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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed. RESULTS: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

Association of C-reactive protein with efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an important prognostic and predictive factor in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report the association of CRP levels at baseline and early after treatment with efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib from the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were categorized into normal (baseline CRP <10 mg/l), normalized (baseline CRP ≥10 mg/l and ≥1 CRP value decreased to <10 mg/l during 6-week treatment), and non-normalized (CRP ≥10 mg/l at baseline and during 6-week treatment) CRP groups. Progression-free survival and best overall response from the second interim analysis and overall survival (OS) from the third interim analysis were assessed. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, respectively, 234, 51, and 108 patients and 232, 36, and 128 patients were categorized into normal, normalized, and non-normalized CRP groups. In respective CRP groups, objective response rates [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 56.0% (49.4% to 62.4%), 66.7% (52.1% to 79.2%), and 45.4% (35.8% to 55.2%) with avelumab plus axitinib and 30.6% (24.7% to 37.0%), 41.7% (25.5% to 59.2%), and 19.5% (13.1% to 27.5%) with sunitinib; complete response rates were 3.8%, 11.8%, and 0.9% and 3.0%, 0%, and 1.6%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 15.2 months (12.5-21.0 months), not reached (NR) [11.1 months-not estimable (NE)], and 7.0 months (5.6-9.9 months) with avelumab plus axitinib and 11.2 months (8.4-13.9 months), 11.2 months (6.7-13.8 months), and 4.2 months (2.8-5.6 months) with sunitinib; median OS (95% CI) was NR (42.2 months-NE), NR (30.4 months-NE), and 23.0 months (18.4-33.1 months) and NR (39.0 months-NE), 39.8 months (21.7-NE), and 19.1 months (16.3-25.3 months), respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that normalized or non-normalized CRP levels were independent factors for the prediction of objective response rate or OS, respectively, with avelumab plus axitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with aRCC, CRP levels at baseline and early after treatment may predict efficacy with avelumab plus axitinib.

COVID-19 in patients with cancer: first report of the ESMO international, registry-based, cohort study (ESMO-CoCARE).

BACKGROUND: ESMO COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international collaborative registry-based, cohort study gathering real-world data from Europe, Asia/Oceania and Africa on the natural history, management and outcomes of patients with cancer infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ESMO-CoCARE captures information on patients with solid/haematological malignancies, diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data collected since June 2020 include demographics, comorbidities, laboratory measurements, cancer characteristics, COVID-19 clinical features, management and outcome. Parameters influencing COVID-19 severity/recovery were investigated as well as factors associated with overall survival (OS) upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: This analysis includes 1626 patients from 20 countries (87% from 24 European, 7% from 5 North African, 6% from 8 Asian/Oceanian centres), with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 to May 2021. Median age was 64 years, with 52% of female, 57% of cancer stage III/IV and 65% receiving active cancer treatment. Nearly 64% patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis, with 11% receiving intensive care. In multivariable analysis, male sex, older age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2, presence of comorbidities, symptomatic disease, as well as haematological malignancies, active/progressive cancer, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥6 and OnCovid Inflammatory Score ≤40 were associated with COVID-19 severity (i.e. severe/moderate disease requiring hospitalization). About 98% of patients with mild COVID-19 recovered, as opposed to 71% with severe/moderate disease. Advanced cancer stage was an additional adverse prognostic factor for recovery. At data cut-off, and with median follow-up of 3 months, the COVID-19-related death rate was 24.5% (297/1212), with 380 deaths recorded in total. Almost all factors associated with COVID-19 severity, except for BMI and NLR, were also predictive of inferior OS, along with smoking and non-Asian ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patient and cancer characteristics related to sex, ethnicity, poor fitness, comorbidities, inflammation and active malignancy predict for severe/moderate disease and adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

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.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, efficacy in elderly patients remains unclear. We report efficacy and safety by age group from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and ORR as per blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety were assessed in patient groups aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively, were randomized. At data cut-off (January 2019), median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in these respective age groups was 11.6 (8.4-19.4) versus 6.9 (5.6-8.4) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.63; 95% CI 0.501-0.786], 13.8 (11.1-18.0) versus 11.0 (7.8-16.6) months (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.627-1.231), and 13.8 [7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 9.8 (4.3-NE) months (HR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.378-1.511). Median OS (95% CI) in the respective age groups was not reached (NR) (NE-NE) versus 28.6 (25.5-NE) months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.541-1.022), 30.0 (30.0-NE) versus NR (NE-NE) months (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.546-1.467), and 25.3 (19.9-NE) versus NR (19.4-NE) months (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.359-2.106). ORR (95% CI) in the respective age groups was 49.4% (43.3% to 55.6%) versus 27.3% (22.1% to 32.9%), 60.9% (52.2% to 69.1%) versus 28.9% (21.2% to 37.6%), and 42.4% (25.5% to 60.8%) versus 22.0% (10.6% to 37.6%). In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs occurred in 76.9%/81.2%/72.7% and 45.5%/48.1%/36.4% in the respective age groups. CONCLUSIONS: First-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years. OS data were still immature; follow-up is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent across age groups.

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.

Efficacy and correlative analyses of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), those with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have the poorest prognosis. This analysis assessed the efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced sRCC. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib following standard doses and schedules. Assessments in this post hoc analysis of patients with sRCC included efficacy (including progression-free survival) and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had sarcomatoid histology and were included in this post hoc analysis; 47 patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 61 in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved progression-free survival [stratified hazard ratio, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.325-1.003)] and a higher objective response rate (46.8% versus 21.3%; complete response in 4.3% versus 0%) versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative gene expression analyses of patients with sRCC showed enrichment of gene pathway scores for cancer-associated fibroblasts and regulatory T cells, CD274 and CD8A expression, and tumors with The Cancer Genome Atlas m3 classification. CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, patients with sRCC in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved efficacy outcomes versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative analyses provide insight into this subtype of RCC and suggest that avelumab plus axitinib may increase the chance of overcoming the aggressive features of sRCC.

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.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Objectives: In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting. Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment. Results: The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35. Conclusions: Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

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.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in MITF family translocation renal cell carcinomas and genetic correlates of exceptional responders.

BACKGROUND: Microphthalmia Transcription Factor (MITF)family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare RCC subtype harboring TFE3/TFEB translocations. The prognosis in the metastatic (m) setting is poor. Programmed death ligand-1 expression was reported in 90% of cases, prompting us to analyze the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study identified patients with MITF family mtRCC who had received an ICI in any of 12 referral centers in France or the USA. Response rate according to RECIST criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Genomic alterations associated with response were determined for 8 patients. RESULTS: Overall, 24 patients with metastatic disease who received an ICI as second or later line of treatment were identified. Nineteen (82.6%) of these patients had received a VEGFR inhibitor as first-line treatment, with a median PFS of 3 months (range, 1-22 months). The median PFS for patients during first ICI treatment was 2.5 months (range, 1-40 months); 4 patients experienced partial response (16,7%) and 3 (12,5%) had stable disease. Of the patients whose genomic alterations were analyzed, two patients with mutations in bromodomain-containing genes (PBRM1 and BRD8) had a clinical benefit. Resistant clones in a patient with exceptional response to ipilimumab showed loss of BRD8 mutations and increased mutational load driven by parallel evolution affecting 17 genes (median mutations per gene, 3), which were enriched mainly for O-glycan processing (29.4%, FDR = 9.7 × 10- 6). CONCLUSIONS: MITF family tRCC is an aggressive disease with similar responses to ICIs as clear-cell RCC. Mutations in bromodomain-containing genes might be associated with clinical benefit. The unexpected observation about parallel evolution of genes involved in O-glycosylation as a mechanism of resistance to ICI warrants exploration.

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.