Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Cabozantinib-nivolumab sequence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CABIR study.

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS2-3 and OS2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFSL3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome During Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is commonly associated with toxic sensory neuropathies, but also, although rarely, with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). We describe five patients who developed GBS while receiving platinum-based chemotherapy for a solid tumor and report the five cases published so far. Most patients had received cumulative platinum doses below known neurotoxic levels, and all of them had an optimal outcome after platinum discontinuation, associated in most cases with administration of intravenous immunoglobulin. Clinical presentation, electroneuromyography, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis help clinicians to differentiate GBS from toxic neuropathy. Platinum compounds are the only chemotherapeutic agents used for solid tumors that have been associated to GBS. Thus, we propose that GBS may constitute a non-dose-dependent side effect of platinum drugs and that awareness needs to be raised among oncologists on this rare but potentially life-threatening complication of platinum chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Many patients on platinum-based chemotherapy for solid tumors develop sensory neuropathy, a common dose-dependent side effect. The authors propose that Guillain-Barré syndrome may constitute an immune-mediated, non-dose-related side effect of platinum-based chemotherapy. Prompt diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome and distinction from classical toxic neuropathy are crucial for optimal treatment. Platinum discontinuation, associated if needed to intravenous immunoglobulin administration, radically changes the course of the disease and minimizes neurological sequelae.

A systematic review of adverse events in randomized trials assessing immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The advent of immune checkpoint-inhibitors (CPI) has transformed treatment for several cancer types. This review was performed to assess the rate of adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of CPI, alone or in combinations. A review of AEs reporting quality was also performed. All publications of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) assessing CPI published before December 2017 were included. To investigate the quality of AEs reporting, a set of items was defined based on the 2004 CONSORT harms extension statement. Rates of Grade 5, serious, and study-withdrawal related AEs were collected in each treatment category. Specific immune related AEs (irAEs) were also collected when available. Pooled estimates of adverse event rates were calculated by using generalized linear mixed model. A total of 35 RCTs including 16,485 patients were included. The overall quality of AEs reporting was satisfactory, but items pertaining to methods of data collection and analysis were infrequently reported. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported for 14% (95% CI 12-16) of patients treated with PD(L)-1 inhibitors, 34% (95% CI 27-42) of patients treated with CTLA-4 inhibitors, 55% (95% CI 51-59) of patients on CPI combinations and 46% (95% CI 40-53) of patients on immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination. The profile of irAEs was different among the treatment categories. The use of CPI, especially in combination, is associated with significant rates of Grade ≥ 3 AEs. Healthcare planning should anticipate the expected high number of patients presenting with irAEs in the future.

EVESOR, a model-based, multiparameter, Phase I trial to optimize the benefit/toxicity ratio of everolimus and sorafenib.

AIM: This novel multiparameter Phase I study aimed to optimize doses/dosing schedules of everolimus and sorafenib drug combination, based on modeling/simulation (NCT01932177). PATIENTS & METHODS: About 26 patients with solid tumors were treated in four different dosing schedules. Everolimus once daily + sorafenib twice daily were given continuously in arms A and B, and intermittently in arms C (alternating every other week) and D (everolimus continuous and sorafenib 3 days on/4 days off). RESULTS: Continuous schedules exhibited higher toxicity risks than intermittent schedules (64.1 vs 35.9%; p < 0.0001), and trends for lower disease control rates (80 vs 100%). No significant pharmacokinetic interaction was identified. CONCLUSION: Feasibility of EVESOR trial is demonstrated. Intermittent schedules might provide better tolerance and efficacy than continuous schedules.

DICER1 and FOXL2 mutations in ovarian sex cord-stromal tumours: a GINECO Group study.

AIMS: FOXL2 mutation has been consistently identified in adult granulosa cell tumours (A-GCTs). DICER1 mutations have been described predominantly in Sertoli-Leydig cell tumours (SLCTs). The prognostic implication of these mutations remains uncertain, as moderately sized studies have yielded variable outcomes. Our aim was to determine the implications of DICER1 and FOXL2 mutations in 156 ovarian sex cord-stromal tumours (SCSTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: FOXL2 mutations were found in 94% of pathologically confirmed A-GCTs (95/101), in one of eight juvenile granulosa cell tumours (J-GCTs), and in two of 19 SLCTs. DICER1 mutations in the RNase IIIb domain were found in six of 19 SLCTs, two of eight J-GCTs, and one of 12 undifferentiated SCSTs (Und-SCSTs). Comparison of DICER1-mutated SLCTs with DICER1-non-mutated SLCTs showed that patient age at diagnosis was lower and oestrogen receptor expression was more frequent in DICER1-mutated tumours. With a median follow-up of 22 months, two of five DICER1-mutated SLCTs relapsed, in contrast to none of eight DICER1-non-mutated tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, in contrast to FOXL2 mutations in A-GCT, DICER1 mutations in SLCT might be more useful for prognosis than for diagnosis. However, study of a larger cohort of patients is necessary to establish this. Identification of genetic alterations in SCST offers promising therapeutic options.

Impact of a second opinion using expression and molecular analysis of FOXL2 for sex cord-stromal tumors. A study of the GINECO group & the TMRO network.

OBJECTIVE: Ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors (SCSTs) are rare and their diagnosis is often difficult to establish. Recently, immunostaining and molecular analysis for Forkhead box L2 (FOXL2) have been developed in this pathology. This study aims to assess the benefit of an algorithm incorporating these new tools for a better diagnosis and classification of SCSTs METHODS: Seventy-two tumors with a potential diagnosis of SCSTs were addressed by 37 different pathologists to one French rare ovarian tumor expert center, member of the Rare Malignant Ovarian Tumor network (TMRO). Then a "second opinion" (SO) through an algorithm incorporating immunostaining (IHC) and molecular analysis of FOXL2 was performed for all these cases. This algorithm was then validated by all pathologists of the TMRO network. RESULTS: After a second opinion including molecular analysis and immunostaining for FOXL2 the initial diagnosis was changed in 15 of 72 samples (21%). FOXL2 mutation was present in 44 out of 47 adult granulosa cell tumors (94%), in 3 out of 8 Thecomas (37%), in 1 out of 10 Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (SLSTs) (10%) and in 3 out of 5 undifferentiated-SCSTs (Und-SCSTs) (60%). Immunoexpression of FOXL2 was available in 45 cases of SCSTs: FOXL2 was expressed in 44 of them (98%). CONCLUSIONS: A second opinion in an expert center for all cases of SCSTs is fundamental to get an optimal classification of these rare tumors. This second opinion could be performed with an algorithm which integrates FOXL2 mutation and expression status of FOXL2 in order to standardize the practice.

Prognostic Value of the Modeled Prostate-Specific Antigen KELIM Confirmation in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Taxanes in FIRSTANA.

PURPOSE: In a previous exploratory study, modeled early longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics observed within the 100-first treatment days with androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with prostate cancer with rising PSA levels after primary local therapy. This prognostic value had to be confirmed in different settings. The objectives were to assess PSA kinetics modeling in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with chemotherapy in FIRSTANA trial and to investigate modeled PSA kinetic parameters prognostic/predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIRSTANA phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel is superior to docetaxel in terms of PFS/OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. PSA longitudinal kinetics was assessed using the previous kinetic-pharmacodynamics model. Patient modeled ELIMination rate constant K (PSA.KELIM) was used to categorize favorable/unfavorable PSA declines (standardized PSA.KELIM < or ≥ 1.0 days-1) and further correlated with PFS/OS. RESULTS: In total, 1,050 of 1,168 enrolled patients were assessable for PSA.KELIM estimation. The median PSA.KELIM was 0.02 days-1. In univariate analyses, PSA.KELIM exhibited a significant prognostic value regarding survival: unfavorable versus favorable PSA.KELIM; median PFS, 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.2) versus 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.2), P = .002; median OS, 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 19.3) versus 28.4 months (95% CI, 26.7 to 31.6), P < .001. In multivariate analyses, PSA.KELIM was significant for PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93], P = .005) and OS (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60], P < .001), together with baseline radiological tumor progression and PSA doubling time. PSA.KELIM predictive value was not significant across treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This external validation study confirmed previous results about modeled PSA longitudinal kinetics prognostic value regarding PFS/OS in patients with mCRPC treated with taxanes. PSA.KELIM could be used to identify a subpopulation with poor prognosis, who may benefit from treatment intensification.

Immunogenicity of radiotherapy on bone metastases from prostate adenocarcinoma: What is the future for the combination with radiotherapy/immunotherapy?

Bone metastatic prostate cancers (PCa) are resistant to usual immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors. The main hypothesis related to this immunoresistance is the lack of antigens to stimulate anti-tumor immunity. External radiation is a potential inducer antigens presentation and thus to immunotherapy proprieties. The aim of this review is to describe the tumor microenvironment specificities, especially in bone metastasis and the immune modifications after radiation therapy on a metastatic castration-resistant PCa population. PCa microenvironment is immunosuppressive because of many tumor factors. The complex interplay between PCa cells and bone microenvironment leads to a 'vicious circle' promoting bone metastasis. Furthermore, the immune and bone systems, are connected through an osteoclastogenic cytokine: the Receptor Activator Nuclear Factor Kappa B ligand. Adapted doses of ionizing radiation play a dual role on the tumor. Indeed, radiotherapy leads to immunogenicity by inducing damage associated with molecular patterns. However, it also induces an immunosuppressive effect by increasing the number of immunosuppressive cells. Interestingly, the abscopal effect could be used to optimize immunotherapy potential, especially on bone metastasis. Radiotherapy and immunotherapy combination is a promising strategy, however further studies are necessary to determine the more efficient types of radiation and to control the abscopal effect.

Multidisciplinary real-world management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A French national study (PROFILE study).

While androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), recent strategies like intensification of systemic treatment (Rozet et al., 2020) (i.e. adding another treatment to ADT) and radiotherapy have improved overall survival. PROFILE, a national retrospective multicentric real-world study, involved patients with mCSPC recruited by medical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists, and who started treatment between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients by sites were included consecutively. Data were collected from medical records. Primary objectives were to: (1) describe retrospectively the characteristics of whole population of patients with mCSPC as well as subgroups defined by prognostic factors in France at diagnosis; (2) identify current practices for managing mCSPC in a real-life clinical setting. Among the 416 patients with mCSPC included in the PROFILE study, 315 (76%) were synchronous (metastasis at the initial diagnosis) and 101 (24%) were metachronous patients (metastasis diagnosed post-progression). A majority (83% of synchronous and 73% of metachronous patients) received an intensified systemic treatment (ADT plus ARSI [androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors]±chemotherapy±primary tumour radiotherapy±metastasis-directed therapy [MDT]), while only 40% of low-volume patients received prostate radiotherapy. This study depicts the standardization of new therapeutic strategies for patients with mCSPC in France with most of them receiving an intensified treatment, mainly with ADT+ARSI (64% of synchronous intensified patients and 76% of metachronous intensified patients). Most of patients were assessed using conventional imaging (CT scan and/or bone scan). Overall, PROFILE results are in line with French and European guidelines for diagnosis, management, and follow-up of such patients (Rozet et al., 2020; Cornford et al., 2021).

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Influence of statistician involvement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in medical oncology.

Ideally, statisticians should be involved in the design, analysis, and reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This study assessed the impact of a statistician involvement in published medical oncology RCTs between 2005 and 2009. The reporting quality of each publication was rated using the Overall Reporting Quality Score on the basis of either 2001 or 2010 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. A four-question email survey on the statistical design and analysis was sent to the corresponding authors of each trial. Nonresponders were approached a maximum of three times. Overall, 107 responses were received from 357 solicited authors (30%). Corresponding authors from industry-funded RCTs were less likely to respond (51 vs. 65%, P=0.013). The same person was responsible for statistical design and analyses in 47% of cases. Overall, the statistician involved held a PhD (or equivalent) in statistics in most cases. The statisticians responsible for the statistical design and analysis were listed as coauthors in 68 and 81% of RCT manuscripts. There was no statistically significant impact on manuscript reporting quality of the degree of statistician involvement in manuscript preparation. Fewer trials were reported as positive when the responsible statistician was listed as a coauthor. It is possible that RCTs included in this review are in general of higher quality or were more likely to have a greater level of statistician involvement than smaller, single-arm, or unpublished studies. This imbalance could explain the lack of significant difference observed in the Overall Reporting Quality Score between trials where statisticians were listed as coauthors or not.

Complete Response in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors: Remission or Healing? How to Improve Patients' Outcomes?

Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2% of cancer diagnoses and deaths worldwide. Clear-cell RCCs represent the vast majority (85%) of kidney cancers and are considered morphologically and genetically as immunogenic tumors. Indeed, the RCC tumoral microenvironment comprises T cells and myeloid cells in an immunosuppressive state, providing an opportunity to restore their activity through immunotherapy. Standard first-line systemic treatment for metastatic patients includes immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD1, in combination with either another ICI or with antiangiogenic targeted therapy. During the past few years, several combinations have been approved with an overall survival benefit and overall response rate that depend on the combination. Interestingly, some patients achieve prolonged complete responses, raising the question of whether these metastatic RCC patients can be cured. This review will focus on recent therapeutic advances in RCC and the clinical and biological aspects underpinning the potential for healing.

Biological Biomarkers of Response and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents around 2% of cancer-related deaths worldwide per year. RCC is an immunogenic malignancy, and treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC) has greatly improved since the advent of the new immunotherapy agents, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, it should be stressed that a large proportion of patients does not respond to these therapies. There is thus an urgent need to identify predictive biomarkers of efficacy or resistance associated with ICIs or ICI/Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations; this is a major challenge to achieve precision medicine for mRCC in routine practice. To identify potential biomarkers, it is necessary to improve our knowledge on the biology of immune checkpoints. A lot of efforts have been made over the last decade in the field of immuno-oncology. We summarize here the main data obtained in this field when considering mRCC. As for clinical biomarkers, clinician and scientific experts of the domain are facing difficulties in identifying such molecular entities, probably due to the complexity of immuno-oncology and the constant adaptation of tumor cells to their changing environment.

A PK-PD model linking biomarker dynamics to progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy, EVESOR phase I trial.

PURPOSE: The objective was to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model linking everolimus and sorafenib exposure with biomarker dynamics and progression-free survival (PFS) based on data from EVESOR trial in patients with solid tumors treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy and to simulate alternative dosing schedules for sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Everolimus (5-10 mg once daily, qd) and sorafenib (200-400 mg twice daily, bid) were administered according to four different dosing schedules in 43 solid tumor patients. Rich PK and PD sampling for serum angiogenesis biomarkers was performed. Baseline activation of RAS/RAF/ERK (MAPK) pathway was assessed by quantification of mRNA specific gene panel in tumor biopsies. The PK-PD modeling was performed using NONMEM® software. RESULTS: An indirect response PK-PD model linking sorafenib plasma exposure with soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR2) dynamics was developed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was described by a parametric time-to-event model. Higher decreases in sVEGFR2 at day 21 and higher baseline activation of MAPK pathway were associated with longer PFS (p = 0.002 and p = 0.007, respectively). The simulated schedule sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + continuous everolimus 5 mg qd was associated with median PFS of 4.3 months (95% CI 1.6-14.4), whereas the median PFS in the EVESOR trial was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.2, n = 43). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + everolimus 5 mg qd continuous was selected for an additional arm of EVESOR trial to evaluate whether this simulated schedule is associated with higher clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Clinical results of the EVESOR trial, a multiparameter phase I trial of everolimus and sorafenib combination in solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Everolimus (EVE) and sorafenib (SOR) combination was associated with synergistic activity in preclinical models. However, previous clinical studies were hampered by cumulative toxicities when both were given continuously. The academic EVESOR trial (NCT01932177) was designed to assess alternative doses and intermittent dosing schedules of EVE and SOR combination therapy to improve the benefit-risk ratio for patients with solid tumors. METHODS: EVESOR is a multiparameter dose-escalation phase I trial investigating different doses and dosing schedules, with the final objective of generating data for modeling and simulation. Patients were allocated into continuous (A and B) or intermittent (C and D) schedules to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The clinical outcomes are presented here. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included from 2013 to 2019. Most of them had gynecological (25.6%), cholangiocarcinomas (23.2%), colorectal (14.0%), and breast cancers (11.6%). Dose-escalation up to EVE 10 mg QD and SOR 400 mg BID was possible on intermittent schedules. Five dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and dose reductions were required in 39.5% patients, stabilizing at EVE 5 mg and SOR 200 mg BID for 58.1% of them. The overall response rate was 6.3%, and disease control rate was 75.0%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The longest median PFS were observed in cholangiocarcinomas (9.9 months), and gynecological adenocarcinomas (9.2 months). CONCLUSION: Intermittent arms were associated with improved efficacy/toxicity profiles; and EVE 5 mg QD and SOR 200 mg BID was defined a clinically feasible dose. Strong signs of efficacy were found in cholangiocarcinomas and gynecologic carcinomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge. RESULTS: We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2-22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients.

Clinical activity of immunotherapy-based combination first-line therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the right treatment for the right patient.

Immunotherapy (IO) with checkpoint inhibitors with or without anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib for treatment-naive patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Four of these combinations (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib) represent new front-line standard-of-care options for mRCC patients, according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. Questions over the optimal treatment between IO-IO or IO-TKI combinations for mRCC patients in intermediate/poor IMDC risk groups and the optimal IO-TKI regimen for all IMDC risk groups remain unanswered. This review will focus on the biological pathways that have driven the hypothesis of a synergistic combination of such agents and their efficacy results, with consideration of response and survival outcomes in the overall population of phase three pivotal trials as well as in specific subgroups of interest.

Modeled Early Longitudinal PSA Kinetics Prognostic Value in Rising PSA Prostate Cancer Patients after Local Therapy Treated with ADT +/- Docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with chemotherapy or next-generation androgen receptor targeted agents is a new standard treatment. The objective of the present study is to assess longitudinal PSA kinetics during treatment using mathematical modeling, to identify the modeled PSA kinetic parameters able to exhibit early prognostic/predictive values. METHODS: Phase III clinical trial dataset (NCT00764166) comparing ADT +/- docetaxel in 250 locally treated patients for PCa with rising PSA levels, who were at high risk of metastatic disease was assessed. A kinetic-pharmacodynamic (K-PD) model was used to fit PSA kinetics during the first 100 treatment days, to estimate the modeled PSA production rate K (KPROD) and elimination constant rate K (KELIM). The prognostic value of these parameters, considered as categorized (favorable vs. unfavorable) covariates regarding PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS), was assessed using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Data from 177/250 patients was assessed. KELIM exhibited a significant prognostic value regarding PSA-PFS and KPROD regarding OS (univariate analysis). In the PSA-PFS final multivariate model, KELIM and the primary therapy type were significant. The OS multivariate model integrated both KPROD and baseline PSA doubling-time. CONCLUSION: In this first study assessing the modeled PSA kinetics prognostic value in PCa patients treated with systemic treatments, KELIM and KPROD exhibited respective prognostic values regarding PSA-PFS and OS.

Impact of Bone Metastases on Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma or Melanoma Treated with Combotherapy Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab.

(1) Background: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (combo-ICI) improves overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or melanoma. The impact of bone metastases (BM) on survival outcomes of combo-ICI-treated patients is unknown. (2) Methods: This single-center retrospective observational study involved 36 combo-ICI-treated patients with advanced RCC and 35 with melanoma. Clinical and laboratory data preceding the initiation of combo-ICI were collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of BM on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). (3) Results: zNine RCC and 11 melanoma patients had baseline BM. In unadjusted analysis, baseline BM was associated with a poorer OS in the RCC cohort. Baseline BM did not have any impact on survival outcomes in melanoma patients. After adjustment on baseline performance status and on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the impact of BM was no longer significant, but a NLR ≥ 3 was significantly associated with a poorer OS in the RCC cohort. (4) Conclusions: The presence of baseline BM seems to be associated with worse outcomes in RCC combo-ICI-treated patients, while its effect might not be independent from the inflammatory state (approximated by the NLR). BM seems to have no impact on the outcomes of melanoma combo-ICI-treated patients.