Cabozantinib-nivolumab sequence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CABIR study.

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS2-3 and OS2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFSL3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

BIONIKK: A phase 2 biomarker driven trial with nivolumab and ipilimumab or VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in naïve metastatic kidney cancer.

BACKGROUND: The nivolumab-ipilimumab combination provides an overall response rate of 42% in first-line metastatic treatment of clear cell renal carcinoma (mccRCC). To date, there is no robust predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). In addition, severe autoimmune disorders occur more frequently with ICI combination than with ICI alone. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of ICI alone or in combination in patients according to tumor molecular characteristics. METHODS: Using a 35-gene expression mRNA signature, patients were divided into 4 molecular groups (1 to 4). Patients in groups 1 and 4 were randomized to receive nivolumab alone (arms 1A and 4A) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 injections followed by nivolumab alone (arms 1B and 4B). Patients in groups 2 and 3 were randomized to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab alone (arms 2B and 3B) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (sunitinib or pazopanib at the investigator's choice (arms 2C and 3C)). The main objective is the overall response rate by treatment and molecular group. DISCUSSION: BIONIKK is the first trial in mccRCC to study the personalization of treatment with ICI or TKI according to tumor molecular characteristics in mccRCC. This trial is the most appropriate to prospectively identify biomarkers of response to nivolumab used alone or in combination or TKI monotherapy in patients with mccRCC. NCT02960906.

Open-label phase II to evaluate the efficacy of NEoadjuvant dose-dense MVAC In cOmbination with durvalumab and tremelimumab in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: NEMIO.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, 60-70% of patients have residual tumor after NAC. Based on the overall response rate observed in the metastatic setting, ddMVAC is the most commonly used NAC regimen in Europe. The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in the metastatic setting raises the question if the combination of chemo plus ICI could increase the pCR rate. METHODS/DESIGN: NEMIO is a French open-label randomized phase I/II trial assessing in the neoadjuvant setting the combination of ddMVAC plus durvalumab alone or with tremelimumab: 4 cycles of ddMVAC/2 weeks + 2 cycles of Durvalumab +/- Tremelimumab/4 weeks. Cystectomy is performed 4-8 weeks after the last dose of ddMVAC. Six pts will be included in each arm in a safety run-in cohort to evaluate the toxicity rate. Each arm will be expanded to a maximum of 60 pts. The primary endpoint of the safety run-in phase will be the rate of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events G3/4 TRAE. The primary endpoint of the phase II will be the pathological response rate and G 3/4 TRAE. Exploratory endpoints will include biomarkers of response and resistance to the combo. A total of 120 patients will be included in 15 French centers and we expect the recruitment to be completed in 2021. DISCUSSION: NEMIO trial will assess for the first time the tolerance and the efficacy of ddMVAC regimen associated with checkpoints inhibitors as neoadjuvant treatment in localized MIBC. NCT number: NCT03549715. Registered on June 8, 2018.

EULAR recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The authors aim to develop European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis, to identify a research agenda and to determine an educational agenda. METHODS: A task force made up of a multidisciplinary expert panel including nurses, rheumatologists, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, psychologist, epidemiologist and patient representatives, representing 14 European countries, carried out the development of the recommendations, following the European League Against Rheumatism standardised operating procedures. The task force met twice. In the first meeting, the aims of the task force were defined, and eight research questions were developed. This was followed by a comprehensive, systematic literature search. In the second meeting, the results from the literature review were presented to the task force that subsequently formulated the recommendations, research agenda and educational agenda. RESULTS: In total, 10 recommendations were formulated. Seven recommendations covered the contribution of nurses to care and management: education, satisfaction with care, access to care, disease management, psychosocial support, self-management and efficiency of care. Three recommendations focused on professional support for nurses: availability of guidelines or protocols, access to education and encouragement to undertake extended roles. The strength of the recommendations varied from A to C, dependent on the category of evidence (1A-3), and a high level of agreement was achieved. Additionally, the task force agreed upon 10 topics for future research and an educational agenda. CONCLUSION: 10 recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis were developed using a combination of evidence-based and expert consensus approach.