Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Clinical features and response to immune combinations in patients with renal cell carcinoma and sarcomatoid de-differentiation (ARON-1 study).

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) carrying sarcomatoid features (sRCC) has aggressive biology and poor prognosis. First-line immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations have improved the outcome of clear cell RCC patients, including that of sRCC. Real-world data confirming the adequate first-line management of sRCC is largely lacking. We investigated the clinical features and the outcome of sRCC patients treated with IO-based combinations within the ARON-1 study population (NCT05287464). The primary objective was to define the incidence and baseline clinical characteristics of sRCC compared with non-sRCC patients. The secondary objective was to describe the outcome of sRCC patients based on type of first-line treatment (IO + IO vs. IO + tyrosin kinase inhibitor [TKI]). We identified 1362 mRCC patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk, 226 sRCC and 1136 non-sRCC. These two subgroups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. The median overall survival (OS) was 26.8 months (95%CI 21.6-44.2) in sRCC and 35.3 months (95%CI 30.2-40.4) in non-sRCC patients (p = .013). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in non-sRCC patients compared to sRCC (14.5 vs. 12.3 months, p = .064). In patients treated with first-line IO + TKI the median OS was 34.4 months compared to 26.4 months of those who received IO + IO (p = .729). The median PFS was 12.4 months with IO + TKI and 12.3 months with IO + IO (p = .606). In conclusion, we confirm that sRCC are aggressive tumors with poor prognosis. IO-based combinations improve survival outcomes of sRCC patients, regardless from the type of strategy (IO + IO versus IO + TKI) adopted.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors has challenged previous treatment paradigms for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the post-platinum setting as well as in the first-line setting for cisplatin-ineligible patients. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible UC. METHODS: Data from patients aged ≥ 18 years with cisplatin-ineligible UC and receiving first-line pembrolizumab from January 1st 2017 to September 1st 2022 were collected. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined according to the Galsky criteria. Thirty-three Institutions from 18 countries were involved in the ARON-2 study. RESULTS: Our analysis included 162 patients. The median follow-up time was 18.9 months (95%CI 15.3-76.9). In the overall study population, the median OS was 15.8 months (95%CI 11.3-32.4). The median OS was significantly longer in males versus females while no statistically significant differences were observed between patients aged < 65y versus ≥ 65y and between smokers and non-smokers. According to Recist 1.1 criteria, 26 patients (16%) experienced CR, 32 (20%) PR, 39 (24%) SD and 55 (34%) PD. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the role of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-unfit patients. Further studies investigating the biological and immunological characteristics of UC patients are warranted in order to optimize the outcome of patients receiving immunotherapy in this setting.

Outcomes from treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma following failure of first-line anti-VEGF/VEGFR therapy: real-life evidence on the change of the treatment paradigm.

Recently approved agents for post-vascular endothelial growth factor/post-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF/VEGFR) inhibitors treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinomas (mRCC), such as axitinib, nivolumab, and cabozantinib were shown to improve prognosis and substituted everolimus in this setting. We studied practice patterns, efficacy, and tolerability of these agents in a real-world series of Greek patients. We included patients with mRCC who received everolimus, axitinib, or nivolumab after progression on first-line anti-VEGF/VEGFRs therapy. Patients were stratified into three groups. Group A received nivolumab with or without cabozantinib at some point in their disease. Group B received axitinib but without nivolumab or cabozantinib. Group C received only everolimus among the four approved agents. Overall, 131 patients were included in the analysis. Everolimus and nivolumab were mainly used in the second line, while axitinib and cabozantinib were mostly used in the third and fourth lines. Median overall survival (OS) from first-line initiation was 8.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4-not reached], 3.6 (95% CI, 2-6), and 2.1 years (95% CI, 1.4-2.6) for Group A, B, and C, respectively ( P < 0.001). Median OS from the initiation of second-line therapy was 3.5, 2.7, and 1.3 years, respectively ( P < 0.001). There was no impact of first-line agent or treatment timing on survival. International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk stratification was associated with OS. Toxicities observed were within expected frequencies. Grade ≥3 events were rare. Adoption of modern standards in everyday treatment of mRCC results in prolongation of survival. Real-world datasets are the new landmarks of survival for future research.

Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Association of prior local therapy and outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: We included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately. CONCLUSION: Prior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

Exposure-response relationship of ramucirumab in RANGE, a randomized phase III trial in advanced urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum therapy.

AIMS: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and there is a medical need to improve current treatment options. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival but not overall survival (OS) in platinum-refractory advanced UC (RANGE trial; NCT02426125). Here, we report the exposure-response (ER) of ramucirumab plus docetaxel using data from the RANGE trial. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected (cycle 1-3, 5, 9 [day 1] and 30 days from treatment discontinuation), and PK data were analysed using population PK (popPK) analysis. The minimum ramucirumab concentration after first dose administration (Cmin,1 , or trough concentration immediately prior to the second dose) was derived by popPK analysis and used as the exposure parameter for ER analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression models and matched case-control analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between Cmin,1 and OS. The Cmin,1 relationship with safety was assessed descriptively. RESULTS: Several poor prognostic factors (ECOG 1, haemoglobin concentration <100 g/L, presence of liver metastases) appeared more frequently in the lower exposure quartiles, suggesting a possible disease-PK interaction. A significant association was identified between Cmin,1 and OS (P = .0108). Higher exposure quartiles were associated with longer survival and smaller hazard ratios compared to placebo. No new exposure-safety trends were observed within the exposure range (ramucirumab 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: This prespecified ER analyses suggests a positive relationship between efficacy and ramucirumab exposure, with an imbalance associated with disease prognostic factors. Further investigation may elucidate a possible disease-PK relationship.

Carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab beyond progression versus carboplatin-based doublet alone in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer, either in first-line therapy or for patients with recurrent disease not previously treated with the same drug. We aimed to test the value of continuing bevacizumab beyond progression after first-line treatment with the same drug. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 82 sites in four countries, we enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) who had previously received first-line platinum-based therapy including bevacizumab, and had recurrent (≥6 months since last platinum dose), International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a carboplatin-based doublet intravenously (carboplatin area under the concentration curve [AUC] 5 on day 1 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days; carboplatin AUC 4 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days; or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 on day 1, every 28 days), or a carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 14 days combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-carboplatin, or 15 mg/kg every 21 days combined with gemcitabine-carboplatin or paclitaxel-carboplatin). Evaluable disease according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines was required before randomisation. Randomisation was done through the trial website with a minimisation procedure, stratified by centre, time of recurrence, performance status, and type of second-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01802749 and EudraCT 2012-004362-17. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Nov 11, 2016, 406 patients were recruited (203 [50%] assigned to the bevacizumab group and 203 [50%] to the standard chemotherapy group). 130 patients (64%) in the bevacizumab group and 131 (65%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after receiving a last dose of platinum more than 12 months before, and 146 patients (72%) in the bevacizumab group and 147 (72%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after completion of first-line bevacizumab maintenance. 161 participants (79%) progressed in the standard chemotherapy group, as did 143 (70%) in the bevacizumab group. Median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 8·4-9·3) in the standard chemotherapy group and 11·8 months (10·8-12·9) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·41-0·65; log-rank p<0·0001). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (20 [10%] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 58 (29%) in the bevacizumab group), neutrophil count decrease (81 [41%] vs 80 [40%]), and platelet count decrease (43 [22%] vs 61 [30%]). 68 patients (33%) died in the standard chemotherapy group and 79 (39%) died in the bevacizumab group; two deaths (1%) in the standard chemotherapy group and one death (<1%) in the bevacizumab group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression combined with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer improves progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone and might be considered in clinical practice. FUNDING: Hoffmann-La Roche and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro.

Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo. INTERPRETATION: Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced upper and lower tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison of outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line). RESULTS: Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed-histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed-histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy.

PIVOT-10: Phase II study of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer.

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): overall survival and updated results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist-plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (60 mg/m2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5-13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3-4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6-2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573-0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9-11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0-9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724-1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

KDIGO Controversies Conference on onco-nephrology: kidney disease in hematological malignancies and the burden of cancer after kidney transplantation.

The bidirectional relationship between cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is complex. Patients with cancer, particularly those with hematological malignancies such as multiple myeloma and lymphoma, are at increased risk of developing acute kidney injury and CKD. On the other hand, emerging evidence from large observational registry analyses have consistently shown that cancer risk is increased by at least 2- to 3-fold in kidney transplant recipients, and the observed increased risk occurs not only in those who have received kidney transplants but also in those on dialysis and with mild- to moderate-stage CKD. The interactions between cancer and CKD have raised major therapeutic and clinical challenges in the management of these patients. Given the magnitude of the problem and uncertainties, and current controversies within the existing evidence, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) assembled a global panel of multidisciplinary clinical and scientific expertise for a controversies conference on onco-nephrology to identify key management issues in nephrology relevant to patients with malignancy. This report covers the discussed controversies in kidney disease in hematological malignancies, as well as cancer after kidney transplantation. An overview of future research priorities is also discussed.

KDIGO Controversies Conference on onco-nephrology: understanding kidney impairment and solid-organ malignancies, and managing kidney cancer.

The association between kidney disease and cancer is multifaceted and complex. Persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased incidence of cancer, and both cancer and cancer treatments can cause impaired kidney function. Renal issues in the setting of malignancy can worsen patient outcomes and diminish the adequacy of anticancer treatments. In addition, the oncology treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and data on tolerability of novel therapies in patients with CKD are often lacking. Caring for oncology patients has become more specialized and interdisciplinary, currently requiring collaboration among specialists in nephrology, medical oncology, critical care, clinical pharmacology/pharmacy, and palliative care, in addition to surgeons and urologists. To identify key management issues in nephrology relevant to patients with malignancy, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) assembled a global panel of multidisciplinary clinical and scientific expertise for a controversies conference on onco-nephrology in December 2018. This report covers issues related to kidney impairment and solid organ malignancies as well as management and treatment of kidney cancer. Knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and research priorities are described.

Lymphocytic infiltration and Chemotherapy Response Score as prognostic markers in ovarian cancer patients treated with Neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) followed by Interval Debulking Surgery (IDS) is an accepted frontline treatment in patients with advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC). Histopathologic assessment of tumor post NACT may provide a surrogate for response to treatment. The present study aims to characterize the pathological response and to examine its prognostic significance in these patients. Medical records of women with EOC treated in our institution from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively identified. IDS specimens were reviewed by study pathologist and Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS), lymphocytic infiltration, necrosis and mitosis were assessed. 55 patients with EOC treated with NACT were identified and 48 had complete clinical and pathological data. Median age was 63 years. CRS assessed at omentum predicted PFS when adjusted for age, stage, debulking status (complete, optimal, suboptimal) and post IDS bevacizumab administration (mPFS CRS 1 vs 2 vs 3: 10.3-14-18.7 months 95% CI [7.4-15.7], [12.2-22.9], [13.5-31.3]). Presence of lymphocytic infiltration was associated with improved OS (log-rank test P = 0.015). Post IDS bevacizumab was associated with shorter PFS in patients with lymphocytic infiltration. BRCA status was known for 25 patients and presence of BRCA1/2 mutations was strongly correlated with lymphocytic infiltration (P = 0.011) but not CRS omentum (P = 0.926). Our study confirms the predictive value of CRS in EOC patients treated with NACT and IDS, but also demonstrates the prognostic significance of lymphocytic infiltration as well as its possible interaction with bevacizumab treatment.