Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A pharmacist based intervention to improve the care of patients with CKD: a pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers do not routinely follow guidelines for the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Multidisciplinary efforts may improve care for patients with chronic disease. Pharmacist based interventions have effectively improved management of hypertension. We performed a pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a pharmacist based quality improvement program on 1) outcomes for patients with CKD and 2) adherence to CKD guidelines in the primary care setting. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe CKD receiving primary care services at one of thirteen community-based Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics were randomized to a multifactorial intervention that included a phone-based pharmacist intervention, pharmacist-physician collaboration, patient education, and a CKD registry (n = 1070) or usual care (n = 1129). The primary process outcome was measurement of parathyroid hormone (PTH) during the one year study period. The primary clinical outcome was blood pressure (BP) control in subjects with poorly controlled hypertension at baseline. RESULTS: Among those with poorly controlled baseline BP, there was no difference in the last recorded BP or the percent at goal BP during the study period (42.0% vs. 41.2% in the control arm). Subjects in the intervention arm were more likely to have a PTH measured during the study period (46.9% vs. 16.1% in the control arm, P <0.001) and were on more classes of antihypertensive medications at the end of the study (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A one-time pharmacist based intervention proved feasible in patients with CKD. While the intervention did not improve BP control, it did improve guideline adherence and increased the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed to subjects with poorly controlled BP. These findings can inform the design of quality improvement programs and future studies which are needed to improve care of patients with CKD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01290614.

A Podcast on Platinum Eligibility and Treatment Sequencing in Platinum-Eligible Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

The treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma continues to evolve. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab has received Food and Drug Administration approval based on recent phase 3 trial data showing superior efficacy compared with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, its distinct toxicity profile may make it less suitable for some patients, and availability in some countries may be limited by cost considerations. Consequently, platinum-based chemotherapy is expected to remain an important first-line treatment option. Choice of platinum regimen (cisplatin- or carboplatin-based) is informed by assessment of clinical characteristics, including performance status, kidney function, and presence of peripheral neuropathy or heart failure. For patients without disease progression after completing platinum-based chemotherapy, avelumab first-line maintenance treatment is recommended by international guidelines. For patients who have disease progression, pembrolizumab is the preferred approach. Additionally, following results from a recent phase 3 trial, nivolumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy has also received Food and Drug Administration approval and is an additional first-line treatment option for cisplatin-eligible patients. Later-line options for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, depending on prior treatment, may include enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib (for patients with FGFR2/3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements), sacituzumab govitecan, and platinum rechallenge. For the small proportion of patients ineligible for any platinum-based chemotherapy (i.e., unsuitable for cisplatin or carboplatin), immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy with pembrolizumab or atezolizumab is a first-line treatment option, although approved agents vary between countries. In summary, this podcast discusses recent developments in the treatment landscape for advanced urothelial carcinoma, eligibility for platinum-based chemotherapy, potential first-line treatment options, and treatment sequencing. Supplementary file1 (MP4 246907 KB).

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Cancer Who Are Ineligible for Cisplatin and Treated With First-Line Enfortumab Vedotin Alone or With Pembrolizumab.

PURPOSE: Locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) affects patients' quality of life (QOL) and functioning. We describe the impact of first-line (1L) enfortumab vedotin (EV) alone or with pembrolizumab (P) on QOL/functioning/symptoms in patients with la/mUC who were cisplatin-ineligible from EV-103 Cohort K. METHODS: In this phase Ib/II trial, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to EV + P or EV monotherapy (mono). Exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, once per week for cycles 1-3, and then in every cycle through the end of treatment. Changes in scores from baseline to week 24, reported as least squares mean (standard error), were assessed by mixed models for repeated measures. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: Of 149 patients treated, 65 (EV + P) and 63 (EV mono) comprised the PRO analysis set. For EV + P, EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL was maintained through week 24 with improvements in emotional functioning, pain, and insomnia. Clinically meaningful improvements were seen in EORTC QLQ-C30 pain after EV + P at weeks 12 (-14.41 [3.14]) and 24 (-14.99 [3.56]) and BPI-SF worst pain at week 24 (-2.07 [0.37]). For EV mono, EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL remained stable with clinically meaningful improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-12.55 [4.27]), insomnia (-14.46 [4.69]), and constipation (-10.09 [4.35]) at week 24. There were small-to-moderate improvements in BPI-SF worst pain at week 24. CONCLUSION: EV + P in patients with la/mUC who were cisplatin-ineligible was associated with preservation or improvement of QOL/functioning/symptoms. Improvement in pain was seen in both PRO instruments and treatment arms. These data complement clinical outcomes of 1L EV + P.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Immune-related Adverse Effects Associated with Programmed Death-1 Inhibitor Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Incidence, Management, and Effect on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors may improve survival outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients but are associated with immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). Management of IRAEs may include immunosuppression (ie, corticosteroids), but there is concern that this may affect efficacy. This study evaluated the influence of IRAEs and immunosuppression for IRAEs on survival outcomes of NSCLC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab and nivolumab). METHODS: We retrospectively examined data from Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California members diagnosed with NSCLC who received a PD-1 inhibitor from March 1, 2011 to September 30, 2016. Our primary goal was to evaluate the effects and management of IRAEs on survival with PD-1 inhibitors. Electronic database records were used to identify the occurrence of IRAEs, medication utilization, and death. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate variables for association with increased risk of death. RESULTS: A total of 662 patients were included in the study (median age = 68 years) (interquartile range 61-74). IRAEs were identified in 18% of patients, of which 62% received immunosuppression. Median overall survival was 10 months (interquartile range = 4 months to not reached). Adjusting for covariates, use of immunosuppression during PD-1 inhibitor treatment was not associated with a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval = 0.84-1.29), whereas corticosteroid use before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy was (hazard ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval = 1.14-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world cohort from an integrated healthcare system, use of corticosteroids prior to PD-1 inhibitors was associated with worse survival outcomes, whereas concomitant treatment was not.