Activation and transcriptional profile of monocytes and CD8+ T cells are altered in checkpoint inhibitor-related hepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Checkpoint inhibitor-related hepatitis (CPI-Hep) is an emerging clinical challenge. We aimed to gain insights into the immunopathology of CPI-Hep by comprehensively characterising myeloid and lymphoid subsets. METHODS: CPI-treated patients with or without related hepatitis (CPI-Hep; n = 22 and CPI-noHep; n = 7) were recruited. Phenotypic and transcriptional profiling of peripheral immune subsets was performed and compared with 19 healthy controls (HCs). In vitro monocyte-derived macrophages (MoMFs) were assessed for activation and cytokine production. CD163, CCR2, CD68, CD3, CD8 and granzyme B expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence (n = 4). RESULTS: A significant total monocyte depletion was observed in CPI-Hep compared with HCs (p = 0.04), along with a proportionate increase in the classical monocyte population (p = 0.0002) and significant upregulation of CCR2, CD163 and downregulation of CCR7. Soluble CD163 levels were significantly elevated in CPI-Hep compared with HCs (p <0.0001). In vitro MoMFs from CPI-Hep showed enhanced production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. CD8+ T cells demonstrated increased perforin, granzyme B, ICOS and HLA-DR expression in CPI-Hep. Transcriptional profiling indicated the presence of activated monocyte and enhanced effector CD8+ T cell populations in CPI-Hep. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated co-localisation of CD8+/granzyme B+ T cells with CD68+CCR2+/CD68+CD163+ macrophages in CPI-Hep liver tissue. CONCLUSIONS: CPI-Hep is associated with activation of peripheral monocytes and an enhanced cytotoxic, effector CD8+ T cell phenotype. These changes were reflected by liver inflammation composed of CD163+/CCR2+ macrophages and CD8+ T cells. LAY SUMMARY: Some patients who receive immunotherapy for cancer develop liver inflammation, which requires cessation of cancer treatment. Herein, we describe ways in which the white blood cells of patients who develop liver inflammation differ from those of patients who receive the same immunotherapy but do not experience liver-related side effects. Targeting some of the pathways we identify may help to prevent or manage this side effect and facilitate cancer treatment.

Publisher Correction: Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

In the version of this article originally published, there was an error in Fig. 2n. The top line of the HR comparison chart originally was Atezo + bev vs sun. It should have been Atezo + bev vs atezo. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of this article.

Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82-1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63-1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.

Long-Term Response to Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Pooled Analysis of Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: We characterized clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib who were long-term responders (LTRs), defined as patients having progression-free survival (PFS) > 18 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from 5714 patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib in 8 phase II/III clinical trials and the expanded access program. Duration on-study and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between LTRs and patients with PFS ≤ 18 months ("others"). PFS and overall survival (OS) were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Overall, 898 (15.7%) patients achieved a long-term response and 4816 (84.3%) patients did not achieve long-term response. The median (range) duration on-study was 28.6 (16.8-70.7) months in LTRs and 5.5 (0-68.8) months in others. ORR was 51% in LTRs versus 14% in others (P < .0001). Median PFS in LTRs was 32.11 months and median OS was not reached. LTRs had higher percentage of early tumor shrinkage ≥ 10% at the first scan (67.1% vs. 51.2%; P = .0018) and greater median maximum on-study tumor shrinkage from baseline (-56.9 vs. -27.1; P < .0001) versus others. White race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, time from diagnosis to treatment ≥ 1 year, clear cell histology, no liver metastasis, lactate dehydrogenase ≤ 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN), corrected calcium ≤ 10 mg/dL, hemoglobin greater than the lower limit of normal, platelets less than or equal to ULN, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, and low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were associated with LTR. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib achieved long-term response. LTRs had improved ORR, PFS, and OS.

Baseline clinical predictors of antitumor response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib in germline BRCA1/2 mutated patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PARP inhibitor olaparib was recently granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval in patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancer. However, antitumor responses are observed in only approximately 40% of patients and the impact of baseline clinical factors on response to treatment remains unclear. Although platinum sensitivity has been suggested as a marker of response to PARP inhibitors, patients with platinum-resistant disease still respond to olaparib. RESULTS: 108 patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers were included. The interval between the end of the most recent platinum chemotherapy and PARPi (PTPI) was used to predict response to olaparib independent of conventional definition of platinum sensitivity. RECIST complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rates were 35% in patients with platinum-sensitive versus 13% in platinum-resistant (p<0.005). Independent of platinum sensitivity status, the RECIST CR/PR rates were 42% in patients with PTPI greater than 52 weeks and 18% in patients with PTPI less than 52 weeks (p=0.016). No association was found between baseline clinical factors such as FIGO staging, debulking surgery, BRCA1 versus BRCA2 mutations, prior history of breast cancer and prior chemotherapy for breast cancer, and the response to olaparib. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study to investigate the association between baseline clinical characteristics of patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers from eight different cancer centers and their antitumor response to olaparib. CONCLUSION: PTPI may be used to refine the prediction of response to PARP inhibition based on the conventional categorization of platinum sensitivity.

Clinical factors of response in patients with advanced ovarian cancer participating in early phase clinical trials.

Drug resistance to conventional anticancer therapies is almost inevitable in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), limiting their available treatment options. Novel phase I trial therapies within a dedicated drug development unit may represent a viable alternative; however, there is currently little evidence for patient outcomes in such patients. To address this, we undertook a retrospective review of patients with AOC allocated to phase I trials in the Drug Development Unit at Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) between June 1998 and October 2010. A total of 200 AOC patients with progressive disease were allocated to ≥1 trial each, with a total of 281 allocations. Of these, 135 (68%) patients commenced ≥1 trial (mean 1.4 [1-8]), totaling 216 allocated trials; 65 (32%) patients did not start due to deterioration resulting from rapidly progressive disease (63 patients) or patient choice (2 patients). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) complete/partial responses (CR/PR) were observed in 43 (20%) of those starting trials, including those on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (18/79 [23%]), antiangiogenics (9/65 [14%]) and chemotherapy combinations (14/43 [33%]). Factors associated with CR/PR included: fewer prior treatments, platinum-sensitive disease, CR/PR with prior therapy, (the United States-based) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, fewer metastatic sites, higher albumin and haemoglobin levels, lower white cell counts and baseline CA125 levels, germline BRCA1/2 mutations and better RMH Prognostic Score. Mean survival was 32° months for patients who achieved CR/PR. Treatments were generally well tolerated. Most patients with AOC (134/200 [67%]) received ≥1 subsequent line of therapy after phase I trials. Our data suggest that phase I trial referrals should be considered earlier in the AOC treatment pathway and before the onset of rapid disease progression particularly with the emergence of promising novel agents in the era of precision medicine.

Sorafenib dose escalation in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5-69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6-29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0-11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand-foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.

Sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Sunitinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets various receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Sunitinib received approval in 2006 and became a standard treatment option in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) after a phase III trial showed superiority compared with interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sunitinib has also shown activity in second-line treatment in several trials. Most of the combination trials with sunitinib with various agents have led to considerable toxicity without improving efficacy. Sunitinib alone causes significant side effects and has a distinct profile with diarrhoea, hypertension, skin effects hypothyroidism, fatigue and nausea of special interest. The recommended dose of sunitinib in mRCC is 50 mg orally daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment (4/2 schedule). An alternative 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule (2/1 schedule) seems to be of similar efficacy and better tolerability and could be more widely used in the future. An intermittent treatment strategy with a stop in remission and re-induction after progression showed efficacy in smaller trials and is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Direct comparison of sunitinib with pazopanib in first-line treatment showed a similar efficacy for both TKIs with a distinct toxicity profile. Data from two phase II trials showed that sunitinib has also activity in non-clear cell cancer and is an option due to a lack of better alternatives. Currently, after immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown very promising results in the second-line treatment of RCC, they are being tested in a number of phase III trials in the first-line setting. The future will show the position of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of RCC in the era of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Long-term Safety of Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving first-line sunitinib typically survive >2 yr, with chronic treatment sometimes extending to ≥6 yr. OBJECTIVE: To analyze long-term safety with sunitinib in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were pooled from 5739 patients in nine trials, comprising seven phase II studies, a phase III study, and an expanded-access trial in various treatment settings (e.g., cytokine refractory or treatment-naïve). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Interval and cumulative time-period analyses evaluated the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for up to 6 yr, in the overall population and in those with long-term (≥2 yr) sunitinib treatment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among long-term patients (n=807), most TRAEs occurred initially in the first year and then decreased in frequency; TRAEs following this pattern included decreased appetite, diarrhea, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, fatigue, hypertension, mucosal inflammation, nausea, and stomatitis. However, hypothyroidism increased by interval analysis from 6% at 0-<6 mo to 42% at 5-<6 yr and by cumulative analysis from 14% at 0-<1 yr to 36% over 6 yr. Grade 3/4 TRAEs in long-term patients peaked during the first year and then steadily decreased. The overall population displayed only minor differences from long-term patients, with no clinically significant differences between grade ≥3 TRAE profiles (<5% difference in incidence rates at all intervals). Limitations included retrospective design, assessment variability, lack of pharmacokinetic data, and absence of baseline characteristics for long-term patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged sunitinib was not associated with new types or increased severity of TRAEs. Except hypothyroidism, toxicity was not cumulative. PATIENT SUMMARY: More than 800 mRCC patients received sunitinib for between 2 and 6 yr without experiencing new or more severe treatment-related toxicity. Clinicians may be able to prescribe chronic sunitinib treatment for as long as patients continue to derive clinical benefit, without untoward additional risk.

Lactate dehydrogenase as a selection criterion for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 blocking antibody, has improved overall survival (OS) in metastatic melanoma in phase III trials. However, about 80 % of patients fail to respond, and no predictive markers for benefit from therapy have been identified. We analysed a 'real world' population of patients treated with ipilimumab to identify markers for treatment benefit. METHODS: Patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma were treated in the Netherlands (NL) and the United Kingdom (UK) with ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg. Baseline characteristics and peripheral blood parameters were assessed, and patients were monitored for the occurrence of adverse events and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were treated in the Netherlands. Best overall response and disease control rates were 17 and 35 %, respectively. Median follow-up was 17.9 months, with a median progression-free survival of 2.9 months. Median OS was 7.5 months, and OS at 1 year was 37.8 % and at 2 years was 22.9 %. In a multivariate model, baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was demonstrated to be the strongest predictive factor for OS. These findings were validated in an independent cohort of 64 patients from the UK. CONCLUSION: In both the NL and UK cohorts, long-term benefit of ipilimumab treatment was unlikely for patients with baseline serum LDH greater than twice the upper limit of normal. In the absence of prospective data, clinicians treating melanoma may wish to consider the data presented here to guide patient selection for ipilimumab therapy.

Efficacy of chemotherapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carrier ovarian cancer in the setting of PARP inhibitor resistance: a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data suggest that exposure to PARP inhibitors (PARPi) may compromise benefit to subsequent chemotherapy, particularly platinum-based regimens, in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation carrier ovarian cancer (PBMCOC), possibly through the acquisition of secondary BRCA1/2 mutations. The efficacy of chemotherapy in the PARPi-resistant setting was therefore investigated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective review of PBMCOC who received chemotherapy following disease progression on olaparib, administered at ≥200 mg twice daily for one month or more. Tumor samples were obtained in the post-olaparib setting where feasible and analyzed by massively parallel sequencing. RESULTS: Data were collected from 89 patients who received a median of 3 (range 1-11) lines of pre-olaparib chemotherapy. The overall objective response rate (ORR) to post-olaparib chemotherapy was 36% (24 of 67 patients) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and 45% (35 of 78) by RECIST and/or Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 criteria with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 17 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI), 13-21] and 34 weeks (95% CI, 26-42), respectively. For patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, ORRs were 40% (19 of 48) and 49% (26/53), respectively, with a median PFS of 22 weeks (95% CI, 15-29) and OS of 45 weeks (95% CI, 15-75). An increased platinum-to-platinum interval was associated with an increased OS and likelihood of response following post-olaparib platinum. No evidence of secondary BRCA1/2 mutation was detected in tumor samples of six PARPi-resistant patients [estimated frequency of such mutations adjusted for sample size: 0.125 (95%-CI: 0-0.375)]. CONCLUSIONS: Heavily pretreated PBMCOC who are PARPi-resistant retain the potential to respond to subsequent chemotherapy, including platinum-based agents. These data support the further development of PARPi in PBMCOC.

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.

Implications of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations for the efficacy of paclitaxel monotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical data suggest that BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated ovarian cancers (BMOC) are exquisitely sensitive to platinum-salts, but resistant to microtubule-stabilizing anticancer agents. The clinical relevance of these preclinical data is unclear, since there are currently no published data on the efficacy of single-agent taxane chemotherapy in patients with BMOC. A retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the clinical effects of paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with BMOC. METHODS: Clinical data on responses and progression-free-survival (PFS) following paclitaxel (3-weekly/weekly) monotherapy in BMOC patients were collected from four cancer centres. Antitumour response was defined as RECIST partial or complete response (PR/CR), and clinical benefit was defined as PR/CR and stable disease (SD) lasting at least 18 weeks. Comparisons of the rate and duration of response and clinical benefit between categorical variables (e.g. platinum-sensitive versus platinum-resistant patients) were undertaken. RESULTS: We identified 26 BMOC patients who received paclitaxel monotherapy for relapsed disease, of which 15/26 (58%) were platinum-sensitive and 11/26 (42%) were platinum-resistant. The response rate to paclitaxel monotherapy was 46% (12/26). Clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in platinum-sensitive than platinum-resistant patients (80% versus 36%, p=0.04). BMOC patients with platinum-sensitive disease had significantly longer median PFS compared with platinum-resistant patients (42 versus 21 weeks, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide the first clinical evidence that paclitaxel monotherapy is active in BMOC and may be more effective in platinum-sensitive BMOC.

Phase I/II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in combination with intravenous oncolytic reovirus in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Reovirus type 3 Dearing (RT3D) replicates preferentially in Ras-activated cancers. RT3D shows synergistic in vitro cytotoxicity in combination with platins and taxanes. The purpose of this phase I/II study was to assess RT3D combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were initially treated in a dose-escalating, phase I trial with intravenous RT3D days 1 to 5, carboplatin [area under curve (AUC) 5, day 1] and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), day 1) 3-weekly. RT3D was escalated through three dose levels: 3 × 10(9), 1 × 10(10), and 3 × 10(10) TCID(50) in cohorts of three. Primary endpoints were to define the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity and to recommend a dose for phase II studies. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, immune response, and antitumor activity. A subsequent phase II study using the 3 × 10(10) TCID(50) dose characterized the response rate in patients with head and neck cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-one heavily pretreated patients received study therapy. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during dose-escalation and most toxicities were grade I/II. Overall effectiveness rates were as follows: one patient had a complete response (3.8%), six patients (23.1%) had partial response, two patients (7.6%) had major clinical responses clinically evaluated in radiation pretreated lesions which are not evaluable by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), nine patients (34.6%) had stable disease, and eight patients (30.8%) had disease progression. Viral shedding was minimal and antiviral immune responses were attenuated compared with previous single-agent data for RT3D. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RT3D plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is well tolerated with evidence of activity in cancer of the head and neck. A randomized phase III study is currently open for recruitment.

Cediranib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib is a highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor with activity against VEGF receptors 1, 2 and 3. This Phase II, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy of cediranib with placebo in patients with metastatic or recurrent clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had not previously received a VEGF signalling inhibitor. METHODS: Patients were randomised (3:1) to cediranib 45 mg/day or placebo. The primary objective was comparison of change from baseline in tumour size after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary objectives included response rate and duration, progression-free survival (PFS) and safety and tolerability. Patients in the placebo group could cross over to open-label cediranib at 12 weeks or earlier if their disease had progressed. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00423332. FINDINGS: Patients (n=71) were randomised to receive cediranib (n=53) or placebo (n=18). The primary study outcome revealed that, after 12weeks of therapy, there was a significant difference in mean percentage change from baseline in tumour size between the cediranib (-20%) and placebo (+20%) arms (p<0.0001). Eighteen patients (34%) on cediranib achieved a partial response and 25 (47%) experienced stable disease. Cediranib treatment prolonged PFS significantly compared with placebo (hazard ratio (HR)=0.45, 90%confidence interval: 0.26-0.76, p=0.017; median PFS 12.1 versus 2.8 months). The most common adverse events in patients receiving cediranib were diarrhoea (74%), hypertension (64%), fatigue (58%) and dysphonia (58%). INTERPRETATION: Cediranib monotherapy demonstrated significant evidence of antitumour activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The adverse event profile was consistent with previous studies of cediranib 45 mg.

Association between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and survival in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.

CONTEXT: Approximately 10% of women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) carry deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. A recent article suggested that BRCA2-related EOC was associated with an improved prognosis, but the effect of BRCA1 remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the survival of BRCA carriers with EOC compared with noncarriers and to determine whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers show similar survival patterns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pooled analysis of 26 observational studies on the survival of women with ovarian cancer, which included data from 1213 EOC cases with pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1 (n = 909) or BRCA2 (n = 304) and from 2666 noncarriers recruited and followed up at variable times between 1987 and 2010 (the median year of diagnosis was 1998). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Five-year overall mortality. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival was 36% (95% CI, 34%-38%) for noncarriers, 44% (95% CI, 40%-48%) for BRCA1 carriers, and 52% (95% CI, 46%-58%) for BRCA2 carriers. After adjusting for study and year of diagnosis, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers showed a more favorable survival than noncarriers (for BRCA1: hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001; and for BRCA2: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.76; P < .001). These survival differences remained after additional adjustment for stage, grade, histology, and age at diagnosis (for BRCA1: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; P < .001; and for BRCA2: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61; P < .001). The BRCA1 HR estimate was significantly different from the HR estimated in the adjusted model (P for heterogeneity = .003). CONCLUSION: Among patients with invasive EOC, having a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was associated with improved 5-year overall survival. BRCA2 carriers had the best prognosis.

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS: We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.