A Phase II Trial of the CD40 Agonistic Antibody Sotigalimab (APX005M) in Combination with Nivolumab in Subjects with Metastatic Melanoma with Confirmed Disease Progression on Anti-PD-1 Therapy.

PURPOSE: Disease progression during or after anti-PD-1-based treatment is common in advanced melanoma. Sotigalimab is a CD40 agonist antibody with a unique epitope specificity and Fc receptor binding profile optimized for activation of CD40-expressing antigen-presenting cells. Preclinical data indicated that CD40 agonists combined with anti-PD1 could overcome resistance to anti-PD-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase II trial to evaluate the combination of sotigalimab 0.3 mg/kg and nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma following confirmed disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled and evaluable for safety. Thirty-three were evaluable for activity. Five confirmed partial responses (PR) were observed for an ORR of 15%. Two PRs are ongoing at 45.9+ and 26+ months, whereas the other three responders relapsed at 41.1, 18.7, and 18.4 months. The median duration of response was at least 26 months. Two additional patients had stable disease for >6 months. Thirty-four patients (89%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE), and 13% experienced a grade 3 AE related to sotigalimab. The most common AEs were pyrexia, chills, nausea, fatigue, pruritus, elevated liver function, rash, vomiting, headache, arthralgia, asthenia, myalgia, and diarrhea. There were no treatment-related SAEs, deaths, or discontinuation of sotigalimab due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Sotigalimab plus nivolumab had a favorable safety profile consistent with the toxicity profiles of each agent. The combination resulted in durable and prolonged responses in a subset of patients with anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma, warranting further evaluation in this setting. See related commentary by Wu and Luke, p. 9.

SALVO: Single-Arm Trial of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab as Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Mucosal Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using "flip dose" ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. RESULTS: From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%-66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%-55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%-95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%-83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7-25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

Incorporating radioligand therapy in clinical practice in the United States for patients with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Advanced PC evolves to metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). Theranostics combining prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted positron emission tomography imaging and radioligand therapy (RLT) represents a precision medicine approach to PC treatment. With the recent approval of lutetium Lu 177 (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan for men with mCRPC, the utilization of RLT will increase. In this review, we suggest a framework for incorporating RLT for PC into clinical practice. A search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed using keywords related to PC, RLT, prostate-specific membrane antigen, and novel RLT centers. The authors also provided opinions based on their clinical experience. The setup and operation of an RLT center requires the diligence and cooperation of a well-trained multidisciplinary team committed to patient safety and clinical efficacy. Administrative systems should ensure that treatment scheduling, reimbursement, and patient monitoring are efficient. For optimal outcomes, the clinical care team must have an organizational plan that delineates the full range of required tasks. Establishing new RLT centers for treatment of PC is possible with appropriate multidisciplinary planning. We provide an overview of the key elements to consider when establishing a safe, efficient, and high-quality RLT center.

Concurrent durvalumab and radiation therapy (DUART) followed by adjuvant durvalumab in patients with localized urothelial cancer of bladder: results from phase II study, BTCRC-GU15-023.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bladder cancer (BC) who are cisplatin ineligible or have unresectable disease have limited treatment options. Previously, we showed targeting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with durvalumab (durva) and radiation therapy (RT) combination was safe in BC. We now report results from a phase II study evaluating the toxicity and efficacy of durva and RT in localized BC. METHODS: This is a single-arm, multi-institutional phase II study; N=26. Enrolled patients had pure or mixed urothelial BC (T2-4 N0-2 M0) with unresectable tumors and were unfit for surgery or cisplatin ineligible. Patients received durva concurrently with RT ×7 weeks, followed by adjuvant durva × 1 year. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: (A) progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year and (B) disease control rate (DCR) post adjuvant durva. Key secondary endpoints: (A) complete response (CR) post durvaRT (8 weeks), (B) overall survival (OS), (C) PFS and (D) toxicity. Correlative studies included evaluation of baseline tumor and blood (baseline, post durvaRT) for biomarkers. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 27 months. Evaluable patients: 24/26 post durvaRT, 22/26 for DCR post adjuvant durva, all patients for PFS and OS. Post adjuvant durva, DCR was seen in 72.7%, CR of 54.5%. 1-year PFS was 71.5%, median PFS was 21.8 months. 1-year OS was 83.8%, median OS was 30.8 months. CR at 8 weeks post durvaRT was 62.5%. Node positive (N+) patients had similar median PFS and OS. DurvaRT was well tolerated. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events: anemia, high lipase/amylase, immune-nephritis, transaminitis, dyspnea (grade 4-COPD/immune), fatigue, rash, diarrhea and scleritis. No difference in outcome was observed with PD-L1 status of baseline tumor. Patients with CR/PR or SD had an increase in naïve CD4 T cells, a decrease in PD-1+CD4 T cells at baseline and an increase in cytokine-producing CD8 T cells, including interferon gamma (IFNγ) producing cells, in the peripheral blood. CONCLUSION: Durva with RT followed by adjuvant durva was safe with promising efficacy in localized BC patients with comorbidities, including N+ patients. Larger randomized studies, like S1806 and EA8185, are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combining immunotherapy and RT in BC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02891161.

A Phase I Study of Capivasertib in Combination With Abiraterone Acetate in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although androgen receptor-targeted agents prolong the lives of patients with metastatic prostate cancer, patients develop therapy resistance and most ultimately succumb to the disease. The PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway has been associated with the development of resistance, raising the possibility that pathway inhibitors may produce a clinical benefit. This open-label phase Ib study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary clinical activity of adding capivasertib - a potent, selective inhibitor of AKT1/2/3 - to approved abiraterone acetate therapy. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had undergone at least 1 prior line of systemic therapy received abiraterone acetate 1000 mg (orally administered once daily), plus oral prednisone 5 mg (twice daily) with capivasertib 400 mg (orally, twice daily, with an intermittent schedule of 4 days on, 3 days off). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. The most frequent adverse events (all grade) were diarrhea (30%), anemia (26%), asthenia (22%), and nausea (22%). The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were acute kidney injury (19%), hyperglycemia (7%), rash (7%), abdominal pain (7%), and asthenia (7%). Capivasertib and abiraterone PK were consistent with previously reported results from monotherapy dosing. Nine participants (33%) showed a 20% or greater decrease in prostate-specific antigen during study treatment. CONCLUSION: The combination of capivasertib and abiraterone acetate had an acceptable tolerability profile consistent with the known profile of each agent. These data support further evaluation of capivasertib and abiraterone acetate in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations for the management of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic literature review to obtain evidence to guide treatment recommendations. RESULTS: The panel considered peer-reviewed reports published in English. RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnosis of metastatic ccRCC should be made using tissue biopsy of the primary tumor or a metastatic site with the inclusion of markers and/or stains to support the diagnosis. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria should be used to inform treatment. Cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to select patients with kidney-in-place and favorable- or intermediate-risk disease. For those who have already had a nephrectomy, an initial period of active surveillance may be offered if they are asymptomatic with a low burden of disease. Patients with favorable-risk disease who need systemic therapy may be offered an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI); patients with intermediate or poor risk should be offered a doublet regimen (no recommendation was provided between ICIs or an ICI in combination with a VEGFR TKI). For select patients, monotherapy with either an ICI or a VEGFR TKI may be offered on the basis of comorbidities. Interleukin-2 remains an option, although selection criteria could not be identified. Recommendations are also provided for second- and subsequent-line therapy as well as the treatment of bone metastases, brain metastases, or the presence of sarcomatoid features. Participation in clinical trials is highly encouraged for patients with metastatic ccRCC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

Phase II Clinical and Translational Study of Everolimus ± Paclitaxel as First-Line Therapy in Cisplatin-Ineligible Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options have been historically limited for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Given the need for alternatives to platinum-based chemotherapy, including non-chemotherapy regimens for patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status, in 2010 (prior to the immune checkpoint blockade era in metastatic UC), we initiated a phase II trial to test the activity of everolimus or everolimus plus paclitaxel in the cisplatin-ineligible setting. METHODS: This was an open-label phase II trial conducted within the US-based Hoosier Cancer Research Network (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01215136). Patients who were cisplatin-ineligible with previously untreated advanced UC were enrolled. Patients with both impaired renal function and poor performance status were enrolled into cohort 1; patients with either were enrolled into cohort 2. Patients received everolimus 10 mg daily alone (cohort 1) or with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cohort 2). The primary outcome was clinical benefit at 4 months. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), and 1-year overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints included genomic correlates of outcomes. The trial was not designed for comparison between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2018 (cohort 1, N = 7; cohort 2, N = 29); the trial was terminated due to slow accrual. Clinical benefit at 4 months was attained by 0 (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0-41.0%) patients in cohort 1 and 11 patients (37.9%, 95% CI 20.7-57.7%) in cohort 2. Median PFS was 2.33 (95% CI 1.81-Inf) months in cohort 1 and 5.85 (95% CI 2.99-8.61) months in cohort 2. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events for 2 patients (29%) in cohort 1 and 11 patients (38%) in cohort 2. Molecular alterations in microtubule associated genes may be associated with treatment benefit but this requires further testing. CONCLUSION: Everolimus plus paclitaxel demonstrates clinical activity in cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic UC, although the specific contribution of everolimus cannot be delineated. Patients with both impaired renal function and borderline functional status may be difficult to enroll to prospective trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01215136).

Dual checkpoint targeting of B7-H3 and PD-1 with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors: interim results from a multicenter phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)-targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. METHODS: In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3-15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]-naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02475213.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Multi-Center Study Comparing the Sequence of High Dose Aldesleukin (Interleukin-2) and Ipilimumab (Yervoy) in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.

Combination immunotherapy with sequential administration may enhance metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with long-term disease control. High Dose Aldesleukin/Recombinant Interleukin-2 (HD rIL-2) and ipilimumab (IPI) offer complementary mechanisms against MM. This phase IV study assessed the sequenced use of HD rIL-2 and IPI in MM patients. Eligible Stage IV MM patients were randomized to treatment with either two courses of HD rIL-2(600,000 IU/kg) followed by four doses of IPI 3 mg/kg or vice-versa. The primary objective was to compare one-year overall survival (OS) with historical control (46%, Hodi et al., NEJM 2010). Secondary objectives were 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) profile. Evaluable Population (EP) included patients who received at least 50% of planned treatment with each drug. Thirteen and 16 patients were randomized to receive HD rIL-2 first, and IPI first, respectively. One-year OS rate was 75% for intention to treat population. Eighteen patients were included in EP, 8 in HD rIL-2, 10 in IPI first arm. In EP, 1-year OS, PFS and ORR rates were 87%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The frequency of AEs was similar in both arms with 13 patients experiencing Grade 3 or higher AEs, 3 resulting in the end of study participation. There was one HD rIL-2-related death, from cerebral hemorrhage due to thrombocytopenia. In this study with small sample size, HD rIL-2 and IPI were safe to administer sequentially in MM patients and showed more than additive effects. 1-year OS was superior to that of IPI alone from historical studies.

TRANSFORMER: A Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Bipolar Androgen Therapy Versus Enzalutamide in Asymptomatic Men With Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) becomes resistant to androgen ablation through adaptive upregulation of the androgen receptor in response to the low-testosterone microenvironment. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), defined as rapid cycling between high and low serum testosterone, disrupts this adaptive regulation in castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). METHODS: The TRANSFORMER (Testosterone Revival Abolishes Negative Symptoms, Fosters Objective Response and Modulates Enzalutamide Resistance) study is a randomized study comparing monthly BAT (n = 94) with enzalutamide (n = 101). The primary end point was clinical or radiographic progression-free survival (PFS); crossover was permitted at progression. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and objective response rates, PFS from randomization through crossover (PFS2), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The PFS was 5.7 months for both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.55; P = .42). For BAT, 50% decline in PSA (PSA50) was 28.2% of patients versus 25.3% for enzalutamide. At crossover, PSA50 response occurred in 77.8% of patients crossing to enzalutamide and 23.4% to BAT. The PSA-PFS for enzalutamide increased from 3.8 months after abiraterone to 10.9 months after BAT. The PFS2 for BAT→enzalutamide was 28.2 versus 19.6 months for enzalutamide→BAT (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; P = .02). OS was 32.9 months for BAT versus 29.0 months for enzalutamide (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.39; P = .80). OS was 37.1 months for patients crossing from BAT to enzalutamide versus 30.2 months for the opposite sequence (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.28; P = .225). BAT adverse events were primarily grade 1-2. Patient-reported QoL consistently favored BAT. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial establishes meaningful clinical activity and safety of BAT and supports additional study to determine its optimal clinical integration. BAT can sensitize CRPC to subsequent antiandrogen therapy. Further study is required to confirm whether sequential therapy with BAT and enzalutamide can improve survival in men with CRPC.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374. METHODS: Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need.

Severe Hepatotoxicity of Mithramycin Therapy Caused by Altered Expression of Hepatocellular Bile Transporters.

Mithramycin demonstrates preclinical anticancer activity, but its therapeutic dose is limited by the development of hepatotoxicity that remains poorly characterized. A pharmacogenomics characterization of mithramycin-induced transaminitis revealed that hepatotoxicity is associated with germline variants in genes involved in bile disposition: ABCB4 (multidrug resistance 3) rs2302387 and ABCB11 [bile salt export pump (BSEP)] rs4668115 reduce transporter expression (P < 0.05) and were associated with ≥grade 3 transaminitis developing 24 hours after the third infusion of mithramycin (25 mcg/kg, 6 hours/infusion, every day ×7, every 28 days; P < 0.0040). A similar relationship was observed in a pediatric cohort. We therefore undertook to characterize the mechanism of mithramycin-induced acute transaminitis. As mithramycin affects cellular response to bile acid treatment by altering the expression of multiple bile transporters (e.g., ABCB4, ABCB11, sodium/taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide, organic solute transporter α/ß) in several cell lines [Huh7, HepaRG, HepaRG BSEP (-/-)] and primary human hepatocytes, we hypothesized that mithramycin inhibited bile-mediated activation of the farnesoid X receptor (FXR). FXR was downregulated in all hepatocyte cell lines and primary human hepatocytes (P < 0.0001), and mithramycin inhibited chenodeoxycholic acid- and GW4046-induced FXR-galactose-induced gene 4 luciferase reporter activity (P < 0.001). Mithramycin promoted glycochenodeoxycholic acid-induced cytotoxicity in ABCB11 (-/-) cells and increased the overall intracellular concentration of bile acids in primary human hepatocytes grown in sandwich culture (P < 0.01). Mithramycin is a FXR expression and FXR transactivation inhibitor that inhibits bile flow and potentiates bile-induced cellular toxicity, particularly in cells with low ABCB11 function. These results suggest that mithramycin causes hepatotoxicity through derangement of bile acid disposition; results also suggest that pharmacogenomic markers may be useful to identify patients who may tolerate higher mithramycin doses. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The present study characterizes a novel mechanism of drug-induced hepatotoxicity in which mithramycin not only alters farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and small heterodimer partner gene expression but also inhibits bile acid binding to FXR, resulting in deregulation of cellular bile homeostasis. Two novel single-nucleotide polymorphisms in bile flow transporters are associated with mithramycin-induced liver function test elevations, and the present results are the rationale for a genotype-directed clinical trial using mithramycin in patients with thoracic malignancies.

A phase 2, randomized trial evaluating the combination of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate. RESULTS: Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC.

Pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Phase 1 cohorts from the KEYNOTE-021 study.

OBJECTIVES: Platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has modest benefit overall, but has the potential to amplify immune responses. In cohorts A-C of the multicohort phase 1/2 study KEYNOTE-021 (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02039674), we evaluated combinations of platinum-doublet chemotherapy with the anti-programmed death 1 monocloncal antibody pembrolizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, advanced NSCLC without EGFR/ALK aberrations were randomized to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W plus carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) 6 mg/mL/min plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (cohort A, any histology), carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL/min plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (cohort B, non-squamous), or carboplatin AUC 5 mg/mL/min plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (cohort C, non-squamous) for 4 cycles followed by maintenance pembrolizumab (cohort A), pembrolizumab plus bevacizumab (cohort B), or pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed (cohort C). Response was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 74 patients were randomized; median follow-up was 21.4, 16.4, and 17.4 months in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred in any cohort at either pembrolizumab dose. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were alopecia, fatigue, and nausea. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 40%, 42%, and 46% of patients in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively; AEs with possible immune etiology occurred in 24%, 50%, and 38% of patients, respectively. Objective response rates were 48%, 56%, and 75% in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel and with pemetrexed-carboplatin yielded encouraging antitumor activity and toxicity consistent with known toxicities of platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy.

Phase 2 Trial of Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer and Impact of DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy may exert immunomodulatory effects, thereby combining favorably with the immune checkpoint blockade. The pharmacodynamic effects of such combinations, and potential predictive biomarkers, remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and immunomodulatory effects of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) plus ipilimumab and explore the impact of somatic DNA damage response gene alterations on antitumor activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter single arm phase 2 study enrolling 36 chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. Peripheral blood flow cytometry was performed serially on all patients and whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissue was performed on 28/36 patients. INTERVENTION: Two cycles of GC followed by four cycles of GC plus ipilimumab. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was 1-yr overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 81% of patients, the majority of which were hematologic. The objective response rate was 69% and 1-yr OS was 61% (lower bound 90% confidence interval: 51%). On exploratory analysis, there were no significant changes in the composition and frequency of circulating immune cells after GC alone. However, there was a significant expansion of circulating CD4 cells with the addition of ipilimumab which correlated with improved survival. The response rate was significantly higher in patients with deleterious somatic DNA damage response mutations (sensitivity=47.6%, specificity=100%, positive predictive value=100%, and negative predictive value=38.9%). Limitations are related to the sample size and single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: GC+ipilimumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of a lower bound of the 90% confidence interval for 1-yr OS of >60%. However, within the context of a small single-arm trial, the results may inform current approaches combining chemotherapy plus immunotherapy from the standpoint of feasibility, appropriate cytotoxic backbones, and potential predictive biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01524991. PATIENT SUMMARY: Combining chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer is feasible. Further studies are needed to refine optimal combinations and evaluate tests that might identify patients most likely to benefit.

Discussing the predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic value of germline DNA-repair gene mutations in metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Recent trends in cancer therapy have begun emphasizing the use of precision medicine, especially genetic tools, in the evaluation of malignancies and decision-making. Prostate cancer is a malignancy where the benefits and utility of screening and early treatment are still heavily controversial. A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients with metastatic prostate cancer presented germline mutations in DNA-repair genes at a significantly higher incidence than those with localized prostate cancer. These findings indicate the need for further research in this field as genetic differences between metastatic and localized prostate cancer could have great clinical value.

Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer with and without Prior Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of apalutamide before or after treatment with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Experimental Design: Two cohorts were studied: AAP-naïve and post-AAP patients who had received ≥6 months of AAP. Patients had progressive mCRPC per rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or imaging, without prior chemotherapy exposure. All received apalutamide 240 mg/day. Primary endpoint was ≥50% decline in 12-week PSA according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression and time on treatment.Results: Forty-six patients enrolled in the AAP-naïve (n = 25) and post-AAP (n = 21) cohorts. The 12-week PSA response rate was 88% (22/25) and 22% (4/18), median time to PSA progression was 18.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.3 months-not reached) and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6 months), and median time on treatment 21 months (range, 2.6-37.5) and 4.9 months (range, 1.3-23.2), for the AAP-naïve and post-AAP cohorts, respectively. Eighty percent (95% CI, 59-93) and 64% (95% CI, 43-82) of AAP-naïve and 43% (95% CI, 22-66) and 10% (95% CI, 1-30) of post-AAP patients remained on treatment for 6+ and 12+ months, respectively. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both cohorts were grade 1 or 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain.Conclusions: Apalutamide was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated clinical activity in mCRPC, with 80% of AAP-naïve and 43% of post-AAP patients, remaining on treatment for 6 months or longer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3544-51. ©2017 AACR.

Impact of Sequencing Targeted Therapies With High-dose Interleukin-2 Immunotherapy: An Analysis of Outcome and Survival of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma From an On-going Observational IL-2 Clinical Trial: PROCLAIMSM.

BACKGROUND: This analysis describes the outcome for patients who received targeted therapy (TT) prior to or following high-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with renal cell carcinoma (n = 352) receiving HD IL-2 were enrolled in ProleukinR Observational Study to Evaluate the Treatment Patterns and Clinical Response in Malignancy (PROCLAIMSM) beginning in 2011. Statistical analyses were performed using datasets as of September 24, 2015. RESULTS: Overall, there were 4% complete response (CR), 13% partial response (PR), 39% stable disease (SD), and 43% progressive disease (PD) with HD IL-2. The median overall survival (mOS) was not reached in patients with CR, PR, or SD, and was 15.5 months in patients with PD (median follow-up, 21 months). Sixty-one patients had prior TT before HD IL-2 with an overall response rate (ORR) to HD IL-2 of 19% (1 CR, 9 PR) and an mOS of 22.1 months. One hundred forty-nine patients received TT only after HD IL-2 with an mOS of 35.5 months. One hundred forty-two patients had no TT before or after HD IL-2, and mOS was not reached. The mOS was 8.5 months in PD patients who received HD IL-2 without follow-on TT and 29.7 months in PD patients who received follow-on TT after HD IL-2. CONCLUSIONS: HD IL-2 as sole front-line therapy, in the absence of added TT, shows extended clinical benefit (CR, PR, and SD). Patients with PD after HD IL-2 appear to benefit from follow-on TT. Patients who progressed on TT and received follow-on HD IL-2 experienced major clinical benefit. HD IL-2 therapy should be considered in eligible patients.