Subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The evolving oncology treatment paradigm has created an unmet need for administration options that improve patient experiences and health care efficiencies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) was a phase III, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial in which patients with advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to subcutaneous nivolumab (1200 mg every 4 weeks; coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 20 000 units) or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab by coprimary endpoints determined from a population pharmacokinetics analysis [time-averaged serum concentration over the first 28 days (Cavgd28), and minimum steady-state serum concentration (Cminss); noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios (GMR) ≥0.8]. Objective response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint powered for noninferiority [noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 95% CI of relative risk of ORR (subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab) ≥0.60]. RESULTS: Overall, 495 patients were randomized. Relative exposure in the subcutaneous versus intravenous arm reported by the GMR of Cavgd28 and Cminss was 2.098 (90% CI 2.001-2.200) and 1.774 (90% CI 1.633-1.927), respectively. After 8 months of minimum follow-up, ORR was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab (95% CI 19.0%-30.0%) versus 18.2% with intravenous nivolumab [95% CI 13.6%-23.6%; relative risk: 1.33 (95% CI 0.94-1.87)]. Coprimary endpoints and ORR met noninferiority thresholds. Additional efficacy and safety measures were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior to intravenous nivolumab based on pharmacokinetics and ORR. No new safety signals were observed.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

IMscin001 Part 2: a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre study examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of atezolizumab subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and pharmacokinetics comparison with other approved indications.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab intravenous (IV) is approved for the treatment of various solid tumours. To improve treatment convenience and health care efficiencies, a coformulation of atezolizumab and recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 was developed for subcutaneous (SC) use. Part 2 of IMscin001 (NCT03735121) was a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study comparing the drug exposure of atezolizumab SC with atezolizumab IV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to receive atezolizumab SC (1875 mg; n = 247) or IV (1200 mg; n = 124) every 3 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were cycle 1 observed trough serum concentration (Ctrough) and model-predicted area under the curve from days 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 d). The secondary endpoints were steady-state exposure, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Exposure following atezolizumab SC was then compared with historical atezolizumab IV values across approved indications. RESULTS: The study met both of its co-primary endpoints: cycle 1 observed Ctrough {SC: 89 µg/ml [coefficient of variation (CV): 43%] versus IV: 85 µg/ml (CV: 33%); geometric mean ratio (GMR), 1.05 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.24]} and model-predicted AUC0-21 d [SC: 2907 µg d/ml (CV: 32%) versus IV: 3328 µg d/ml (CV: 20%); GMR, 0.87 (90% CI 0.83-0.92)]. Progression-free survival [hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI 0.82-1.41)], objective response rate (SC: 12% versus IV: 10%), and incidence of anti-atezolizumab antibodies (SC: 19.5% versus IV: 13.9%) were similar between arms. No new safety concerns were identified. Ctrough and AUC0-21 d for atezolizumab SC were consistent with the other approved atezolizumab IV indications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IV, atezolizumab SC demonstrated noninferior drug exposure at cycle 1. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between arms and consistent with the known profile for atezolizumab IV. Similar drug exposure and clinical outcomes following SC and IV administration support the use of atezolizumab SC as an alternative to atezolizumab IV.

ANG1005 for breast cancer brain metastases: correlation between 18F-FLT-PET after first cycle and MRI in response assessment.

PURPOSE: Improved therapies and imaging modalities are needed for the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). ANG1005 is a drug conjugate consisting of paclitaxel covalently linked to Angiopep-2, designed to cross the blood-brain barrier. We conducted a biomarker substudy to evaluate 18F-FLT-PET for response assessment. METHODS: Ten patients with measurable BCBM received ANG1005 at a dose of 550 mg/m2 IV every 21 days. Before and after cycle 1, patients underwent PET imaging with 18F-FLT, a thymidine analog, retention of which reflects cellular proliferation, for comparison with gadolinium-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-MRI) in brain metastases detection and response assessment. A 20 % change in uptake after one cycle of ANG1005 was deemed significant. RESULTS: Thirty-two target and twenty non-target metastatic brain lesions were analyzed. The median tumor reduction by MRI after cycle 1 was -17.5 % (n = 10 patients, lower, upper quartiles: -25.5, -4.8 %) in target lesion size compared with baseline. Fifteen of twenty-nine target lesions (52 %) and 12/20 nontarget lesions (60 %) showed a ≥20 % decrease post-therapy in FLT-PET SUV change (odds ratio 0.71, 95 % CI: 0.19, 2.61). The median percentage change in SUVmax was -20.9 % (n = 29 lesions; lower, upper quartiles: -42.4, 2.0 %), and the median percentage change in SUV80 was also -20.9 % (n = 29; lower, upper quartiles: -49.0, 0.0 %). Two patients had confirmed partial responses by PET and MRI lasting 6 and 18 cycles, respectively. Seven patients had stable disease, receiving a median of six cycles. CONCLUSIONS: ANG1005 warrants further study in BCBM. Results demonstrated a moderately strong association between MRI and 18F-FLT-PET imaging.

Análisis critico de un artículo. Heparina no-fraccionada subcutánea versus heparina de bajo peso molecular en el tratamiento inicial de la enfermedad tromboembólica. Prandoni P, Carnovali M, Marchiori A, Galilei investigators. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1077-83 / Critical appraisal: Subcutaneous adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin vs fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. Prandoni P, Carnovali M, Marchiori A, Galilei investigators. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1077-83

BACKGROUND: Few reports have addressed the value of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin in treating the fill spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), including recurrent VTE and pulmonary embolism. METHODS: In an open, multicenter clinical trial, 720 consecutive patients with acute symptomatic VTE, including 119 noncritically ill patients (16.5%) with pulmonary embolism and 102 (14.2%) with recurrent VTE, were randomly assigned to treatment with subcutaneous UFH with dose adjusted by activated partial thromboplastin time by means of a weight-based algorithm (preceded by an intravenous loading dose), or fixed-dose (adjusted only to body weight) subcutaneous nadroparin calcium. Oral anticoagulant therapy was started concomitantly and continued for at least 3 months. We recorded the incidence of major bleeding during the initial heparin treatment and that of recurrent VTE and death during 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Fifteen (4.2%) of the 360 patients assigned to UFH had recurrent thromboembolic events, as compared with 14 (3.9%) of the 360 patients assigned to nadroparin (absolute difference between rates, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval, -2.5% to 3.1%). Four patients assigned to UFH (1.1%) and 3 patients assigned to nadroparin (0.8%) had episodes of major bleeding (absolute difference between rates, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 1.7%). Overall mortality was 3.3% in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous UFH with dose adjusted by activated partial thromboplastin time by means of a weight-based algorithm is as effective and safe as fixed-dose nadroparin for the initial treatment of patients with VTE, including those with pulmonary embolism and recurrent VTE.