Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. RESULTS: After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Tolerability of intensified intravenous interferon alfa-2b versus the ECOG 1684 schedule as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma: a randomized phase III Italian Melanoma Inter-group trial (IMI - Mel.A.) [ISRCTN75125874].

BACKGROUND: High-dose interferon alfa-2b (IFNalfa-2b), according to the ECOG 1684 schedule, is the only approved adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma patients by the FDA and EMEA. However, the risk/benefit profile has been questioned limiting its world-wide use. In the late nineties, the Italian Melanoma Inter-group started a spontaneous randomized clinical trial (RCT) to verify if a more intense, but shorter than the ECOG 1684 regimen, could improve survival without increasing the toxicity profile. The safety analysis in the first 169 patients who completed the treatment is here described. METHODS: Stage III melanoma patients were randomized to receive IFNalfa-2b 20 MU/m2/d intravenously (IV) 5 days/week x 4 weeks, repeated for three times on weeks 9 to 12, 17 to 20, 25 to 28 (Dose-Dense/Dose-Intense, DD/DI, arm), or IFNalfa-2b 20 MU/m2/d IV 5 days/week x 4 weeks followed by 10 MU/m2 subcutaneously (SC) three times per week x 48 weeks (High Dose Interferon, HDI, arm). Toxicity was recorded and graded, according to the WHO criteria, as the worst grade that occurred during each cycle. RESULTS: The most common toxicities in both arms were flu-like and gastrointestinal symptoms, leukopenia, liver and neuro-psychiatric morbidities; with regard to severe toxicity, only leukopenia was statistically more frequent in DD/DI arm than in HDI arm (24% vs 9%) (p = 0.0074), yet, this did not cause an increase in the infection risk. Discontinuation of treatment, due to toxicity, was observed in 13 and 17% of the patients in the DD/DI and HDI arm, respectively. The median actual dose intensity delivered in the DD/DI arm (36.4 MU/m2/week) was statistically higher than that delivered in the HDI arm (30.7 MU/m2/week) (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Four cycles of intravenous high-dose IFNalfa-2b can be safely delivered with an increase in the median dose intensity. Efficacy results from this trial are eagerly awaited.