Characterization of Responses to Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma at the Final Prespecified Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 CLEAR Study.

In the phase 3 CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) showed superior efficacy versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The combination treatment was associated with a robust objective response rate of 71%. Here we report tumor responses for patients in the L + P arm in CLEAR, with median follow-up of ∼4 yr at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis. Tumor responses were assessed by independent review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Patients with a complete response (CR; n = 65), partial response (PR) with maximum tumor shrinkage ≥75% (near-CR; n = 59), or PR with maximum tumor shrinkage <75% (other PR; n = 129), were characterized in terms of their baseline characteristics. The median duration of response was 43.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-not estimable) for the CR group, 30.5 mo (95% CI 22.4-not estimable) for the near-CR group, and 17.2 mo (95% CI 12.5-21.4) for the other PR group. The 36-mo OS rates were consistently high in the CR (97%), near-CR (86%), and other PR (62%) groups. Robust objective response rates were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable-risk (69%, 95% CI 60-78%), intermediate-risk (73%, 95% CI 67-79%), and poor-risk (70%, 95% CI 54-85%) subgroups. The robust response to L + P supports this combination as a standard-of-care first-line treatment for patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CLEAR trial enrolled patients with advanced kidney cancer who had not previously received any treatment for their cancer. Here we report results for tumor shrinkage observed in the group that received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination treatment during the trial. Shrinkage of target tumors with this combination was long-lasting and was observed in patients irrespective of their disease severity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02811861.

Analysis of East Asia subgroup in Study 309/KEYNOTE-775: lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In the global phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) at the first interim analysis, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) versus treatment of physician's choice chemotherapy (TPC) in patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). This exploratory analysis evaluated outcomes in patients enrolled in East Asia at the time of prespecified final analysis. METHODS: Women ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced, recurrent, or metastatic EC with progressive disease after 1 platinum-based chemotherapy (2 if 1 given in neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (≤35 cycles) or TPC (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). Primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and OS. No alpha was assigned for this subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Among 155 East Asian patients (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab, n=77; TPC, n=78), median follow-up time (data cutoff: March 1, 2022) was 34.3 (range, 25.1-43.0) months. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS (lenvatinib+pembrolizumab vs. TPC) were 0.74 (0.49-1.10) and 0.64 (0.44-0.94) in the mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) and all-comer populations, respectively. HRs (95% CI) for OS were 0.68 (0.45-1.02) and 0.61 (0.41-0.90), respectively. ORRs were 36% with lenvatinib+pembrolizumab and 22% with TPC (pMMR) and 39% and 21%, respectively (all-comers). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% and 96% (grade 3-5, 74% and 72%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib+pembrolizumab provided clinically meaningful benefit with manageable safety compared with TPC, supporting its use in East Asian patients with previously treated advanced/recurrent EC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03517449.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer Receiving Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) regardless of microsatellite instability status or histologic subtype, who had disease progression following prior platinum-based therapy, in Study-309/KEYNOTE-775. The safety profile of the combination was generally consistent with that of each monotherapy drug and of the combination in patients with endometrial cancer and other solid tumors. Given the medical complexity of patients with aEC, this paper aims to characterize key adverse reactions (ARs) of the combination treatment and review management strategies, providing a guide for AR management to maximize anticancer benefits and minimize treatment discontinuation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Study-309/KEYNOTE-775, patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or paclitaxel). The incidence and median time to the first onset of ARs, dose modifications, and concomitant medications are described. Key ARs characterized include hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal disorders, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting, stomatitis, weight decreased, proteinuria, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. RESULTS: As expected, the most common any-grade key ARs included: hypothyroidism, hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and musculoskeletal disorders. Grades 3-4 key ARs with incidence ≥10% included: hypertension, fatigue, and weight decreased. Key ARs first occurred within approximately 3 months of treatment initiation. AR management strategies consistent with the prescribing information and the study protocol are discussed. CONCLUSION: Successful AR management strategies for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab include education of the patient and entire treatment team, preventative measures and close monitoring, and judicious use of dose modifications and concomitant medications. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT03517449.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib in the East Asian subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the CLEAR trial.

In the CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab met study endpoints of superiority vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We report the efficacy and safety results of the East Asian subset (ie, patients in Japan and the Republic of Korea) from the CLEAR trial. Of 1069 patients randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, lenvatinib plus everolimus or sunitinib, 213 (20.0%) were from East Asia. Baseline characteristics of patients in the East Asian subset were generally comparable with those of the global trial population. In the East Asian subset, progression-free survival was considerably longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (median 22.1 vs 11.1 months; HR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23-0.62). The HR for overall survival comparing lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib was 0.71; 95% CI: 0.30-1.71. The objective response rate was higher with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (65.3% vs 49.2%; odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI: 1.07-4.28). Dose reductions due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) commonly associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors occurred more frequently than in the global population. Hand-foot syndrome was the most frequent any-grade TEAE with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (66.7%) and sunitinib (57.8%), a higher incidence compared to the global population (28.7% and 37.4%, respectively). The most common grade 3 to 5 TEAEs were hypertension with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (20%) and decreased platelet count with sunitinib (21.9%). Efficacy and safety for patients in the East Asian subset were generally similar to those of the global population, except as noted.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Updated Efficacy and Safety From the Randomized Phase III Study 309/KEYNOTE-775.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We report the final prespecified analysis for overall survival (OS), along with updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), and safety from the open-label, randomized, phase III Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. In total, 827 patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer (EC) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks (n = 411) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously once weekly [3 weeks on; 1 week off] [n = 416]). Efficacy was reported for patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) tumors and all-comers, and by subgroups (histology, prior therapy, MMR status). Updated safety was also reported.Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed benefits in OS (pMMR HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83; all-comer HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77), PFS (pMMR HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.72; all-comer HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.66), and ORR (pMMR patients, 32.4% v 15.1%; all-comers, 33.8% v 14.7%) versus chemotherapy. OS, PFS, and ORR favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in all subgroups of interest. No new safety signals were observed. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab continued to show improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and manageable safety in patients with previously treated advanced EC.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer Treated With Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Treatment of Physician's Choice.

PURPOSE: Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LEN+PEMBRO) demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in efficacy versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) in the phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive LEN+PEMBRO (n = 411; LEN 20 mg/day; PEMBRO 200 mg Q3W) or TPC (n = 416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 [weekly, 3 weeks on/1 week off]). Impact of treatment on HRQoL assessed by the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was a secondary objective; other scales of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-Endometrial, 24 questions (EORTC QLQ-EN24), and EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) were exploratory objectives. HRQoL was assessed on day 1 of each cycle. Completion/compliance, change from baseline, time to first and definitive deterioration were assessed. No multiplicity adjustments were applied for HRQoL endpoints. RESULTS: The latest timepoint at which the predefined rates of completion (≥60%) and compliance (≥80%) were met was week 12. HRQoL at week 12 between treatment groups was generally similar. Time to first deterioration symptom scales favoured LEN+PEMBRO for QLQ-C30 dyspnoea, and QLQ-EN24 for poor body image, tingling/numbness, and hair loss; and TPC was favoured for QLQ-C30 pain, appetite loss, and diarrhoea, and QLQ-EN24 muscular pain. While the QLQ-C30 physical functional scale favoured TPC, other functional scales were generally similar between arms. Time to definitive deterioration favoured LEN+PEMBRO on most scales. CONCLUSION: HRQoL data from Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, with previously published efficacy and safety results, indicate that LEN+PEMBRO has an overall favourable benefit/risk profile versus TPC for the treatment of patients with aEC. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03517449.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival. OBJECTIVE: To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a "complete response" or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a novel combination with promising efficacy in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This combination demonstrated high objective response rates in a single-arm phase 1b/2 trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-146/Study 111) after ≤2 previous lines of therapy. In a randomized phase 3 trial of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-775/Study 309), after 1‒2 previous lines of therapy (including neoadjuvant/adjuvant), this combination improved objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer, with measurable or radiographically apparent disease. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors and all patients (all-comers). TRIAL DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-controlled trial. Patients will receive pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks plus lenvatinib orally daily or paclitaxel plus carboplatin intravenously every 3 weeks, stratified by mismatch repair status (proficient vs deficient). Patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors will be further stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1), measurable disease (yes/no), and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (yes/no). MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adults with stage III/IV/recurrent histologically confirmed endometrial cancer that is measurable or radiographically apparent per blinded independent central review. Patients may have received previous chemotherapy only as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and/or concurrently with radiation. Patients with carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Müllerian tumor), endometrial leiomyosarcoma, or other high grade sarcomas, or endometrial stromal sarcomas were excluded. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Progression-free and overall survival (dual primary endpoints). SAMPLE SIZE: About 875 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Enrollment is expected to take approximately 24 months, with presentation of results in 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03884101.

Integrating genome-wide CRISPR immune screen with multi-omic clinical data reveals distinct classes of tumor intrinsic immune regulators.

BACKGROUND: Despite approval of immunotherapy for a wide range of cancers, the majority of patients fail to respond to immunotherapy or relapse following initial response. These failures may be attributed to immunosuppressive mechanisms co-opted by tumor cells. However, it is challenging to use conventional methods to systematically evaluate the potential of tumor intrinsic factors to act as immune regulators in patients with cancer. METHODS: To identify immunosuppressive mechanisms in non-responders to cancer immunotherapy in an unbiased manner, we performed genome-wide CRISPR immune screens and integrated our results with multi-omics clinical data to evaluate the role of tumor intrinsic factors in regulating two rate-limiting steps of cancer immunotherapy, namely, T cell tumor infiltration and T cell-mediated tumor killing. RESULTS: Our studies revealed two distinct types of immune resistance regulators and demonstrated their potential as therapeutic targets to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy. Among them, PRMT1 and RIPK1 were identified as a dual immune resistance regulator and a cytotoxicity resistance regulator, respectively. Although the magnitude varied between different types of immunotherapy, genetically targeting PRMT1 and RIPK1 sensitized tumors to T-cell killing and anti-PD-1/OX40 treatment. Interestingly, a RIPK1-specific inhibitor enhanced the antitumor activity of T cell-based and anti-OX40 therapy, despite limited impact on T cell tumor infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, the data provide a rich resource of novel targets for rational immuno-oncology combinations.

Aurora kinase inhibition sensitizes melanoma cells to T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity.

Although immunotherapy has achieved impressive durable clinical responses, many cancers respond only temporarily or not at all to immunotherapy. To find novel, targetable mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy, patient-derived melanoma cell lines were transduced with 576 open reading frames, or exposed to arrayed libraries of 850 bioactive compounds, prior to co-culture with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). The synergy between the targets and TILs to induce apoptosis, and the mechanisms of inhibiting resistance to TILs were interrogated. Gene expression analyses were performed on tumor samples from patients undergoing immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Finally, the effect of inhibiting the top targets on the efficacy of immunotherapy was investigated in multiple preclinical models. Aurora kinase was identified as a mediator of melanoma cell resistance to T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity in both complementary screens. Aurora kinase inhibitors were validated to synergize with T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity in vitro. The Aurora kinase inhibition-mediated sensitivity to T-cell cytotoxicity was shown to be partially driven by p21-mediated induction of cellular senescence. The expression levels of Aurora kinase and related proteins were inversely correlated with immune infiltration, response to immunotherapy and survival in melanoma patients. Aurora kinase inhibition showed variable responses in combination with immunotherapy in vivo, suggesting its activity is modified by other factors in the tumor microenvironment. These data suggest that Aurora kinase inhibition enhances T-cell cytotoxicity in vitro and can potentiate antitumor immunity in vivo in some but not all settings. Further studies are required to determine the mechanism of primary resistance to this therapeutic intervention.

Anti-OX40 Antibody Directly Enhances The Function of Tumor-Reactive CD8+ T Cells and Synergizes with PI3Kß Inhibition in PTEN Loss Melanoma.

PURPOSE: OX40 agonist-based combinations are emerging as a novel avenue to improve the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy. To better guide its clinical development, we characterized the role of the OX40 pathway in tumor-reactive immune cells. We also evaluated combining OX40 agonists with targeted therapy to combat resistance to cancer immunotherapy.Experimental Design: We utilized patient-derived tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and multiple preclinical models to determine the direct effect of anti-OX40 agonistic antibodies on tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells. We also evaluated the antitumor activity of an anti-OX40 antibody plus PI3Kß inhibition in a transgenic murine melanoma model (Braf mutant, PTEN null), which spontaneously develops immunotherapy-resistant melanomas. RESULTS: We observed elevated expression of OX40 in tumor-reactive CD8+ TILs upon encountering tumors; activation of OX40 signaling enhanced their cytotoxic function. OX40 agonist antibody improved the antitumor activity of CD8+ T cells and the generation of tumor-specific T-cell memory in vivo. Furthermore, combining anti-OX40 with GSK2636771, a PI3Kß-selective inhibitor, delayed tumor growth and extended the survival of mice with PTEN-null melanomas. This combination treatment did not increase the number of TILs, but it instead significantly enhanced proliferation of CD8+ TILs and elevated the serum levels of CCL4, CXCL10, and IFNγ, which are mainly produced by memory and/or effector T cells. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight a critical role of OX40 activation in potentiating the effector function of tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells and suggest further evaluation of OX40 agonist-based combinations in patients with immune-resistant tumors.

Increased Tumor Glycolysis Characterizes Immune Resistance to Adoptive T Cell Therapy.

Adoptive T cell therapy (ACT) produces durable responses in some cancer patients; however, most tumors are refractory to ACT and the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance are unclear. Using two independent approaches, we identified tumor glycolysis as a pathway associated with immune resistance in melanoma. Glycolysis-related genes were upregulated in melanoma and lung cancer patient samples poorly infiltrated by T cells. Overexpression of glycolysis-related molecules impaired T cell killing of tumor cells, whereas inhibition of glycolysis enhanced T cell-mediated antitumor immunity in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, glycolysis-related gene expression was higher in melanoma tissues from ACT-refractory patients, and tumor cells derived from these patients exhibited higher glycolytic activity. We identified reduced levels of IRF1 and CXCL10 immunostimulatory molecules in highly glycolytic melanoma cells. Our findings demonstrate that tumor glycolysis is associated with the efficacy of ACT and identify the glycolysis pathway as a candidate target for combinatorial therapeutic intervention.

The RNA-binding Protein MEX3B Mediates Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy by Downregulating HLA-A Expression.

Purpose: Cancer immunotherapy has shown promising clinical outcomes in many patients. However, some patients still fail to respond, and new strategies are needed to overcome resistance. The purpose of this study was to identify novel genes and understand the mechanisms that confer resistance to cancer immunotherapy.Experimental Design: To identify genes mediating resistance to T-cell killing, we performed an open reading frame (ORF) screen of a kinome library to study whether overexpression of a gene in patient-derived melanoma cells could inhibit their susceptibility to killing by autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL).Results: The RNA-binding protein MEX3B was identified as a top candidate that decreased the susceptibility of melanoma cells to killing by TILs. Further analyses of anti-PD-1-treated melanoma patient tumor samples suggested that higher MEX3B expression is associated with resistance to PD-1 blockade. In addition, significantly decreased levels of IFNγ were secreted from TILs incubated with MEX3B-overexpressing tumor cells. Interestingly, this phenotype was rescued upon overexpression of exogenous HLA-A2. Consistent with this, we observed decreased HLA-A expression in MEX3B-overexpressing tumor cells. Finally, luciferase reporter assays and RNA-binding protein immunoprecipitation assays suggest that this is due to MEX3B binding to the 3' untranslated region (UTR) of HLA-A to destabilize the mRNA.Conclusions: MEX3B mediates resistance to cancer immunotherapy by binding to the 3' UTR of HLA-A to destabilize the HLA-A mRNA and thus downregulate HLA-A expression on the surface of tumor cells, thereby making the tumor cells unable to be recognized and killed by T cells. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3366-76. ©2018 AACRSee related commentary by Kalbasi and Ribas, p. 3239.

Improving warfarin therapy through implementation of a hospital-based pharmacist managed clinic in Jamaica.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist managed warfarin clinics can improve the anticoagulation status of non-valvular patients. The first of such services was implemented at the Cornwall Regional Hospital in Jamaica in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the anticoagulation control of patients on warfarin therapy over six months in the pharmacist managed warfarin clinic at Cornwall Regional Hospital. METHODS: Retrospective docket review for the period January 2014 to December 2016 was done to include data of patients attending routine clinic appointments for at least six months. Age, gender, date of visit, indication for warfarin therapy, warfarin dose and International Normalized Ratio readings were extracted. Percentage time spent in therapeutic range (TTR) was calculated by month for six months using the Rosendaal linear interpolation method. Patient anticoagulation status was categorized as poor (TTR<40%), moderate (TTR=40-64%) or good (TTR≥65%) and anticoagulation status at three months and six months was compared. RESULTS: For the period of assessment, 52 patients were identified; the median age was 58 years and 36 patients were males. Deep vein thrombosis was the main indication for therapy (22 of 52) and median warfarin weekly dose ranged was 15.0-130 mg. At time of recruitment most of the patients were outside the target INR range (43 of 52). Within one month, the median TTR attained was 31% [IQR 62-10]. This significantly improved by second month to 60% [IQR 82-23] (p=0.001). By month three, the proportion of patients in good, moderate and poor anticoagulant status was 19/51, 15/51 and 17/51 respectively, which at six months changed to 23/51, 12/51. 16/51 respectively; thus, although coagulation status improved from month one to three, there was no significant improvement from month three to month six (p=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist managed warfarin clinic monitoring services were successful in attaining TTRs >40% and sustaining these values over six months. The services should therefore be encouraged.

The Effect of Topoisomerase I Inhibitors on the Efficacy of T-Cell-Based Cancer Immunotherapy.

Background: Immunotherapy has increasingly become a staple in cancer treatment. However, substantial limitations in the durability of response highlight the need for more rational therapeutic combinations. The aim of this study is to investigate how to make tumor cells more sensitive to T-cell-based cancer immunotherapy. Methods: Two pairs of melanoma patient-derived tumor cell lines and their autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were utilized in a high-throughput screen of 850 compounds to identify bioactive agents that could be used in combinatorial strategies to improve T-cell-mediated killing of tumor cells. RNAi, overexpression, and gene expression analyses were utilized to identify the mechanism underlying the effect of Topoisomerase I (Top1) inhibitors on T-cell-mediated killing. Using a syngeneic mouse model (n = 5 per group), the antitumor efficacy of the combination of a clinically relevant Top1 inhibitor, liposomal irinotecan (MM-398), with immune checkpoint inhibitors was also assessed. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We found that Top1 inhibitors increased the sensitivity of patient-derived melanoma cell lines (n = 7) to T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity (P < .001, Dunnett's test). This enhancement is mediated by TP53INP1, whose overexpression increased the susceptibility of melanoma cell lines to T-cell cytotoxicity (2549 cell line: P = .009, unpaired t test), whereas its knockdown impeded T-cell killing of Top1 inhibitor-treated melanoma cells (2549 cell line: P < .001, unpaired t test). In vivo, greater tumor control was achieved with MM-398 in combination with α-PD-L1 or α-PD1 (P < .001, Tukey's test). Prolonged survival was also observed in tumor-bearing mice treated with MM-398 in combination with α-PD-L1 (P = .002, log-rank test) or α-PD1 (P = .008, log-rank test). Conclusions: We demonstrated that Top1 inhibitors can improve the antitumor efficacy of cancer immunotherapy, thus providing the basis for developing novel strategies using Top1 inhibitors to augment the efficacy of immunotherapy.

HSP90 inhibition enhances cancer immunotherapy by upregulating interferon response genes.

T-cell-based immunotherapies are promising treatments for cancer patients. Although durable responses can be achieved in some patients, many patients fail to respond to these therapies, underscoring the need for improvement with combination therapies. From a screen of 850 bioactive compounds, we identify HSP90 inhibitors as candidates for combination with immunotherapy. We show that inhibition of HSP90 with ganetespib enhances T-cell-mediated killing of patient-derived human melanoma cells by their autologous T cells in vitro and potentiates responses to anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 therapy in vivo. Mechanistic studies reveal that HSP90 inhibition results in upregulation of interferon response genes, which are essential for the enhanced killing of ganetespib treated melanoma cells by T cells. Taken together, these findings provide evidence that HSP90 inhibition can potentiate T-cell-mediated anti-tumor immune responses, and rationale to explore the combination of immunotherapy and HSP90 inhibitors.Many patients fail to respond to T cell based immunotherapies. Here, the authors, through a high-throughput screening, identify HSP90 inhibitors as a class of preferred drugs for treatment combination with immunotherapy.