Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Phase I trial of copanlisib, a selective PI3K inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background The phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathway is often altered in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and is involved in the resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Objective We investigated the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of copanlisib, an intravenous, pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab in recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients in a phase I dose-escalation trial. Patients and methods Copanlisib was given intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles at the dose of 45 mg and 30 mg, in combination with standard doses of weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, and 22, and weekly thereafter). Results Three patients received copanlisib 45 mg, of whom two experienced grade 3 hyperglycemia during Cycle 1 that met the DLT criteria. Eight patients were then treated with copanlisib at the dose of 30 mg. Because of the occurrence of hyperglycemia, a premedication with metformine was introduced on the day of the injections. No DLTs were reported at this dose level. The trial was stopped early because of the unfavourable toxicity profile of the combination. Among eight evaluable patients for response, four patients (50%) had disease stabilization according to RECIST1.1 as best response. Conclusion Copanlisib combined with cetuximab demonstrated unfavorable toxicity and limited efficacy in heavily pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients.Trial registration NCT02822482, Date of registration: June 2016.

Debio 1143 and high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy in high-risk locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Debio 1143 is an orally available antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins with the potential to enhance the antitumour activity of cisplatin and radiotherapy. The radiosensitising effect of Debio 1143 is mediated through caspase activation and TNF, IFNγ, CD8 T cell-dependent pathways. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Debio 1143 in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study by the French Head and Neck Radiotherapy Oncology Group (GORTEC) was run at 19 hospitals in France and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with locoregionally advanced, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (characterised as non-metastatic, measurable stage III, IVa, or IVb [limited to T ≥2, N0-3, and M0] disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a history of heavy tobacco smoking (>10 pack-years) with no previous or current treatment for invasive head and neck cancer, and no previous treatment with inhibitor of apoptosis protein antagonists. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral Debio 1143 (200 mg per day on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, for three cycles) or oral placebo (20 mg/mL, administered at the same dosing schedule) using a stochastic minimisation technique according to node involvement and primary tumour site, and HPV-16 status in patients with an oropharyngeal primary tumour site. All patients received standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and repeated in the per-protocol population. Responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022098, and is still active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and April 24, 2017, 48 patients were randomly assigned to the Debio 1143 group and 48 to the placebo group (one patient in the placebo group did not receive the study drug and was not included in the safety analysis). Median duration of follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 19·6-29·4) in the Debio 1143 group and 24·2 months (6·6-26·8) in the placebo group. Locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy was achieved in 26 (54%; 95% CI 39-69) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group versus 16 (33%; 20-48) of 48 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·69 [95% CI 1·13-6·42], p=0·026). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 41 (85%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and in 41 (87%) of 47 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (in 24 [50%] patients in the Debio 1143 group vs ten [21%] in the placebo group), mucositis (in 15 [31%] vs ten [21%]), and anaemia (in 17 [35%] vs 11 [23%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and 28 (60%) of 47 in the placebo group. In the placebo group, two (4%) deaths were due to adverse events (one multiple organ failure and one asphyxia; neither was considered to be related to treatment). No deaths due to adverse events occurred in the Debio 1143 group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first treatment regimen to achieve superior efficacy in this disease setting against a high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy comparator in a randomised trial. These findings suggest that inhibition of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins is a novel and promising approach in this poor prognostic population and warrant confirmation in a phase 3 study with the aim of expanding the therapeutic options for these patients. FUNDING: Debiopharm.

Long survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Results of real life study of 344 patients.

The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed fundamentally over the last decade by the development of antiangiogenic agents, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and immunotherapy. Outside of the context of a clinical trial, the treatments are used sequentially. We describe results under real-life conditions of a sequential treatment strategy, before the era of immunotherapy. All patients were treated according to their prognostic score (either Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) for advanced renal cell carcinoma. A treatment strategy involving 1 to 4 lines was determined including a rechallenge criterion for the repeat use of a treatment class. Three hundred forty-four patients were included over 3 years. Overall survival was 57 months in patients with good or intermediate prognosis and 19 months in patients with poor prognosis. In the former group, the proportions of patients treated with 2 to 4 treatment lines were 70%, 38% and 16%, respectively. The best objective response rates for lines 1 to 4 were 46%, 36%, 16% and 17%, respectively. Grade III/IV toxicity did not appear to be cumulative. The recommended strategy was followed in 68% of patients. A large proportion of patients with good or intermediate prognosis who progress after two lines of treatment still have a performance status good enough to receive a systemic treatment, which justifies such a strategy. Overall survival of patients with good and intermediate prognosis was long, suggesting a benefit from the applied approach. These results might be used as selection criterion for the treatment of patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A prospective observational study on the evaluation of everolimus-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after first-line anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy: the AFINITE study in France.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to describe the occurrence of stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with second-line everolimus in a real-world setting. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in France by physicians with experience of treatment of patients with mRCC. Patients aged ≥18 years who received everolimus after first-line antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy were included in the study. The primary safety assessments were occurrence of stomatitis (in terms of severity, event dates, and therapeutic management) and noninfectious pneumonitis (in terms of detection methodology, severity, event dates, and therapeutic management). RESULTS: Between September 2010 and August 2012, 284 patients were enrolled at 77 centers, of whom, 274 received everolimus therapy. Most patients had mRCC of clear cell histology (88%), and most of them (84%) received first-line sunitinib. In total, 40% of patients experienced treatment-related stomatitis, and 15% of patients experienced noninfectious lung disease. Most of them had a single episode. The incidence of grade 3 stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease were 8 and 3%, respectively. Mean time to the first episode was 27 days for stomatitis and 72 days for noninfectious lung disease from treatment initiation. Stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease resulted in treatment discontinuations in 2 and 7% of patients, respectively. The primary first-episode treatment was mouthwash (86%) for stomatitis and corticosteroids (65%) for noninfectious lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease are commonly associated with everolimus use. Both adverse events were rarely severe and were managed easily and efficiently.

Validation of VEGFR1 rs9582036 as predictive biomarker in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib.

OBJECTIVES: To validate vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 (VEGFR1) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs9582036 as a potential predictive biomarker in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: m-ccRCC patients receiving sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy were included. We assessed response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical and biochemical parameters associated with outcome. We genotyped five VEGFR1 SNPs: rs9582036, rs7993418, rs9554320, rs9554316 and rs9513070. Association with outcome was studied by univariate analysis and by multivariate Cox regression. Additionally, we updated survival data of our discovery cohort as described previously. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included in the validation cohort. rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer PFS (8 vs 12 months, P = 0.02) and OS (11 vs 27 months, P = 0.003) compared to AC/AA-carriers. rs7993418 CC-carriers had a poorer OS (8 vs 24 months, P = 0.004) compared to TC/TT-carriers. rs9554320 AA-carriers had a poorer RR (0% vs 53%, P = 0.009), PFS (5 vs 12 months, P = 0.003) and OS (10 vs 25 months, P = 0.004) compared to AC/CC-carriers. When pooling patients from the discovery cohort, as described previously (n = 88), and the validation cohort, in the total series of 157 patients, rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer RR (8% vs 49%, P = 0.004), PFS (8 vs 14 months, P = 0.003) and OS (13 vs 30 months, P = 0.0004) compared to AC/AA-carriers. Unfavorable prognostic markers at start of sunitinib were well balanced between rs9582036 CC- and AC/AA-carriers. CONCLUSION: VEGFR1 rs9582036 is a candidate predictive biomarker in m-ccRCC-patients treated with sunitinib.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION: Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.