Experimental and computational modeling for signature and biomarker discovery of renal cell carcinoma progression.

BACKGROUND: Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) is difficult to treat with 5-year survival rate of 10% in metastatic patients. Main reasons of therapy failure are lack of validated biomarkers and scarce knowledge of the biological processes occurring during RCC progression. Thus, the investigation of mechanisms regulating RCC progression is fundamental to improve RCC therapy. METHODS: In order to identify molecular markers and gene processes involved in the steps of RCC progression, we generated several cell lines of higher aggressiveness by serially passaging mouse renal cancer RENCA cells in mice and, concomitantly, performed functional genomics analysis of the cells. Multiple cell lines depicting the major steps of tumor progression (including primary tumor growth, survival in the blood circulation and metastatic spread) were generated and analyzed by large-scale transcriptome, genome and methylome analyses. Furthermore, we performed clinical correlations of our datasets. Finally we conducted a computational analysis for predicting the time to relapse based on our molecular data. RESULTS: Through in vivo passaging, RENCA cells showed increased aggressiveness by reducing mice survival, enhancing primary tumor growth and lung metastases formation. In addition, transcriptome and methylome analyses showed distinct clustering of the cell lines without genomic variation. Distinct signatures of tumor aggressiveness were revealed and validated in different patient cohorts. In particular, we identified SAA2 and CFB as soluble prognostic and predictive biomarkers of the therapeutic response. Machine learning and mathematical modeling confirmed the importance of CFB and SAA2 together, which had the highest impact on distant metastasis-free survival. From these data sets, a computational model predicting tumor progression and relapse was developed and validated. These results are of great translational significance. CONCLUSION: A combination of experimental and mathematical modeling was able to generate meaningful data for the prediction of the clinical evolution of RCC.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

The impact of sarcopenia on the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that sarcopenia is a significant predictive factor of worst outcomes and treatment-associated toxicities in patients with metastatic solid tumours. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between low muscle mass and clinical outcomes and immune-related severe toxicities (IrST) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 261 consecutive metastatic solid tumour patients treated with ICIs were included in our study. Low muscle mass was defined as skeletal muscle index <41 cm2/m2 for females and <43 cm2/m2 for males if body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 or <53 cm2/m2 if BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Severe toxicities (ST), including grade III-IV toxicities and side effects leading to treatment interruption, were recorded. RESULTS: The majority of patients (n = 179; 69%) included in this study had metastatic lung cancer. The prevalence of low muscle mass was 47%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 32.2 weeks for low muscle mass patients and 24.3 weeks for non-low muscle mass patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.055; p = 0.11). For low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass lung cancer patients, median PFS was 24.0 weeks and 18.8 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04) and median overall survival was 50.7 weeks and 41.1 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.10, p = 0.15) respectively. Immune-related severe toxicities occurred in 3.3% and 9.4% of low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients respectively (adjusted OR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.31-1.49; p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: No difference in outcomes and safety was observed for low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients treated with ICIs.

Exploratory analysis of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio prognostic value in the adjuvant renal cell cancer setting.

Aim: To examine the prognostic value of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting. Materials & methods: Patients received adjuvant sunitinib (50 mg/day; 4 weeks on/2 weeks off) or placebo. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results: In 609 patients, DFS was similar for baseline PLR <140 versus ≥140 overall (median: 6.4 vs 5.9 years; hazard ratio: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.7-1.2). A ≥25% decrease in PLR at week 4 overall was associated with longer DFS versus no change (hazard ratio: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6-1.0). Conclusion: Baseline PLR was not prognostic for DFS with adjuvant sunitinib treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00375674 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Estimand framework: Are we asking the right questions? A case study in the solid tumor setting.

The estimand framework requires a precise definition of the clinical question of interest (the estimand) as different ways of accounting for "intercurrent" events post randomization may result in different scientific questions. The initiation of subsequent therapy is common in oncology clinical trials and is considered an intercurrent event if the start of such therapy occurs prior to a recurrence or progression event. Three possible ways to account for this intercurrent event in the analysis are to censor at initiation, consider recurrence or progression events (including death) that occur before and after the initiation of subsequent therapy, or consider the start of subsequent therapy as an event in and of itself. The new estimand framework clarifies that these analyses address different questions ("does the drug delay recurrence if no patient had received subsequent therapy?" vs "does the drug delay recurrence with or without subsequent therapy?" vs "does the drug delay recurrence or start of subsequent therapy?"). The framework facilitates discussions during clinical trial planning and design to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. This article is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Council for Harmonisation E9 addendum concepts to applications. Data from previously reported randomized phase 3 studies in the renal cell carcinoma setting are used to consider common intercurrent events in solid tumor studies, and to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with advanced solid tumours and mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

AIMS: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI.

Long-term prognosis of septic shock in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: In the last decades, the number of cancer patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs) for septic shock has dramatically increased. However, prognosis data remain scarce. METHODS: To assess the 180-day mortality rate in cancer patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock, a 5-year prospective study was performed. All adult patients admitted for septic shock were included and categorized into the following two groups and four subgroups: cancer patients (solid tumor or hematological malignancy) and non-cancer patients (immunocompromised or not). Data were collected and compared between the groups. Upon early ICU admission, the decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy (DFLST) or not was made by consultation among hematologists, oncologists, and the patients or their relatives. RESULTS: During the study period, 496 patients were admitted for septic shock: 252 cancer patients (119 hematological malignancies and 133 solid tumors) and 244 non-cancer patients. A DFLST was made for 39% of the non-cancer patients and 52% of the cancer patients. The 180-day mortality rate among the cancer patients was 51% and 68% for those with hematological malignancies and solid cancers, respectively. The mortality rate among the non-cancer patients was 44%. In a multivariate analysis, the performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, simplified acute physiology score 2, sequential organ failure assessment score, and DFLST were independent predictors of 180-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite early admission to the ICU, the 180-day mortality rate due to septic shock was higher in cancer patients compared with non-cancer patients, due to excess mortality in the patients with solid tumors. The long-term prognosis of cancer patients with septic shock is modulated by their general state, severity of organ failure, and DFLST.

Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population. METHODS: We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% [IC0] or 1% to <5% [IC1] of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells [IC2/3]), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6-15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4-12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63-1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6-13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26-1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Adjuvant Sunitinib in High-Risk Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effective treatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive either sunitinib (50 mg per day) or placebo on a 4-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off schedule for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival, according to blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of disease-free survival was 6.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8 to not reached) in the sunitinib group and 5.6 years (95% CI, 3.8 to 6.6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. Dose reductions because of adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group (34.3% vs. 2%), as were dose interruptions (46.4% vs. 13.2%) and discontinuations (28.1% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group (48.4% for grade 3 events and 12.1% for grade 4 events) than in the placebo group (15.8% and 3.6%, respectively). There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups (21.9% for sunitinib vs. 17.1% for placebo); no deaths were attributed to toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group, at a cost of a higher rate of toxic events. (Funded by Pfizer; S-TRAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00375674 .).

Renal cell carcinoma lung metastases treated by radiofrequency ablation integrated with systemic treatments: over 10 years of experience.

BACKGROUND: To determine safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for local treatment of lung metastases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sequenced or combined with systemic treatments. METHODS: Retrospectively, we studied 53 patients treated by RFA for a maximum of six lung metastases of RCC. The endpoints were local efficacy, overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), pulmonary progression-free (PPFS) and systemic treatment-free (STFS) survivals, complications graded by the CTCAE classification and factors associated with survivals. Potential factors analysed were: clinical and pathological data, tumoral staging of TNM classification, primary tumor histology, Fuhrman's grade, age, number and size of lung metastases and extra-pulmonary metastases pre-RFA. RESULTS: One hundred metastases were treated by RFA. Median follow-up time was 61 months (interquartile range 90-34). Five-year OS was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): 44-75). Median DFS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 6-16). PPFS at 1 and 3 years was 58.9% (95%CI: 44.1-70.9) and 35.2% (95%CI: 21.6-49.1), respectively. We observed 3% major complications (grade 3 and 4 of CTCAE classification). Local efficacy was 91%. Median STFS was 28.3 months. Thirteen patients (25%) with lung recurrence could be treated by another RFA. T3/T4 tumors had significantly worse OS, PPFS and STFS. Having two or more lung metastases increased the risk of pulmonary progression more than threefold. CONCLUSION: Integrated to systemic treatment strategy, RFA is safe and effective for the treatment strategy of lung metastasis from RCC with good OS and long systemic treatment-free survival. RFA offers the possibility of repeat procedures, with low morbidity.

Avelumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum failure (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): pooled results from two expansion cohorts of an open-label, phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The approval of anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-programmed death 1 agents has expanded treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Avelumab, a human monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibody, has shown promising antitumour activity and safety in this disease. We aimed to assess the safety profile in patients (both post-platinum therapy and cisplatin-naive) treated with avelumab and to assess antitumour activity of this drug in post-platinum patients. METHODS: In this pooled analysis of two cohorts from the phase 1 dose-expansion JAVELIN Solid Tumor study, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically or cytologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had progressed after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 80 cancer treatment centres or hospitals in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Eligible patients had adequate end-organ function, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, and at least one measurable lesion. Cisplatin-ineligible patients who might have been previously treated in the perioperative setting, including platinum-naive patients, were also eligible. Patients unselected for PD-L1 expression received avelumab (10 mg/kg, 1 h intravenous infusion) every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criterion for withdrawal. The primary endpoint for this efficacy expansion cohort was confirmed best overall response (according to RECIST version 1.1), adjudicated by independent review. Safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of avelumab. Antitumour activity was assessed in post-platinum patients who received at least one dose of avelumab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01772004; enrolment in this cohort of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma is closed and the trial is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2014, and March 15, 2016, 329 patients with advanced metastatic urothelial carcinoma were screened for enrolment into this study; 249 patients were eligible and received treatment with avelumab for a median of 12 weeks (IQR 6·0-19·7) and followed up for a median of 9·9 months (4·3-12·1). Safety and antitumour activity were evaluated at data cutoff on June 9, 2016. In 161 post-platinum patients with at least 6 months of follow-up, a best overall response of complete or partial response was recorded in 27 patients (17%; 95% CI 11-24), including nine (6%) complete responses and 18 (11%) partial responses. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (any grade in ≥10% patients) were infusion-related reaction (73 [29%]; all grade 1-2) and fatigue (40 [16%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 (8%) of 249 patients, the most common of which were fatigue (four [2%]), and asthenia, elevated lipase, hypophosphataemia, and pneumonitis in two (1%) patients each. 19 (8%) of 249 patients had a serious adverse event related to treatment with avelumab, and one treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). INTERPRETATION: Avelumab showed antitumour activity in the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma; a manageable safety profile was reported in all avelumab-treated patients. These data provide the rationale for therapeutic use of avelumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma and it has received accelerated US FDA approval in this setting on this basis. FUNDING: Merck KGaA, and Pfizer Inc.

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS: A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Rheumatic disorders associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer-clinical aspects and relationship with tumour response: a single-centre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and type of rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as well as the correlation with tumour response. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective observational study including all cancer patients receiving ICIs. The occurrence of irAEs and tumour response was assessed on a regular basis. Patients who experienced musculoskeletal symptoms were referred to the department of rheumatology for clinical evaluation and management. RESULTS: From September 2015 to May 2017, 524 patients received ICIs and 35 were referred to the department of rheumatology (6.6%). All but one of the rheumatic irAEs occurred with anti-programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1(PD-L1) antibodies, with a median exposure time of 70 days. There were two distinct clinical presentations: (1) inflammatory arthritis (3.8%) mimicking either rheumatoid arthritis (n=7), polymyalgia rheumatica (n=11) or psoriatic arthritis (n=2) and (2) non-inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions (2.8%; n=15). One patient with rheumatoid arthritis was anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positive. Nineteen patients required glucocorticoids, and methotrexate was started in two patients. Non-inflammatory disorders were managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics and/or physiotherapy. ICI treatment was pursued in all but one patient. Patients with rheumatic irAEs had a higher tumour response rate compared with patients without irAEs (85.7% vs 35.3%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Since ICIs are used with increasing frequency, knowledge of rheumatic irAEs and their management is of major interest. All patients were responsive either to low-to-moderate doses of prednisone or symptomatic therapies and did not require ICI discontinuation. Furthermore, tumour response was significantly higher in patients who experienced rheumatic irAEs.

Relationship between Pulmonary Adverse Events and Everolimus Exposure in Japanese and Non-Japanese Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Oncology Trials.

AIMS: This meta-analysis explores the relationship between the everolimus minimum (Cmin) and maximum (Cmax) exposure and the risk for pulmonary adverse events (AEs) in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients. METHODS: Patient-level data from patients treated with daily everolimus in advanced solid tumor trials were evaluated using a Cox regression model, stratified by cancer type or treatment arm, with log-transformed time-averaged Cmin or Cmax as a time-varying covariate. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between pulmonary AEs and pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: Thirty studies were identified. In the Cmin population (n = 1,962), all-grade pulmonary AE incidence was significantly higher in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients (19.9 vs. 9.4%). Pharmacokinetic parameters were similar between Japanese and non-Japanese patients. A 2-fold increase in everolimus Cmin significantly increased the risk for the first any-grade pulmonary AE in Japanese (risk ratio: 1.824; 95% CI: 1.141-2.918) and non-Japanese patients (risk ratio: 1.406; 95% CI: 1.156-1.710). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for pulmonary AEs is related to everolimus exposure. Local monitoring and reporting differences might account for the significantly higher reported incidence of low-grade everolimus-associated pulmonary AEs in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients. Patients should be carefully monitored for early signs of pulmonary AEs, and appropriate medical management should be implemented.

Metastatic non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with meningeal carcinomatosis: case report of an unexpected response.

BACKGROUND: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is usually treated with local therapy including transurethral resection of the bladder tumor and intravesical therapy depending on the stage of the tumor. NMIBC is a rarely a metastatic diseases with lymph node invasion in less of 10%. In the other hand meningeal carcinomatosis is a rare location for metastases with extremely poor outcomes. We described a case report of a patient presenting a metastatic disease to bones and meninges, several years after the treatment of NMIBC, which had been in complete response (CR) for 4 years after chemotherapy treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: A 63-years old men was treated by TURBT in 2008 for a high grade NMIBC, pT1b. Three years later he presented an acute binocular diplopy with right trochlear nerve paralysis, and labial hypoesthesia. Brain scan and MRI were performed finding a clivus infiltration and a pachymeningitis. A vertebral biopsy was performed finding an invasive carcinoma, CK7+/CK20+, TTF1-, PSA-, Thyroglobulin- and GATA3+. The metastatic event was in relation to the high grade NMIBC treated 3 years previously. Palliative chemotherapy was started with cisplatin gemcitabine. After 6 cycles and to date, 4 years later, the patient is therefore considered in complete response. CONCLUSION: Metastasis in non-muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma is rare. Meningeal carcinomatosis outcome is poor, usually appearing in widely metastatic and progressive cancers but also because most systemic agents fail to pass the blood-brain barrier and penetrate into the cerebrospinal fluid. We described an unexpected response with complete response after chemotherapy for meningeal carcinomatosis of non muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma.