The Double Antibody Drug Conjugate (DAD) phase I trial: sacituzumab govitecan plus enfortumab vedotin for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The antibody-drug conjugates sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and enfortumab vedotin (EV) are standard monotherapies for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Given the different targets and payloads, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of SG + EV in a phase I trial in mUC (NCT04724018). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mUC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1 who had progressed on platinum and/or immunotherapy were enrolled. SG + EV were administered on days 1 + 8 of a 21-day cycle until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities during cycle 1. The number of patients treated at each of four pre-specified dose levels (DLs) and the maximum tolerated doses in combination (MTD) were determined using a Bayesian Optimal Interval design. Objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Between May 2021 and April 2023, 24 patients were enrolled; 1 patient never started therapy and was excluded from the analysis. Median age was 70 years (range 41-88 years); 11 patients received ≥3 lines of therapy. Seventy-eight percent (18/23) of patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse event (AE) regardless of attribution at any DL, with one grade 5 AE (pneumonitis possibly related to EV). The recommended phase II doses are SG 8 mg/kg with EV 1.25 mg/kg with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support; MTDs are SG 10 mg/kg with EV 1.25 mg/kg. The objective response rate was 70% (16/23, 95% confidence interval 47% to 87%) with three complete responses; three patients had progressive disease as best response. With a median follow-up of 14 months, 9/23 patients have ongoing response including 6 responses lasting over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of SG + EV was assessed at different DLs and a safe dose for phase II was identified. The combination had encouraging activity in patients with mUC with high response rates, including clinically significant complete responses. Additional study of this combination is warranted.

Oncology clinical trial disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: a COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disproportionately impacted patients with cancer as a result of direct infection, and delays in diagnosis and therapy. Oncological clinical trials are resource-intensive endeavors that could be particularly susceptible to disruption by the pandemic, but few studies have evaluated the impact of the pandemic on clinical trial conduct. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study assesses the impact of the pandemic on therapeutic clinical trials at two large academic centers in the Northeastern United States between December 2019 and June 2021. The primary objective was to assess the enrollment on, accrual to, and activation of oncology therapeutic clinical trials during the pandemic using an institution-wide cohort of (i) new patient accruals to oncological trials, (ii) a manually curated cohort of patients with cancer, and (ii) a dataset of new trial activations. RESULTS: The institution-wide cohort included 4756 new patients enrolled to clinical trials from December 2019 to June 2021. A major decrease in the numbers of new patient accruals (-46%) was seen early in the pandemic, followed by a progressive recovery and return to higher-than-normal levels (+2.6%). A similar pattern (from -23.6% to +30.4%) was observed among 467 newly activated trials from June 2019 to June 2021. A more pronounced decline in new accruals was seen among academically sponsored trials (versus industry sponsored trials) (P < 0.05). In the manually curated cohort, which included 2361 patients with cancer, non-white patients tended to be more likely taken off trial in the early pandemic period (adjusted odds ratio: 2.60; 95% confidence interval 1.00-6.63), and substantial pandemic-related deviations were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial disruptions in clinical trial activities were observed early during the pandemic, with a gradual recovery during ensuing time periods, both from an enrollment and an activation standpoint. The observed decline was more prominent among academically sponsored trials, and racial disparities were seen among people taken off trial.

COVID-19 vaccination and breakthrough infections in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is an important preventive health measure to protect against symptomatic and severe COVID-19. Impaired immunity secondary to an underlying malignancy or recent receipt of antineoplastic systemic therapies can result in less robust antibody titers following vaccination and possible risk of breakthrough infection. As clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccines largely excluded patients with a history of cancer and those on active immunosuppression (including chemotherapy), limited evidence is available to inform the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination across the spectrum of patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe the clinical features of patients with cancer who developed symptomatic COVID-19 following vaccination and compare weighted outcomes with those of contemporary unvaccinated patients, after adjustment for confounders, using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19). RESULTS: Patients with cancer who develop COVID-19 following vaccination have substantial comorbidities and can present with severe and even lethal infection. Patients harboring hematologic malignancies are over-represented among vaccinated patients with cancer who develop symptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 remains an essential strategy in protecting vulnerable populations, including patients with cancer. Patients with cancer who develop breakthrough infection despite full vaccination, however, remain at risk of severe outcomes. A multilayered public health mitigation approach that includes vaccination of close contacts, boosters, social distancing, and mask-wearing should be continued for the foreseeable future.

Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). RESULTS: A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04354701.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

Randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine in recurrent advanced urothelial cancer: results of >2 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Novel second-line treatments are needed for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (UC). Interim analysis of the phase III KEYNOTE-045 study showed a superior overall survival (OS) benefit of pembrolizumab, a programmed death 1 inhibitor, versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced UC that progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy. Here we report the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of KEYNOTE-045. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed UC whose disease progressed after first-line, platinum-containing chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive pembrolizumab [200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W)] or investigator's choice of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 Q3W), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 Q3W), or vinflunine (320 mg/m2 Q3W). Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central radiology review (BICR). A key secondary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by BICR. RESULTS: A total of 542 patients were enrolled (pembrolizumab, n = 270; chemotherapy, n = 272). Median follow-up as of 26 October 2017 was 27.7 months. Median 1- and 2-year OS rates were higher with pembrolizumab (44.2% and 26.9%, respectively) than chemotherapy (29.8% and 14.3%, respectively). PFS rates did not differ between treatment arms; however, 1- and 2-year PFS rates were higher with pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was also higher with pembrolizumab (21.1% versus 11.0%). Median duration of response to pembrolizumab was not reached (range 1.6+ to 30.0+ months) versus chemotherapy (4.4 months; range 1.4+ to 29.9+ months). Pembrolizumab had lower rates of any grade (62.0% versus 90.6%) and grade ≥3 (16.5% versus 50.2%) treatment-related adverse events than chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term results (>2 years' follow-up) were consistent with those of previously reported analyses, demonstrating continued clinical benefit of pembrolizumab over chemotherapy for efficacy and safety for treatment of locally advanced/metastatic, platinum-refractory UC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02256436.

Androgen deprivation therapy and risk of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Background: Androgens are generally immunosuppressive, and men with untreated hypogonadism are at increased risk for autoimmune conditions. To date, there has been no evidence linking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the association between ADT and RA in patients with prostate cancer. Patients and methods: We identified 105 303 men age 66 years or older who were diagnosed with stages I-III prostate cancer from 1992 through 2006 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, excluding patients with a history of RA. χ2 test was used to compare 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of RA diagnoses. Competing risk Cox regression using inverse probability of treatment weighting was utilized to examine the association between pharmacologic ADT and diagnosis of RA. Results: The 43% of patients (N = 44 785) who received ADT experienced a higher 5-year rate of RA diagnoses compared with men who did not (5.4% versus 4.4%, P < 0.001). Receipt of any ADT was associated with a 23% increased risk of being diagnosed with RA (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.40, P = 0.001). The risk of being diagnosed with RA increased with a longer duration of ADT, from 19% with 1-6 months and 29% with 7-12 months to 33% with ≥13 months (Ptrend < 0.001). Conclusions: Consistent with the immunosuppressive properties of androgens, we demonstrated for the first time that ADT was associated with an elevated risk of being diagnosed with RA in this large cohort of elderly men with prostate cancer. The risk was higher with a longer duration of ADT. Linking ADT to an increased risk of being diagnosed with an autoimmune condition adds to mounting evidence of the adverse effects of ADT that should prompt physicians to thoughtfully weigh its risks and benefits.

Racial disparities in prostate cancer outcome among prostate-specific antigen screening eligible populations in the United States.

Background: In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, despite evidence that Black men are at a higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). We evaluated whether Black men of potentially screening-eligible age (55-69 years) are at a disproportionally high risk of poor outcomes. Patients and methods: The SEER database was used to study 390 259 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States between 2004 and 2011. Multivariable logistic regression modeled the association between Black race and stage of presentation, while Fine-Gray competing risks regression modeled the association between Black race and PCSM, both as a function of screening eligibility (age 55-69 years versus not). Results: Black men were more likely to present with metastatic disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.65; 1.58-1.72; P < 0.001) and were at a higher risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.36; 1.27-1.46; P < 0.001) compared to non-Black men. There were significant interactions between race and PSA-screening eligibility such that Black patients experienced more disproportionate rates of metastatic disease (AOR 1.76; 1.65-1.87 versus 1.55; 1.47-1.65; Pinteraction < 0.001) and PCSM (AHR 1.53; 1.37-1.70 versus 1.25; 1.14-1.37; Pinteraction = 0.01) in the potentially PSA-screening eligible group than in the group not eligible for screening. Conclusions: Racial disparities in prostate cancer outcome among Black men are significantly worse in PSA-screening eligible populations. These results raise the possibility that Black men could be disproportionately impacted by recommendations to end PSA screening in the United States and suggest that Black race should be included in the updated USPSTF PSA screening guidelines.

QTc interval prolongation with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Multi-targeted vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are known to cause cardiac toxicity, but the relative risk (RR) of QTc interval prolongation and serious arrhythmias associated with them are not reported. METHODS: We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis of randomised phase II and III trials comparing arms with and without a US Food and Drug Administration-approved VEGFR TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib, vandetanib, cabozantinib, ponatinib and regorafenib). A total of 6548 patients from 18 trials were selected. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, RR and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The RR for all-grade and high-grade QTc prolongation for the TKI vs no TKI arms was 8.66 (95% CI 4.92-15.2, P<0.001) and 2.69 (95% CI 1.33-5.44, P=0.006), respectively, with most of the events being asymptomatic QTc prolongation. Respectively, 4.4% and 0.83% of patients exposed to VEGFR TKI had all-grade and high-grade QTc prolongation. On subgroup analysis, only sunitinib and vandetanib were associated with a statistically significant risk of QTc prolongation, with higher doses of vandetanib associated with a greater risk. The rate of serious arrhythmias including torsades de pointes did not seem to be higher with high-grade QTc prolongation. The risk of QTc prolongation was independent of the duration of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date, we show that VEGFR TKI can be associated with QTc prolongation. Although most cases were of low clinical significance, it is unclear whether the same applies to patients treated off clinical trials.

IL8 polymorphisms and overall survival in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for association with overall survival (OS) in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: The discovery analysis tested 27 SNPs within 13 genes from a phase III pazopanib trial (N=241, study 1). Suggestive associations were then pursued in two independent datasets: a phase III trial (COMPARZ) comparing pazopanib vs sunitinib (N=729, study 2) and an observational study of sunitinib-treated patients (N=89, study 3). RESULTS: In study 1, four SNPs showed nominally significant association (P≤0.05) with OS; two of these SNPs (rs1126647, rs4073) in IL8 were associated (P≤0.05) with OS in study 2. Because rs1126647 and rs4073 were highly correlated, only rs1126647 was evaluated in study 3, which also showed association (P≤0.05). In the combined data, rs1126647 was associated with OS after conservative multiple-test adjustment (P=8.8 × 10(-5); variant vs reference allele hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52), without evidence for heterogeneity of effects between studies or between pazopanib- and sunitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Variant alleles of IL8 polymorphisms are associated with poorer survival outcomes in pazopanib- or sunitinib-treated patients with aRCC. These findings provide insight in aRCC prognosis and may advance our thinking in development of new therapies.

Association of PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating mononuclear cells and overall survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor/PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) pathway negatively regulates T-cell-mediated responses. The prognostic impact of PD-L1 expression needs to be defined in urothelial carcinoma (UC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 160 patients with UC were retrieved. PD-L1 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using a mouse monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibody (405.9A11). PD-L1 positivity on tumor cell membrane was defined as ≥5% of tumor cell membrane staining. The extent of tumor-infiltrating mononuclear cells (TIMCs) as well as PD-L1 expression on TIMCs was scored from 0 to 4. A score of 2, 3, or 4 was considered PD-L1-positive. Clinico-pathological variables were documented. The Cox regression model was used to assess the association of PD-L1 expression with overall survival (OS) in patients who developed metastases. RESULTS: TIMCs were present in 143 of the 160 patient samples. Out of 160 samples, 32 (20%) had positive PD-L1 expression in tumor cell membrane. Out of 143 samples with TIMCs, 58 (40%) had positive PD-L1 expression in TIMCs. Smoking history, prior BCG use and chromosome 9 loss did not correlate with PD-L1 expression in either tumor cell membrane or TIMCs. PD-L1 positivity was not different between non-invasive or invasive UC. In patients who developed metastases (M1) and were treated with systemic therapy (n = 100), PD-L1 positivity on tumor cell membrane was seen in 14% of patients and did not correlate with OS (P = 0.45). Out of 89 M1 patients who had evaluable PD-L1 on TIMCs, PD-L1 expression was seen in 33% of patients and was significantly associated with longer OS on multivariate analysis (P = 0.0007). CONCLUSION: PD-L1 is widely expressed in tumor cell membrane and TIMCs in UC. PD-L1 in tumor cells was not predictive of OS. However, positive PD-L1 expression in TIMCs was significantly associated with longer survival in those patients who developed metastases.

Incidence and determinants of 1-month mortality after cancer-directed surgery.

BACKGROUND: Death within 1 month of surgery is considered treatment related and serves as an important health care quality metric. We sought to identify the incidence of and factors associated with 1-month mortality after cancer-directed surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program to study a cohort of 1 110 236 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 with cancers that are among the 10 most common or most fatal who received cancer-directed surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with 1-month mortality after cancer-directed surgery. RESULTS: A total of 53 498 patients (4.8%) died within 1 month of cancer-directed surgery. Patients who were married, insured, or who had a top 50th percentile income or educational status had lower odds of 1-month mortality from cancer-directed surgery {[adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.82; P < 0.001], (AOR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82-0.94; P < 0.001), (AOR 0.95; 95% CI 0.93-0.97; P < 0.001), and (AOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.96-0.99; P = 0.043), respectively}. Patients who were non-white minority, male, or older (per year increase), or who had advanced tumor stage 4 disease all had a higher risk of 1-month mortality after cancer-directed surgery, with AORs of 1.13 (95% CI 1.11-1.15), P < 0.001; 1.11 (95% CI 1.08-1.13), P < 0.001; 1.02 (95% 1.02-1.03), P < 0.001; and 1.89 (95% CI 1.82-1.95), P < 0.001 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Unmarried, uninsured, non-white, male, older, less educated, and poorer patients were all at a significantly higher risk for death within 1 month of cancer-directed surgery. Efforts to reduce 1-month surgical mortality and eliminate sociodemographic disparities in this adverse outcome could significantly improve survival among patients with cancer.

Guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in renal cell cancer clinical trials: results of the DATECAN project†.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.

Anti-VEGF therapy in mRCC: differences between Asian and non-Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: Several reports suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be more toxic in Asian vs non-Asian populations. Comparative efficacy of these agents with respect to ethnicity is not well characterised. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using Asian and non-Asian centres which collected data on ethnicity, dose reductions and outcomes using the International mRCC Database Consortium. RESULTS: This study included 1024 (464 Asian, 560 non-Asian) patients with a 29.4 months median follow-up. The percentage of dose modifications/reductions between non-Asians and Asians was similar (55% vs 61% P=0.1197). When adjusted for risk groups, there was no difference in overall or progression-free survival between non-Asians and Asians. Patients with dose reductions due to toxicity had longer treatment durations and overall survival than those who did not in both non-Asian (10.6 vs 5.0 months, P<0.0001; 22.6 vs 16.1 months, P=0.0016, respectively) and Asian populations (8.9 vs 5.4 months, P=0.0028; 28.0 vs 18.7 months, P=0.0069, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for risk groups, there appears to be no difference in outcome between Asian vs non-Asian patients with mRCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy. Judicious dose reductions may allow for better outcomes in both populations due to longer treatment durations, but direct comparisons are needed.

First-, second-, third-line therapy for mRCC: benchmarks for trial design from the IMDC.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with multiple lines of therapy. Benchmarks for survival are required for patient counselling and clinical trial design. METHODS: Outcomes of mRCC patients from the International mRCC Database Consortium database treated with 1, 2, or 3+ lines of targeted therapy (TT) were compared by proportional hazards regression. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using different population inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In total, 2705 patients were treated with TT of which 57% received only first-line TT, 27% received two lines of TT, and 16% received 3+ lines of TT. Overall survival of patients who received 1, 2, or 3+ lines of TT were 14.9, 21.0, and 39.2 months, respectively, from first-line TT (P<0.0001). On multivariable analysis, 2 lines and 3+ lines of therapy were each associated with better OS (HR=0.738 and 0.626, P<0.0001). Survival outcomes for the subgroups were as follows: for all patients, OS 20.9 months and PFS 7.2 months; for those similar to eligible patients in the first-line ADAPT trial, OS 14.7 months and PFS 5.6 months; for those similar to patients in first-line TIVO-1 trial, OS 24.8 months and PFS 8.2 months; for those similar to patients in second-line INTORSECT trial, OS 13.0 months and PFS 3.9 months; and for those similar to patients in the third-line GOLD trial, OS 18.0 months and PFS 4.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are able to receive more lines of TT live longer. Survival benchmarks provide context and perspective when interpreting and designing clinical trials.

A phase I study of cabozantinib (XL184) in patients with renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib targets tyrosine kinases including the hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor 2, which are important drug targets in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-arm open-label phase I trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of cabozantinib in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. RESULTS: The study enrolled 25 RCC patients for whom standard therapy had failed. Patients received a median of two prior systemic agents, and most patients had previously received at least one VEGF pathway inhibiting therapy (22 patients [88%]). Common adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, proteinuria, appetite decreased, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Partial response was reported in seven patients (28%). Median progression-free survival was 12.9 months, and median overall survival was 15.0 months. CONCLUSION: Cabozantinib demonstrates preliminary anti-tumor activity and a safety profile similar to that seen with other multitargeted VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced RCC patients. Further evaluation of cabozantinib in RCC is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01100619.

PD-L1 expression in nonclear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression in nonclear-cell RCC (non-ccRCC) and its association with clinical outcomes are unknown. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens were obtained from 101 patients with non-ccRCC. PD-L1 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in both tumor cell membrane and tumor-infiltrating mononuclear cells (TIMC). PD-L1 tumor positivity was defined as ≥5% tumor cell membrane staining. For PD-L1 expression in TIMC, a combined score based on the extent of infiltrate and percentage of positive cells was used. Baseline clinico-pathological characteristics and outcome data [time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS)] were correlated with PD-L1 staining. RESULTS: Among 101 patients, 11 (10.9%) were considered PD-L1+ in tumor cells: 2/36 (5.6%) of chromophobe RCC, 5/50 (10%) of papillary RCC, 3/10 (30%) of Xp11.2 translocation RCC and 1/5 (20%) of collecting duct carcinoma. PD-L1 positivity (PD-L1+) in tumor cells was significantly associated with higher stage (P = 0.01) and grade (P = 0.03), as well as shorter OS (P < 0.001). On the other hand, PD-L1 positivity by TIMC was observed in 57 (56.4%) patients: 13/36 (36.1%) of chromophobe RCC, 30/50 (60%) of papillary RCC, 9/10 (90%) of Xp11.2 translocation RCC and 5/5 (100%) of collecting duct carcinoma. A trend toward shorter OS was observed in patients with PD-L1+ in TIMC (P = 0.08). PD-L1+ in both tumor cell membrane and TIMC cells were associated with shorter TTR (P = 0.02 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: In non-ccRCC, patients with PD-L1+ tumors appear to have worse clinical outcomes, although only PD-L1 positivity in tumor cells is associated with higher tumor stage and grade.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been approved based on registration clinical trials that have strict eligibility criteria. The clinical outcomes of patients treated with targeted agents but are ineligible for trials are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRCC patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were retrospectively deemed ineligible for clinical trials (according to commonly used inclusion/exclusion criteria) if they had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <70%, nonclear-cell histology, brain metastases, hemoglobin ≤9 g/dl, creatinine >2× the upper limit of normal, corrected calcium ≥12 mg/dl, platelet count of <100 × 10(3)/uL, or neutrophil count <1500/mm(3). RESULTS: Overall, 768 of 2210 (35%) patients in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were deemed ineligible for clinical trials by the above criteria. Between ineligible versus eligible patients, the response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival of first-line targeted therapy were 22% versus 29% (P = 0.0005), 5.2 versus 8.6 months, and 12.5 versus 28.4 months (both P < 0.0001), respectively. Second-line PFS (if applicable) was 2.8 months in the trial ineligible versus 4.3 months in the trial eligible patients (P = 0.0039). When adjusted by the IMDC prognostic categories, the HR for death between trial ineligible and trial eligible patients was 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.378-1.751, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients that are ineligible for clinical trials is substantial and their outcomes are inferior. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

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.

Prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line combination immunotherapies: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocytes are closely linked to mechanisms of action of immuno-oncology (IO) agents. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients receiving first-line IO-based combination therapy were analysed. Baseline patient characteristics, objective response rates (ORRs), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were compared. RESULTS: Of 966 patients included, 195 (20%) had lymphopenia at baseline, and they had a lower ORR (37% versus 45%; P < 0.001), shorter TTNT (10.1 months versus 24.3 months; P < 0.001), and shorter OS (30.4 months versus 48.2 months; P < 0.001). Among 125 patients with lymphopenia at baseline, 52 (42%) experienced ALC recovery at 3 months, and they had longer OS (not reached versus 30.4 months; P = 0.012). On multivariable analysis for OS, lymphopenia was an independent adverse prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.68; P < 0.001). Incorporation of lymphopenia into the IMDC criteria improved OS prediction accuracy (C-index from 0.688 to 0.707). CONCLUSIONS: Lymphopenia was observed in one-fifth of treatment-naive patients with mRCC and may serve as an indicator of unfavourable oncologic outcomes in the contemporary IO era.