Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort B).

BACKGROUND: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and the efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab salvage therapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to initial nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naïve nccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 weeks of treatment (Part A). Patients with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 weeks (prolonged SD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B). Patients were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies. RESULTS: 35 patients with nccRCC were enrolled: 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) had chromophobe and 10 (29%) had unclassified histology. At median follow-up of 22.9 months, RECIST-defined objective response rate (ORR) was 5 of 35 (14.3% 95% CI 4.8% to 30.3%) (complete response (CR) 2 (5.7%) and partial response (PR) 3 (8.6%)). ORR by histology was: papillary-1/19 (5%); chromophobe-1/6 (17%); and unclassified-3/10 (30%). Nine patients (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified and 1 papillary) responding. ORR was 0/18, 3/11 (27%) and 2/6 (33%) for patients with tumor progammed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of <5%, ≥5% or not measured, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 (2.7-4.3) months. Two of five responders have progressed. Thirty-two patients had PD or prolonged SD and therefore, were potentially eligible for salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B), but 15 patients did not enroll due to grade 2-3 toxicity (6) on nivolumab, symptomatic disease progression (5), or other reasons including no biopsy tissue (4). In the 17 Part B patients, there was one PR (6%) (unclassified/non-sarcomatoid). Grade >3 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivolumab and 7/17 (41%) on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab with one patient experiencing sudden death. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy has limited activity in treatment-naïve nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in patients with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivolumab studies. Salvage treatment with nivolumab/ipilimumab was provided in half of these patients with minimal activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03117309.

Phase II Study of Nivolumab and Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab in Treatment-Naive Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

PURPOSE: To determine the value of tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker of nivolumab monotherapy efficacy in treatment-naive patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and the efficacy of salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with tumors unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naive ccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completing 96 treatment weeks (part A). Patients with PD before or stable disease at 48 weeks could receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (part B). The primary end point was improvement in 1-year progression-free survival in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression > 20% versus 0%. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.1% (95% CI, 25.8 to 43.2). ORR by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium category was favorable-risk 57.1%, intermediate-risk/poor-risk 25.0%, and by sarcomatoid features 36.4%. The ORR was 26.9%, 50.0%, and 75.0% for patients with the tumor PD-L1 expression of 0, 1-20, or > 20%, respectively (trend test P value = .002). The median duration of response was 27.6 (19.3 to not reached) months, with 26 of 42 responders including 17 of 20 with favorable-risk disease remaining progression-free. The 1-year progression-free survival was 34.6% and 75.0% in the PD-L1 = 0% and > 20% categories, respectively (P = .050). Ninety-seven patients with PD or prolonged stable disease were potentially eligible for part B, and 35 were enrolled. The ORR for part B was 11.4%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35% of patients on nivolumab and 43% of those on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab monotherapy is active in treatment-naive ccRCC. Although efficacy appears to be less than that of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with intermediate-risk/poor-risk disease, favorable-risk patients had notable benefit. Efficacy correlated with tumor PD-L1 status. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a multicohort, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment in predominantly US community-based patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clinical features mostly excluded from phase 3 trials. We report safety and efficacy results from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 920. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk received up to four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS; both investigator-assessed), time to response (TTR), and duration of response (DOR), all using RECIST V.1.1. Overall survival (OS) was exploratory. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with nccRCC (unclassified histology, 42.3%; papillary, 34.6%; chromophobe, 13.5%; translocation-associated, 3.8%; collecting duct, 3.8%; renal medullary, 1.9%) received treatment. With 24.1 months minimum study follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 (0.0-25.8) months for nivolumab and 2.1 (0.0-3.9) months for ipilimumab. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1-28) for nivolumab and 4.0 (1-4) for ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. ORR (n=46) was 19.6% (95% CI 9.4 to 33.9). Two patients achieved complete response (papillary, n=1; unclassified, n=1), seven achieved partial response (papillary, n=4; unclassified, n=3), and 17 had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 (range 2.1-14.8) months. Median DOR was not reached (range 0.0+-27.8+); eight of nine responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n=52) was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.6) months. Median OS (n=52) was 21.2 (95% CI 16.6 to not estimable) months. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced nccRCC showed no new safety signals and encouraging antitumor activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982954.

A phase 1b trial of the CXCR4 inhibitor mavorixafor and nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with no prior response to nivolumab monotherapy.

Background The CXCR4 chemokine receptor promotes tumor survival through mechanisms that include suppressing antitumor immune responses. Mavorixafor (X4P-001) is an oral, selective, allosteric CXCR4 inhibitor that decreases the recruitment of immunosuppressive cells into the tumor microenvironment and increases activated cytotoxic Tcell infiltration. Methods Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy received oral mavorixafor 400 mg daily plus 240 mg intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks. Results Nine patients were enrolled, median age 65 years. At baseline 4 had progressive disease (PD) and 5 had stable disease (SD). One of 5 patients with SD at study entry on prior nivolumab monotherapy had a partial response (PR) on combination treatment; all 4 patients with PD at study entry had a best response of SD with the combination treatment (median duration: 6.7 months; range: 3.7-14.7). Four patients discontinued therapy due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥ 3 drug-related AEs were elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferase (2 patients each); and autoimmune hepatitis, chronic kidney disease, increased lipase, maculopapular rash, and mucosal inflammation (1 patient each). A robust increase in levels of chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 CXCL9 on mavorixafor appeared to correlate with clinical benefit. Conclusions The CXCR4 inhibition mediated by mavorixafor, in combination with PD-1 blockade to enhance antitumor immune responses in patients unresponsive to checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, is worthy of further study. Mavorixafor and nivolumab combination therapy in patients with advanced ccRCC demonstrated potential antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02923531. Date of registration: October 04, 2016.

Randomized Double-Blind Phase II Study of Maintenance Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer is typically administered for a fixed duration followed by observation until progression. "Switch maintenance" therapy with PD-1 blockade at the time of chemotherapy cessation may be attractive for mechanistic and pragmatic reasons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic urothelial cancer achieving at least stable disease on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned double-blind 1:1 to switch maintenance pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks versus placebo for up to 24 months. Patients with disease progression on placebo could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included determining overall survival as well as treatment outcomes according to PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). RESULTS: Between December 2015 and November 2018, 108 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53). The objective response rate was 23% with pembrolizumab and 10% with placebo. Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 59% receiving pembrolizumab and 38% of patients receiving placebo. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance pembrolizumab versus placebo (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.1 to 7.3 months] v 3.0 months [95% CI; 2.7 to 5.5 months]; hazard ratio, 0.65; log-rank P = .04; maximum efficiency robust test P = .039). Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 12.9 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab and 18.7 months (95% CI, 11.4 months to not reached) with placebo. There was no significant interaction between PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Switch maintenance pembrolizumab leads to additional objective responses in patients achieving at least stable disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and prolongs progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

A phase 2, randomized trial evaluating the combination of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate. RESULTS: Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC.

Apatorsen plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial carcinoma (Borealis-2).

BACKGROUND: A randomised study to assess the addition of apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits Hsp27 expression, to docetaxel in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) relapsed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Multicentre, phase II study with 1:1 randomisation to apatorsen (three loading doses at 600 mg intravenous followed by weekly doses) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous every 21 days) (A/D) or docetaxel alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point with a P value <0.1 (one-sided) being positive. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and effect of Hsp27 levels on outcomes were secondary end points. RESULTS: Patients randomised to A/D (n = 99) had improved OS compared to docetaxel alone (n = 101): HR: 0.80, 80% CI: 0.65-0.98, P = 0.0784, median 6.4 vs 5.9 months. PFS and ORR were similar in both arms. A/D had more incidence of sepsis and urinary tract infections. Patients with baseline Hsp27 levels <5.7 ng/mL had improved OS compared to those with levels ≥5.7 ng/mL. Patients with a decline or ≤20.5% increase in Hsp27 from baseline benefited more from A/D than those with >20.5% increase. CONCLUSIONS: A/D met its predefined OS end point in patients with platinum-refractory mUC in this phase II trial. This trial is hypothesis generating requiring further study before informing practice.

The DART Study: Results from the Dose-Escalation and Expansion Cohorts Evaluating the Combination of Dalantercept plus Axitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Purpose: Activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1) is a novel target in angiogenesis. Concurrent targeting of ALK1 and VEGF signaling results in augmented inhibition of tumor growth in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) xenograft models. Dalantercept is an ALK1-receptor fusion protein that acts as a ligand trap for bone morphogenetic proteins 9 and 10. The DART Study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced RCC and determined the optimal dose for further testing.Experimental Design: Patients received dalantercept 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg subcutaneously every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg by mouth twice daily until disease progression or intolerance.Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the dose escalation (n = 15) and expansion (n = 14) cohorts. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events. In addition to common VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor effects, such as fatigue and diarrhea, commonly seen treatment-related adverse events were peripheral edema, epistaxis, pericardial effusion, and telangiectasia. The objective response rate by RECIST v1.1 was 25% with responses seen at all dose levels. The overall median progression-free survival was 8.3 months.Conclusions: The combination of dalantercept plus axitinib is well tolerated and associated with clinical activity. On the basis of safety and efficacy results, the 0.9 mg/kg dose level was chosen for further study in a randomized phase II trial of dalantercept plus axitinib versus placebo plus axitinib. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3557-65. ©2016 AACR.

Unusual viral infections (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and cytomegalovirus disease) after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell rescue and peritransplantation rituximab.

Efforts to reduce relapse of non-Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous transplantation have included ex vivo stem cell selection and/or peritransplantation immunotherapy. The late infectious and immunologic consequences of these maneuvers are not well understood, although an increase in early cytomegaloviral disease after CD34(+) stem cell selection and an alteration in immunoglobulin and T-cell recovery after peritransplantation rituximab has been noted. We report the first 2 cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy caused by JC papovavirus after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation and a case each of cytomegalovirus retinitis and pneumonitis. All 4 patients experienced significant impairment of CD4 T-cell recovery, placing them at risk for these unusual viral infections. The clustering of cases is concerning because all occurred shortly after the introduction of peritransplantation rituximab into treatment protocols (4 of 62 immunotherapy recipients compared with 0 of 276 without; z = 3.595; P <.001), although a direct association with this CD20 B-cell-directed therapy remains speculative.