The Immunogenomic Landscape of Peripheral High-Dose IL-2 Pharmacodynamics in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Benchmark for Next-Generation IL-2-Based Immunotherapies.

High-dose (HD) IL-2 was the first immuno-oncology agent approved for treating advanced renal cell carcinoma and metastatic melanoma, but its use was limited because of substantial toxicities. Multiple next-generation IL-2 agents are being developed to improve tolerability. However, a knowledge gap still exists for the genomic markers that define the target pharmacology for HD IL-2 itself. In this retrospective observational study, we collected PBMC samples from 23 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with HD IL-2 between 2009 and 2015. We previously reported the results of flow cytometry analyses. In this study, we report the results of our RNA-sequencing immunogenomic survey, which was performed on bulk PBMC samples from immediately before (day 1), during (day 3), and after treatment (day 5) in cycle 1 and/or cycle 2 of the first course of HD IL-2. As part of a detailed analysis of immunogenomic response to HD IL-2 treatment, we analyzed the changes in individual genes and immune gene signatures. By day 3, most lymphoid cell types had transiently decreased, whereas myeloid transcripts increased. Although most genes and/or signatures generally returned to pretreatment expression levels by day 5, certain ones representative of B cell, NK cell, and T cell proliferation and effector functions continued to increase, along with B cell (but not T cell) oligoclonal expansion. Regulatory T cells progressively expanded during and after treatment. They showed strong negative correlation with myeloid effector cells. This detailed RNA-sequencing immunogenomic survey of IL-2 pharmacology complements results of prior flow cytometry analyses. These data provide valuable pharmacological context for assessing PBMC gene expression data from patients dosed with IL-2-related compounds that are currently in development.

Clinical outcomes of adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage III melanoma: comparison of CheckMate 238 trial and real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Nivolumab is approved as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma based on the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial. This analysis compared outcomes from CheckMate 238 with those from the real-world Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab. MATERIALS: Outcomes included baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS) in the CheckMate 238 cohort (randomization until death or last known alive), and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in the Flatiron Health cohort (nivolumab initiation until death or data cutoff). rwOS was compared with OS using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was combined with the adjusted model to reduce baseline discrepancies. RESULTS: The CheckMate 238 and real-world cohorts included 369 and 452 patients, respectively (median age, 56.0 and 63.0 years; median follow-up, 61.4 vs. 25.5 months). rwOS was not different from OS in the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 0.92-1.74), adjusted (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.67-1.54), and adjusted IPTW (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.63) analyses. In the adjusted analysis, 2-year OS and rwOS rates were 84%. Median OS and rwOS were not reached. After IPTW, OS and rwOS were not different (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, OS in the CheckMate 238 trial was similar to rwOS in the Flatiron Health database after adjustments in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab, validating the trial results.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Nivolumab monotherapy or combination with ipilimumab with or without cobimetinib in previously treated patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 032).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancer types and represents a major unmet medical need. CheckMate 032 investigated safety and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without cobimetinib in advanced/metastatic solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In the original pancreatic cancer cohort, previously treated patients (≥1 prior regimen) with advanced/metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were assigned to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (monotherapy arm) or nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm). A subsequent modified pancreatic cohort (one or two prior regimens) received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, and cobimetinib 60 mg orally once daily for 21 days on and 7 days off (triplet arm). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), PFS rate, overall survival (OS), OS rate, safety, and tolerability. Additionally, ORR, PFS, and duration of response were assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the triplet arm. RESULTS: 18 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 21 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and 30 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cobimetinib. In the triplet arm, partial responses were observed in two patients per investigator (ORR 6.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 22.1%)) and in three patients per BICR (ORR 10% (95% CI 2.1% to 26.5%)); no responses were observed in the other arms. Median (95% CI) PFS per investigator was 1.4 (1.3 to 2.0), 1.4 (1.2 to 2.7), and 3.0 (1.5 to 4.1) months for the monotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and triplet arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was 5.1 (2.0 to 9.0) months, 4.0 (1.9 to 5.6) months, and 6.2 (3.9 to 11.4) months, respectively. Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 2 or less. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab did not elicit objective responses in previously treated patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, although three confirmed partial responses and manageable safety were observed with cobimetinib-containing triplet therapy. The small sample size and differences in baseline disease-specific characteristics between arms limit interpretation of these results.

Distinct Predictive Immunogenomic Profiles of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and IL2: A Real-world Evidence Study of Patients with Advanced Renal Cancer.

Recombinant human high-dose IL2 (HD-IL2; aldesleukin) was one of the first approved immune-oncology agents based upon clinical activity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and metastatic melanoma but use was limited due to severe toxicity. Next-generation IL2 agents designed to improve tolerability are in development, increasing the need for future identification of genomic markers of clinical benefit and/or clinical response. In this retrospective study, we report clinical and tumor molecular profiling from patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) treated with HD-IL2 and compare findings with patients with RCC treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Genomic characteristics common and unique to IL2 and/or anti-PD-1 therapy response are presented, with insight into rational combination strategies for these agents. Residual pretreatment formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor samples from n = 36 patients with HD-IL2 mRCC underwent RNA-sequencing and corresponding clinical data were collected. A de novo 40-gene nearest centroid IL2 treatment response classifier and individual gene and/or immune marker signature differences were correlated to clinical response and placed into context with a separate dataset of n = 35 patients with anti-PD-1 mRCC. Immune signatures and genes, comprising suppressor and effector cells, were increased in patients with HD-IL2 clinical benefit. The 40-gene response classifier was also highly enriched for immune genes. While several effector immune signatures and genes were common between IL2 and anti-PD-1 treated patients, multiple inflammatory and/or immunosuppressive genes, previously reported to predict poor response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy, were only increased in IL2-responsive tumors. These findings suggest that common and distinct immune-related response markers for IL2 and anti-PD-1 therapy may help guide their use, either alone or in combination. Significance: Next-generation IL2 agents, designed for improved tolerability over traditional HD-IL2 (aldesleukin), are in clinical development. Retrospective molecular tumor profiling of patients treated with HD-IL2 or anti-PD-1 therapy provides insights into genomic characteristics of therapy response. This study revealed common and distinct immune-related predictive response markers for IL2 and anti-PD-1 therapy which may play a role in therapy guidance, and rational combination strategies for these agents.

Venous thromboembolism incidence and risk factors in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence and predictive factors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) across first-line therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate VTE incidence rates and identify predictive factors in NSCLC patients receiving first-line systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). PATIENTS/METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective study of adult NSCLC patients who received first-line treatment, including chemotherapy, ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab), and/or targeted therapies (TTs) (erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib). Risk factors included Khorana score, cancer stage, central venous catheter, pacemaker, comorbidities, and prior VTE. The primary objective - cumulative incidence of VTE at 6- and 12-months by treatment group - was compared using Gray's test. Univariable and multivariable competing risk analyses were used to identify predictors. RESULTS: Of 1587 evaluable patients, 53% were male, 79% white, 18% black, median age was 66; 58% had adenocarcinoma, 32% squamous cell carcinoma, and 47% metastatic disease; 1043 received chemotherapy, 171 ICIs, 157 chemotherapy plus concomitant ICI, 107 chemotherapy and durvalumab maintenance, and 109 TTs. The 6-month cumulative incidence of VTE by treatment type was 5.0%, 7.6%, 9.9%, 9.4%, and 11.1%; 12-month incidence was 6.5%, 9.0%, 12.8%, 12.2%, and 13.1% per arm, respectively (p = 0.01). Treatment type (p = 0.034) and nicotine dependence (p = 0.048) were significantly associated with time to VTE in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: Treatment type and smoking status were predictive of time to VTE in NSCLC patients receiving various first-line therapies. Cumulative incidence was highest in those receiving TTs and combination chemotherapy plus ICI.

Long-term progression-free survival of patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cell carcinoma following high-dose interleukin-2.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved in the 1990s after demonstrating durable complete responses (CRs) in some patients with metastatic melanoma (mM) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients who achieve this level of disease control have also demonstrated improved survival compared with patients who progress, but limited data are available describing the long-term course. The aim of this study was to better characterize long-term survival following successful HD IL-2 treatment in patients with no subsequent systemic therapy. Eleven HD IL-2 treatment centers identified patients with survival ≥5 years after HD IL-2, with no subsequent systemic therapy. Survival was evaluated from the date of IL-2 treatment to June 2017. Treatment courses consisted of 2 1-week cycles of HD IL-2. Patients were treated with HD IL-2 alone, or HD IL-2 followed by local therapy to achieve maximal response. 100 patients are reported: 54 patients with mM and 46 patients with mRCC. Progression-free survival (PFS) after HD IL-2 ranges from 5+ years to 30+ years, with a median follow-up of 10+ years. 27 mRCC and 32 mM are alive ≥10 years after IL-2. Thus, a small subset of patients with mM and mRCC achieve long-term PFS (≥5 years) after treatment with HD IL-2 as their only systemic therapy. The ability of HD IL-2 therapy to induce prolonged PFS should be a major consideration in studies of new immunotherapy combinations for mM and mRCC.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab for Patients With Resectable Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the CheckMate 358 Trial.

PURPOSE: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer commonly driven by the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). The programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunosuppressive pathway is often upregulated in MCC, and advanced metastatic MCC frequently responds to PD-1 blockade. We report what we believe to be the first trial of anti-PD-1 in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable MCC. METHODS: In the phase I/II CheckMate 358 study of virus-associated cancer types, patients with resectable MCC received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously on days 1 and 15. Surgery was planned on day 29. Tumor regression was assessed radiographically and microscopically. Tumor MCPyV status, PD-L1 expression, and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were assessed in pretreatment tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIA-IV resectable MCC received ≥ 1 nivolumab dose. Three patients (7.7%) did not undergo surgery because of tumor progression (n = 1) or adverse events (n = 2). Any-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18 patients (46.2%), and grade 3-4 events in 3 patients (7.7%), with no unexpected toxicities. Among 36 patients who underwent surgery, 17 (47.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). Among 33 radiographically evaluable patients who underwent surgery, 18 (54.5%) had tumor reductions ≥ 30%. Responses were observed regardless of tumor MCPyV, PD-L1, or TMB status. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months, median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were not reached. RFS significantly correlated with pCR and radiographic response at the time of surgery. No patient with a pCR had tumor relapse during observation. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab administered approximately 4 weeks before surgery in MCC was generally tolerable and induced pCRs and radiographic tumor regressions in approximately one half of treated patients. These early markers of response significantly predicted improved RFS. Additional investigation of these promising findings is warranted.

Intracranial antitumor activity with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with melanoma brain metastases: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Sixty percent of patients with stage IV melanoma may develop brain metastases, which result in significantly increased morbidity and a poor overall prognosis. Phase 3 studies of melanoma usually exclude patients with untreated brain metastases; therefore, clinical data for intracranial responses to treatments are limited. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective case series investigation of consecutive BRAF-mutant patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) treated with a combination of BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and MEK inhibitor binimetinib was conducted to evaluate the antitumor response. Assessments included the intracranial, extracranial, and global objective response rates (according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1); the clinical benefit rate; the time to response; the duration of response; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant MBMs treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in 3 centers in the United States were included. Patients had received a median of 2.5 prior lines of treatment, and 88% had prior treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The intracranial objective response rate was 33%, and the clinical benefit rate was 63%. The median time to a response was 6 weeks, and the median duration of response was 22 weeks. Among the 21 patients with MBMs and prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment, the intracranial objective response rate was 24%, and the clinical benefit rate was 57%. Similar outcomes were observed for extracranial and global responses. The safety profile for encorafenib plus binimetinib was similar to that observed in patients with melanoma without brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with encorafenib plus binimetinib elicited intracranial activity in patients with BRAF-mutant MBMs, including patients previously treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Further prospective studies are warranted and ongoing.

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. METHODS: Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8-7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1-8.3). Twenty-four-month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.

Spectrum and prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline mutations in Pakistani breast cancer patients: results from a large comprehensive study.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) account for the majority of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers worldwide. To refine the spectrum of BRCA1/2 mutations and to accurately estimate the prevalence of mutation in the Pakistani population, we studied 539 breast cancer patients selected for family history and age of diagnosis. METHODS: Comprehensive screening for BRCA1/2 germline mutations was performed using state-of-the-art technologies. RESULTS: A total of 133 deleterious mutations were identified in 539 families (24.7%), comprising 110 in BRCA1 and 23 in BRCA2. The prevalence of BRCA1/2 small-range mutations and large genomic rearrangements was 55.4% (36/65) for families with breast and ovarian cancer, 27.4% (67/244) for families with two or more cases of breast cancer, 18.5% (5/27) for families with male breast cancer, and 12.3% (25/203) for families with a single case of early-onset breast cancer. Nine mutations were specific to the Pakistani population. Eighteen mutations in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2 were recurrent and accounted for 68.2% (75/110) and 34.8% (8/23) of all identified mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Most of these mutations were exclusive to a specific ethnic group and may result from founder effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that BRCA1/2 mutations account for one in four cases of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, one in five cases of male breast cancer, and one in eight cases of early-onset breast cancer in Pakistan. Our study suggests genetic testing of an extended panel of 21 recurrent BRCA1/2 mutations for appropriately selected patients and their families in Pakistan.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Correction to: Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in combination with sunitinib or pazopanib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the CheckMate 016 study.

.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Rather than Colonoscopy Is Adequate for the Diagnosis of Ipilimumab-Associated Colitis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment with ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 approved for metastatic melanoma can result in clinically significant immune-mediated drug injury in the form of colitis. Timely diagnosis and response are essential for optimal management. The aims of our study were to determine the percentage of our patients with ipilimumab-associated colitis in which the colitis could be diagnosed by flexible sigmoidoscopy only and to describe the variations in endoscopic and histologic findings as well as the patients' clinical courses. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 244 patients with metastatic melanoma, treated them with ipilimumab, and characterized the endoscopic and histologic features for those who developed colitis. RESULTS: Of the 68 patients who presented with diarrhea, 33 were diagnosed as having ipilimumab-associated colitis. Endoscopically, all of them had involvement of the left side of the colon; none of the patients were noted to have isolated right colon involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab-associated colitis can be diagnosed with a flexible sigmoidoscopy alone, obviating the need for full colonoscopy.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in combination with sunitinib or pazopanib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the CheckMate 016 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented. METHODS: Patients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Arm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081 . Registered 16 November 2011.

SD-101 in Combination with Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma: Results of a Phase Ib, Multicenter Study.

PD-1 inhibitors are approved for treating advanced melanoma, but resistance has been observed. This phase Ib trial evaluated intratumoral SD-101, a synthetic CpG oligonucleotide that stimulates Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9), in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic malignant melanoma. The most common adverse events related to SD-101 were injection-site reactions and transient, mild-to-moderate "flu-like" symptoms. Among the 9 patients naïve to anti-PD-1 therapy, the overall response rate (ORR) was 78%. The estimated 12-month progression-free survival rate was 88%, and the overall survival rate was 89%. Among 13 patients having prior anti-PD-1 therapy, the ORR was 15%. RNA profiling of tumor biopsies demonstrated increased CD8+ T cells, natural killer cells, cytotoxic cells, dendritic cells, and B cells. The combination of intratumoral SD-101 and pembrolizumab was well tolerated and induced broad immune activation in the tumor microenvironment with durable tumor responses in both peripheral and visceral lesions.Significance: These early data demonstrate that the combination of pembrolizumab with intratumoral SD-101 is well tolerated and can induce immune activation at the tumor site. Combining an intratumoral TLR9 innate immune stimulant with PD-1 blockade can potentially increase clinical efficacy with minimal additional toxicity relative to PD-1 blockade alone. Cancer Discov; 8(10); 1250-7. ©2018 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1195.

First-line vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma: priming the tumor microenvironment for immunotherapy.

Despite improved outcomes with systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the majority of patients will eventually develop treatment resistance and disease progression. With the emergence of checkpoint inhibitors as potential treatment approaches, studies suggest that ideally combining or sequencing them with VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may provide more effective treatments that reduce or delay disease progression. Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests that VEGFR-TKIs can reverse immunosuppressive effects in the tumor microenvironment, potentially enhancing the effects of subsequent immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors. However, questions remain regarding the most effective treatment sequences or combinations with VEGFR-TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors. This review discusses the potential role of first-line VEGFR-TKIs in priming the tumor microenvironment for immunotherapy.

The Evolving Landscape of Immunotherapy-Based Combinations for Frontline Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Insights into the biology of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and the development of agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway have positively impacted the outcomes for patients with aRCC. With the recent approval of the dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), nivolumab and ipilimumab, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the era of VEGF monotherapy for untreated aRCC appears to be coming to an end for patients with access to the combination therapy. The frontline treatment options for renal cell carcinoma are evolving rapidly and will lead to the approval of other combination immunotherapies-especially those with VEGF inhibitors. Here we review the clinical data for dual immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as the emerging data for ICI plus VEGF inhibitor combinations and discuss the challenges these will pose for the clinical practitioner.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.