Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Myocarditis Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: An Expert Consensus on Data Gaps and a Call to Action.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment landscape for cancer. Due to the mechanism of action of ICIs, inflammatory reactions against normal tissue were an anticipated side effect of these agents; these immune-related adverse events have been documented and are typically low grade and manageable. Myocarditis has emerged as an uncommon but potentially life-threatening adverse reaction in patients treated with ICIs. Assessment and characterization of ICI-associated myocarditis is challenging because of its low incidence and protean manifestations. Nevertheless, the seriousness of ICI-associated myocarditis justifies a coordinated effort to increase awareness of this syndrome, identify patients who may be at risk, and enable early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The "Checkpoint Inhibitor Safety Working Group," a multidisciplinary committee of academic, industry, and regulatory partners, convened at a workshop hosted by Project Data Sphere, LLC, on December 15, 2017. This meeting aimed to evaluate the current information on ICI-associated myocarditis, determine methods to collect and share data on this adverse reaction, and establish task forces to close the identified knowledge gaps. In this report, we summarize the workshop findings and proposed steps to address the impact of ICI-associated myocarditis in patients with cancer.

Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) is important to gauge clinical benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVES: To estimate important difference (ID) in FKSI-DRS scores that is considered to be meaningful when comparing treatment effect between groups, using mRCC trial data. METHODS: Data were derived from two pivotal phase III mRCC trials comparing sunitinib versus interferon alfa (N = 750) in first-line mRCC, and axitinib versus sorafenib (N = 723) in second-line mRCC. The change from baseline in FKSI-DRS score was examined as a function of a set of anchors using the repeated-measures model. Several anchors were evaluated: FKSI item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment," EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score, and adverse events. RESULTS: When the "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" score was used as an anchor, the ID ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 points. When change in the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score was used as an anchor, the FKSI-DRS ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.63 points. Selecting the adverse events that corresponded to a maximum worsening in the FKSI-DRS score in either trial, the ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.74 points. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing treatment for mRCC, between-group differences in FKSI-DRS scores as low as 1 point might be meaningful.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib in patients from Italy with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results from an expanded-access trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) received sunitinib in a global expanded-access program (EAP). Here, we report the efficacy and safety results for the EAP subpopulation in Italy. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with previously treated or treatment-naïve mRCC received oral sunitinib 50 mg/day on a 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off schedule. Tumor measurements were scheduled per local practice (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Safety was regularly assessed. RESULTS: A total of 521 patients participated, including 40% aged ≥65 years, 11% with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, 14% with non-clear cell RCC, and 11% with brain metastases. The median treatment duration and posttreatment follow-up were 7.4 and 12.3 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 12%, and the median progression-free and overall survival was 9.1 and 27.2 months, respectively. 514 patients (99%) discontinued treatment; reasons included death (17%), nonresponse (46%), or adverse events (AEs; 13%). The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were asthenia (44%, plus 15% reporting fatigue), thrombocytopenia and stomatitis (both 37%), diarrhea (36%), mucosal inflammation (29%), hypertension (26%), and dysgeusia (25%). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were thrombocytopenia (10%), asthenia (9%, plus 3% reporting fatigue), neutropenia, stomatitis (both 6%), and hypertension (5%). CONCLUSION: In a large population of Italian mRCC patients, sunitinib had a manageable safety profile and encouraging efficacy.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Phase II trial of continuous once-daily dosing of sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib at 50 mg/day on the 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule is the current approved regimen for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Escudier et al reported that continuous, once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg had a manageable safety profile and significant antitumor activity as second-line mRCC therapy. In this prospective, multicenter, phase II study, we evaluated the activity of continuous once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg as first-line mRCC treatment. METHODS: One hundred nineteen treatment-naive patients with measurable mRCC received sunitinib. The primary endpoint was objective response; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, pharmacokinetic measurements, exploration of response biomarkers, and patient reported outcomes (PRO). RESULTS: Objective response rate (ORR) was 35.3%; median response duration was 10.4 months; 36% of patients had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Median PFS at 1 year was 9 months, and 1-year survival probability was 67.8%. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (50%) and hand-foot syndrome (43%); the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were hand-foot syndrome (13%), neutropenia (11%), and diarrhea (9%). Steady-state pharmacokinetics were reached within 3 weeks, with no disproportionate accumulation of sunitinib or its active metabolite throughout the study. No significant correlations between trough drug, active metabolite, or soluble protein levels and clinical response were observed. PRO was largely maintained, although fatigue appeared to worsen after treatment started, with improvement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg was active with a manageable safety profile as first-line mRCC therapy, making this a feasible alternative dosing regimen.

Prospective Cardiovascular Surveillance of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Combination Therapy in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Cancer: Data From the Phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 Trial.

PURPOSE: Both immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors are approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment and can cause cardiovascular events (CVs); thus, combination therapy could lead to major adverse CV events (MACE). Cardiac serum biomarker assessment and imaging, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) monitoring, can be used to evaluate MACE. METHODS: To our knowledge, the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, assessing avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, is the first randomized study of ICI plus VEGFR inhibitor treatment to include prospective serial cardiac monitoring of LVEF and serum cardiac biomarkers. RESULTS: MACE (defined as grade ≥ 3 CV AEs) occurred in 31 patients (7.1%) in the combination arm and 17 patients (3.9%) in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the combination arm who had high baseline troponin T values were at higher risk of MACE versus patients with low values (MACE in 6/35 v 7/135, respectively; relative risk, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.19 to 9.22). This association was not observed in patients treated with sunitinib. Other CV baseline risk factors and serum cardiac biomarkers were not significantly predictive for MACE, although a trend toward an association with dyslipidemia was seen in the combination arm. No clinical value of on-treatment routine monitoring of LVEF in relation to MACE was observed. Although LVEF decline was significantly more frequent in the combination arm, most patients recovered, and decline was not associated with other significant cardiac events or symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients with high baseline troponin T levels receiving ICI and VEGFR combinations may need to be monitored more closely for MACE. Routine monitoring of LVEF in asymptomatic patients is not recommended.

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2020-January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4(BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer. Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: An overview of potential new treatment options.

AIM: This review article summarizes the current clinical practice guidelines around disease definitions and risk stratifications, and the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Recently completed and ongoing clinical trials of novel and investigational therapies in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-naïve, BCG-recurrent, and BCG-unresponsive patient populations are also described, e.g., those involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapies, other chemotherapy regimens, vaccines, and viral- or bacterial-based treatments. Finally, a brief overview of enhanced cystoscopy and drug delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC is provided. BACKGROUND: A global shortage of access to BCG is affecting the management of BCG-naïve and BCG-recurrent/unresponsive NMIBC; hence, there is an urgent need to assist patients and urologists to enhance the treatment of this disease. METHODS: Searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Google Scholar were conducted. Published guidance and conference proceedings from major congresses were reviewed. CONCLUSION: Treatment strategies for NMIBC are generally consistent across guidelines. Several novel therapies have demonstrated promising antitumor activity in clinical trials, including in high-risk or BCG-unresponsive disease. The detection, diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment of NMIBC have also been improved through enhanced disease detection.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: an expanded-access trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from clinical trials have established sunitinib as a standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients, particularly those with a poorer prognosis, do not meet inclusion criteria and little is known about the activity of sunitinib in these subgroups. The primary objective of this trial was to provide sunitinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regulatory approval had not been granted. METHODS: Previously treated and treatment-naive patients at least 18 years of age with metastatic RCC were eligible. All patients received open-label sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on schedule 4-2 (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Safety was assessed regularly, tumour measurements done per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of sunitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00130897. FINDINGS: As of December, 2007, 4564 patients were enrolled in 52 countries. 4371 patients were included in the modified ITT population. This population included 321 (7%) patients with brain metastases, 582 (13%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, 588 (13%) non-clear-cell RCC, and 1418 (32%) aged 65 years or more. Patients received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-25). Reasons for discontinuation included lack of efficacy (n=1168 [27%]) and adverse events (n=362 [8%]). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (n=1936 [44%]) and fatigue (n=1606 [37%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (n=344 [8%]) and thrombocytopenia (n=338 [8%]) with incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events similar across subgroups. In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subgroup ORR as follows: brain metastases (26 of 213 [12%]), ECOG performance status 2 or higher (29 of 319 [9%]), non-clear-cell RCC (48 of 437 [11%]) and age 65 years or more (176 of 1056 [17%]). Median progression-free survival was 10.9 months (95% CI 10.3-11.2) and overall survival was 18.4 months (17.4-19.2). INTERPRETATION: In a broad population of patients with metastatic RCC, the safety profile of sunitinib 50 mg once-daily (initial dose) on schedule 4-2 was manageable and efficacy results were encouraging, particularly in subgroups associated with poor prognosis who are not usually entered into clinical trials. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: experience from a global expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: Avelumab, a human anti-programmed death-ligand 1 immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody, showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) in the phase II JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial, leading to approval in multiple countries. We describe real-world experience with avelumab in patients with mMCC from an expanded access program. METHODS: Eligible patients had mMCC and progressive disease during or after chemotherapy or were ineligible for chemotherapy or clinical trial participation. Patients received an initial 3-month supply of avelumab (administered as 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity); resupply was allowed following complete response, partial response, stable disease, or clinical benefit per physician assessment. RESULTS: Between December 15, 2015, and March 4, 2019, 558 of 620 requests from 38 countries were medically approved, and 494 patients received avelumab. Among 240 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 46.7% (complete response in 22.9%, including 3 of 16 potentially immunocompromised patients), and the disease control rate was 71.2%. The median duration of treatment in evaluable patients with response was 7.9 months (range, 1.0-41.7) overall and 5.2 months (range, 3.0-13.9) in immunocompromised patients. No new safety signals were identified. The expanded access program closed for new requests on December 31, 2018, as required after regulatory approval; benefitting patients continued to receive avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: The avelumab expanded access program for patients with mMCC demonstrated efficacy and safety in a real-world setting, consistent with the results from JAVELIN Merkel 200, and provided a treatment for patients with limited options.

Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.

Phase I trial of sunitinib malate plus interferon-alpha for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib malate is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated superior efficacy over interferon (IFN)-alpha in a phase III trial in first-line, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Herein, we report the results of a phase I dose-finding study of sunitinib in combination with IFN-alpha as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with clear-cell metastatic RCC received sunitinib at a starting dose of 50 mg or 37.5 mg orally once daily in 6-week cycles (schedule 4/2) plus IFN-alpha at a starting dose of 3 MU subcutaneously 3 times a week, with weekly intrapatient dose escalation to a maximum of 9 MU as tolerated. Patients who did not tolerate either drug received lower doses of either or had dose interruptions. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled; their median age was 64 years (range, 45-77 years). All patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common were neutropenia, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia. After a median of 4 cycles (range, 1-9 cycles), 3 patients (12%) had a partial response, and 20 (80%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: Although reduced starting doses were tolerated (37.5 mg for sunitinib and 3 MU for IFN-alpha), even these lower doses might not be well tolerated for long-term treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. Based on historical data, sunitinib on schedule 4/2 appears to be more effective as single-agent therapy. Further study of sunitinib plus IFN-alpha on this schedule is not being pursued in RCC.

Anti-Programmed Cell Death 1/Ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) Antibodies for the Treatment of Urothelial Carcinoma: State of the Art and Future Development.

Immunotherapy with programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors has expanded a previously limited pool of effective treatment options for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, particularly those with recurring or refractory disease and those who are ineligible for cisplatin. This review reports key findings from completed and ongoing clinical trials that highlight the potential of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in urothelial carcinoma. A literature search was performed of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and selected annual congress abstracts. Prospective studies, reviews, editorials, and descriptions of ongoing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 studies in bladder cancer were included. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies have shown efficacy and safety across patient subgroups with urothelial carcinoma, including those with poor prognostic factors. Efficacy was similar across different anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Although these antibodies have demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with urothelial carcinoma, clinicians are currently unable to predict which patients may derive benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have shown favorable clinical activity and tolerability in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum-based therapy or who are ineligible for cisplatin. The activity of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is now also being studied as first-line monotherapy in cisplatin-eligible patients in combination with chemotherapy as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy, and in earlier disease states, such as muscle-invasive and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Better predictive tools to define target patient populations are needed, as are further investigations to define optimal combinations or sequencing of treatments.

Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN solid tumor trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (mACC). METHODS: In this phase 1b expansion cohort, patients with mACC and prior platinum-based therapy received avelumab at 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Continuation of mitotane was permitted; however, mitotane levels during the study were not recorded. Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty patients received avelumab and were followed for a median of 16.5 months. Prior treatment included ≥2 lines in 74.0%; mitotane was continued in 50.0%. The objective response rate (ORR) was 6.0% (95% CI, 1.3% to 16.5%; partial response in 3 patients). Twenty-one patients (42.0%) had stable disease as best response (disease control rate, 48.0%). Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.0), median overall survival (OS) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 15.0), and the 1-year OS rate was 43.4% (95% CI, 27.9% to 57.9%). In evaluable patients with PD-L1+ (n = 12) or PD-L1- (n = 30) tumors (≥5% tumor cell cutoff), ORR was 16.7% vs 3.3% (P = .192). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 82.0%; the most common were nausea (20.0%), fatigue (18.0%), hypothyroidism (14.0%), and pyrexia (14.0%). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 16.0%; no grade 4 to 5 TRAEs occurred. Twelve patients (24.0%) had an immune-related TRAE of any grade, which were grade 3 in 2 patients (4.0%): adrenal insufficiency (n = 1), and pneumonitis (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with platinum-treated mACC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01772004 ; registered January 21, 2013.

Immune evasion mechanisms and immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced merkel cell carcinoma.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare skin cancer caused by Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) infection and/or ultraviolet radiation-induced somatic mutations. The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is evidence that an active immune response to MCPyV and tumor-associated neoantigens occurs in some patients. However, inhibitory immune molecules, including programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), within the MCC tumor microenvironment aid in tumor evasion of T-cell-mediated clearance. Unlike chemotherapy, treatment with anti-PD-L1 (avelumab) or anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) antibodies leads to durable responses in MCC, in both virus-positive and virus-negative tumors. As many tumors are established through the evasion of infiltrating immune-cell clearance, the lessons learned in MCC may be broadly relevant to many cancers.

Merkel cell carcinoma: Epidemiology, prognosis, therapy and unmet medical needs.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare skin cancer that is associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus infection in most cases. Incidence rates of MCC have increased in past decades. Risk factors for MCC include ultraviolet light exposure, immunosuppression and advanced age. MCC is an aggressive malignancy with frequent recurrences and a high mortality rate, although patient outcomes are generally more favourable if the patient is referred for treatment at an early stage. Although advances have been made recently in the MCC field, large gaps remain with regard to definitive biomarkers and prognostic indicators. Although MCC is chemosensitive, responses in advanced stages are mostly of short duration, and the associated clinical benefit on overall survival is unclear. Recent nonrandomised phase 2 clinical trials with anti-PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies have demonstrated safety and efficacy; however, there are still no approved treatments for patients with metastatic MCC. Patients with advanced disease are encouraged to participate in clinical trials for treatment, indicating the largely unmet need for durable, safe treatment within this population.

Germline Genetic Biomarkers of Sunitinib Efficacy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the RENAL EFFECT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an established standard-of-care for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study aimed to assess correlations between candidate germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and sunitinib efficacy in patients from the RENAL EFFECT trial (NCT00267748), a randomized phase II study in patients with metastatic RCC comparing the 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off schedule and a continuous daily dosing schedule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Informed consent for pharmacogenetics research was obtained from 202 out of 289 treated patients in the trial. Associations between 9 SNP variants (CXCL8, LOXL2, CCDC26, SH3GL2, CLLU1, IL2RA, AURKB, and 2 SNPs on Chromosomes 7 and 12) and progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazard model, and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: CXCL8 rs1126647 A/A versus A/T (P = .004) or T/T (P < .0001) and SH3GL2 rs10963287 C/C versus C/T (P = .005) or T/T (P = .018) were associated with improved overall survival in all patients. CLLU1 rs525810 A/A genotype versus A/G (P = .014) or G/G (P = .048) was associated with improved PFS in the continuous daily dosing arm. IL2RA rs7893467 T/G versus T/T was associated with improved PFS (P = .034) in the 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off arm and objective response rate (P = .034) in all patients. No significant associations between improved efficacy and genotype were found for other SNPs. CONCLUSION: Germline variants in CLLU1, IL2RA, CXCL8, and SH3GL2 warrant further retrospective study in independent cohorts of patients with metastatic RCC treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-class inhibitors, to test their biological significance and potential clinical fitness as biomarkers to guide treatment.