Role of Checkpoint Inhibition in Localized Bladder Cancer.

CONTEXT: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are established as a standard therapy option for metastatic bladder cancer; however, their role in earlier-stage disease remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the preclinical and clinical evidence forming the rationale for multiple ongoing investigations of CPIs in patients with localized bladder cancer defined by non-muscle-invasive or muscle-invasive stages. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature in the MEDLINE database was performed. The central search strategy used the terms bladder cancer, urothelial carcinoma, transitional cell, localized, muscle-invasive, non-muscle-invasive, superficial, PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, and checkpoint inhibitor, both alone and in combination. The search was limited to publications between January 2000 and December 2017. Publicly available relevant abstracts from recent meetings were also included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Preclinical immunocompetent murine, rodent, and canine models have each demonstrated proof-of-concept support for CPI therapy approaches in localized urothelial carcinoma (UC). Retrospective analysis of localized UC tumor samples confirms the presence of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 in a proportion of patients. Prospective pilot trials of CPI therapy in localized UC demonstrated enhanced adaptive immune response measures. Improved whole-transcriptome platforms may further refine patient selection for CPI therapy. Multiple clinical trials of CPI therapy in localized UC are under way with significant practice-changing potential. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from preclinical models and retrospective data for patients with localized UC and metastatic UC sufficiently justifies the investigation of CPI approaches in the context of prospective clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy has provided durable tumor control in a small portion of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Investigating the potential for similar sustained tumor control in localized UC is logical. Ongoing prospective clinical trials will define whether or not CPI therapy should be extended to patients with curable localized UC in whom standards for successful clinical outcomes are higher and acceptance rates of severe treatment-related toxicity are lower.

Everolimus Versus Axitinib as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experience From Institut Gustave Roussy.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (E) and axitinib (A) have been standard treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line therapy (1L) with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. This study aims to compare both drugs in a large comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcome data from all patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received E or A as second-line therapy at Gustave Roussy from April 2007 to May 2015 have been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were treated with E and 45 patients with A. There were no major differences between the 2 groups. The most common 1L was sunitinib (79% in the E group and 82.2% in the A group). The median follow-up was 29 months; 26 months for A and 33 months for E (P = .046). The median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months for E and 14.9 months for A (P = .23). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 and 7.7 months for E and A, respectively (P = .39). Partial response was achieved in 4% and in 24% of patients (P = .002) in the E and A cohort, respectively. In the A group, the median PFS and OS were statistically different according to response, tumor burden, and 1L duration. No differences were found in the E arm. CONCLUSION: In this series, there are no significant differences for PFS and OS with E and A. A appears to provide more objective response. A appears to be more effective in patients with small tumor burden, responders to 1L, and 1L therapy > 12 months.

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.

Tumor growth rate provides useful information to evaluate sorafenib and everolimus treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: an integrated analysis of the TARGET and RECORD phase 3 trial data.

BACKGROUND: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria may not be sufficient to evaluate the response of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The tumor growth rate (TGR) incorporates the time between evaluations and may be adequate. OBJECTIVE: To determine how TGR is modified along the treatment sequence and is associated with outcome in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical records from all patients prospectively treated at Gustave Roussy (IGR) in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) (sorafenib vs placebo, n=84) and the RECORD (everolimus vs placebo, n=43) phase 3 trials were analyzed. TGR was computed across clinically relevant periods: BEFORE treatment introduction (wash-out), UNDER (first cycle), at PROGRESSION (last cycle) and AFTER treatment discontinuation (washout). The association between TGR and outcome (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]) was computed in the entire TARGET cohort (n=903). INTERVENTION: Sorafenib, everolimus, or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: TGR, RECIST, OS, and PFS rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Although nearly all the patients (IGR) were classified as stable disease (RECIST) after the first cycle, the great majority of the patients exhibited a decrease in TGR UNDER compared with BEFORE (sorafenib: p<0.00001; everolimus: p<0.00001). In sorafenib-treated but not in everolimus-treated patients (IGR), TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) was still lower than TGR BEFORE (washout) (p=0.012), while TGR AFTER progression (washout) was higher than TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) (p=0.0012). Higher TGR (first cycle) was associated with worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.34) and worse OS (HR: 4.69; 95% CI, 1.54-14.39), independently from the Motzer score and from the treatment arm in the entire TARGET cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Computing TGR in mRCC patients is simple and provides clinically useful information for mRCC patients: (1) TGR is independently associated with prognosis (PFS, OS), (2) TGR allows for a subtle and quantitative characterization of drug activity at the first evaluation, and (3) TGR reveals clear drug-specific profiles at progression.

Skeletal muscle density predicts prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that skeletal muscle and adipose tissue are linked to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Because targeted therapies have improved the outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), new prognostic parameters are required. The objective of the current study was to analyze whether body composition parameters play a prognostic role in patients with mRCC. METHODS: Adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, and skeletal muscle density (SMD) were assessed with computed tomography imaging by measuring cross-sectional areas of the tissues and mean muscle Hounsfield units (HU). A high level of mean HU indicates a high SMD and high quality of muscle. OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was adjusted for Heng risk score and treatment. RESULTS: In the 149 patients studied, the median OS was 21.4 months and was strongly associated with SMD; the median OS in patients with low SMD was approximately one-half that of patients with high SMD (14 months vs 29 months; P = .001). After adjustment for Heng risk score and treatment, high SMD was associated with longer OS (hazards ratio, 1.85; P = .004) and longer PFS (hazards ratio, 1.81; P = .002). Adding SMD will separate the intermediate-risk and favorable-risk groups into 3 groups, with different median OS periods ranging from 8 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 6 months-12 months) for an intermediate-risk Heng score/low SMD to 22 months (95% CI, 14 months-27 months) for an intermediate-risk Heng score/high SMD and a favorable-risk Heng score/low SMD to 35 months (95% CI, 24 months-43 months) for a favorable-risk Heng score/high SMD. CONCLUSIONS: High muscle density appears to be independently associated with improved outcome and could be integrated into the prognostic scores thereby enhancing the management of patients with mRCC.

Second line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with targeted therapies in 251 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Sequential treatment is currently the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, very little is known on how many patients (pts) can receive second line or further, and on how to predict those pts. The goal of this study was to evaluate these questions in a large series of pts treated in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from all mRCC patients treated at the IGR from 2005 to 2009 with first line targeted therapy (sunitinib (SU), sorafenib (SO), bevacizumab (B), temsirolimus or everolimus (pooled together as mammalian target of rapamycin - mTOR)) were analysed. Only patients with subsequent follow-up have been included in this analysis. Patients were defined as 'non-eligible' for second treatment if: they were (i) still on first line treatment, (ii) not showing progressive (durable stable disease or partial response or complete response) or (iii) if they refused a second line treatment. RESULTS: 251 patients, median age 60 years, median follow-up 20.2 months were treated with targeted therapy with a median overall survival (OS) of 25.8 months. Median OS with SU (127), SO (60) or B (61) were 26.3, 16.4 and 32.5 months respectively. Only three patients received an mTOR inhibitor as first line. According to the eligibility criteria, the percentage of patients who received a second line was 59% (n=61/103), 52% (n=30/58) and 79% (n=38/48) for Su, So and B, respectively. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) classification (P=0.02) and first line agent (P=0.001) were significant predictive factor for receiving a second line of treatment. Overall, patients receiving B were in better general condition, with 77% of performance status score (PS)=0 compared to SO (53%) and SU (48%) (P=0.005). Among the 131 patients who received a second line, the median OS from the start of second line treatment was 20.8 months for a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n=98; 75%) and 16.6 months for an mTOR (n=32; 42%) (P=0.12). Furthermore, the percentage of patients who received a third line was 56% (27/48), 28% (7/25) and 65% (13/20) for SU, SO and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: The median OS in patients treated with targeted therapies for mRCC in The Institut Gustave Roussy exceeds 2 years. The use of second line varies from 52% to 79%. Further studies are needed to validate the MSKCC groups and first line therapy as predictive factor for second line treatment.