis. Three monoclonal antibodies against PD‐1, and one against PD‐L1, have reported phase 1 data. All four agents have shown encouraging preliminary activity, and those that have been evaluated in larger patient populations appear to have encouraging safety profiles. Additional data are eagerly awaited. This review summarizes emerging clinical data and potential of PD‐1 pathway–targeted antibodies in development. If subsequent investigations confirm the initial results, it is conceivable that agents blocking the PD‐1/PD‐L1 pathway will prove valuable additions to the growing armamentarium of targeted immunotherapeutic agents.
Next‐generation immunotherapy agents that target the PD‐1 checkpoint pathway are demonstrating antitumor activity and encouraging safety profiles in early clinical trials. Current and future clinical trials will provide new insights, and the evaluation of biomarkers and rational combination therapies is ongoing.
PDF
