Predictors of response to immunotherapy in colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related deaths globally. While treatment advancements have improved survival rates, primarily through targeted therapies based on KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations, personalized treatment strategies for CRC remain limited. Immunotherapy, mainly immune checkpoint blockade, has shown efficacy in various cancers but is effective in only a small subset of patients with CRC with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) proteins or high microsatellite instability (MSI). Recent research has challenged the notion that CRC is immunologically inert, revealing subsets with high immunogenicity and diverse lymphocytic infiltration. Identifying precise biomarkers beyond dMMR and MSI is crucial to expanding immunotherapy benefits. Hence, exploration has extended to various biomarker sources, such as the tumor microenvironment, genomic markers, and gut microbiota. Recent studies have introduced a novel classification system, consensus molecular subtypes, that aids in identifying patients with CRC with an immunogenic profile. These findings underscore the necessity of moving beyond single biomarkers and toward a comprehensive understanding of the immunological landscape in CRC, facilitating the development of more effective, personalized therapies.

Brief Report: Updated Data From IMscin001 Part 2, a Randomized Phase III Study of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Atezolizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous atezolizumab is approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. Previous results from the IMscin001 study (NCT03735121) revealed that the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous atezolizumab were consistent (data cutoff: April 26, 2022). We present updated data from this trial (data cutoff: January 16, 2023). METHODS: Eligible patients aged above or equal to 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized (2:1) to receive atezolizumab subcutaneously (1875 mg, n = 247) or intravenously (1200 mg, n = 124) every 3 weeks. Here, we present updated efficacy (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival; objective response rate; duration of response), safety, and immunogenicity end points, alongside patient-reported outcomes and health care practitioner (HCP) perspectives. RESULTS: In this updated analysis, the median survival follow-up was 9.5 months. Median subcutaneous injection time was 7.1 minutes, with an average subcutaneous injection time of 4 to 8 minutes in most patients (75.7%). OS data were mature: median OS was similar between treatment arms, at 10.7 and 10.1 months in the subcutaneous and intravenous arms, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.16). Other efficacy end points, as well as immunogenicity, patient-reported outcomes, and safety, were similar between arms. Most HCPs found subcutaneous administration convenient (79.5%), easy to administer (89.7%), and were satisfied with the treatment (84.6%); 75.0% of HCPs agreed that administering atezolizumab subcutaneously compared with intravenously could save time. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, mature OS data were similar between treatments. The updated efficacy and safety profile of subcutaneous atezolizumab is consistent with previous findings and equivalent to intravenous atezolizumab.

Treatment of metastatic TFE3 microphthalmia transcription factor translocation renal cell carcinoma: a case report.

Background: Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor/transcription factor E (MiTF/TFE) translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare type of non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), which is more common in females. Currently, there is no standardized treatment for advanced metastatic microphthalmia translocation RCC (MiT-RCC). The main treatment modalities include surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and targeted therapy against the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor signaling pathway. Case Description: We present the case of an 8-year-old male patient with hematuria and paroxysmal urinary pain. Based on tumor genetic testing results and targeted drug matching analysis, the patient underwent tumor biopsy, tumor radical surgery with vascular osteotomy, and cervicothoracic lymph node dissection. The patient was then treated with a combination of immunotherapy [sintilimab, a drug directed against programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1)] and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (from pazopanib to sunitinib). Throughout the 10 cycles of conventional chemotherapy (seven courses of sintilimab since the start of the third chemotherapy treatment), the patient's condition remained stable, with no tumor recurrence at the primary site. However, in the later stages, the patient developed a large amount of ascites, and the family requested discontinuation of treatment, ultimately leading to the patient's death. Conclusions: In this case report, we summarize the therapeutic strategy of a young patient with metastatic transcription factor E3 (TFE3) MiT-RCC. For this disease, early immunotherapy and the use of precision-targeted drugs may have a favorable impact on the survival prognosis of the patient but may still be of less benefit in children with advanced multiple metastases. Therefore, further research on tumor driver genes, among other treatment components, is urgently needed to improve precision therapy.

Classification of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer into consensus molecular subtypes into real-world: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a complex disease with high mortality rates. Over time, the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has gradually improved due to the development of modern chemotherapy and targeted therapy regimens. However, due to the inherent heterogeneity of this condition, identifying reliable predictive biomarkers for targeted therapies remains challenging. A recent promising classification system-the consensus molecular subtype (CMS) system-offers the potential to categorize mCRC patients based on their unique biological and molecular characteristics. Four distinct CMS categories have been defined: immune (CMS1), canonical (CMS2), metabolic (CMS3), and mesenchymal (CMS4). Nevertheless, there is currently no standardized protocol for accurately classifying patients into CMS categories. To address this challenge, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS) techniques may hold promise for precisely classifying mCRC patients into their CMSs. AIM: To investigate if mCRC patients can be classified into CMS categories using a standardized molecular biology workflow. METHODS: This observational study was conducted at the University of Chile Clinical Hospital and included patients with unresectable mCRC who were undergoing systemic treatment with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. Molecular biology techniques were employed to analyse primary tumour samples from these patients. RT-qPCR was utilized to assess the expression of genes associated with fibrosis (TGF-ß and ß-catenin) and cell growth pathways (c-MYC). NGS using a 25-gene panel (TumorSec) was performed to identify specific genomic mutations. The patients were then classified into one of the four CMS categories according to the clinical consensus of a Tumour Board. Informed consent was obtained from all the patients prior to their participation in this study. All techniques were conducted at University of Chile. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were studied with the techniques and then evaluated by the Tumour Board to determine the specific CMS. Among them, 23% (n = 6), 19% (n = 5), 31% (n = 8), and 19% (n = 5) were classified as CMS1, CMS2, CMS3, and CMS4, respectively. Additionally, 8% of patients (n = 2) could not be classified into any of the four CMS categories. The median overall survival of the total sample was 28 mo, and for CMS1, CMS2, CMS3 and CMS4 it was 11, 20, 30 and 45 mo respectively, with no statistically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: A molecular biology workflow and clinical consensus analysis can be used to accurately classify mCRC patients. This classification process, which divides patients into the four CMS categories, holds significant potential for improving research strategies and targeted therapies tailored to the specific characteristics of mCRC.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Brigatinib Versus Alectinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC After Disease Progression on Crizotinib: Results of Phase 3 ALTA-3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This open-label, phase 3 trial (ALTA-3; NCT03596866) compared efficacy and safety of brigatinib versus alectinib for ALK+ NSCLC after disease progression on crizotinib. METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC that progressed on crizotinib were randomized 1:1 to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in, 90 mg) or alectinib 600 mg twice daily, aiming to test superiority. The primary end point was blinded independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Interim analysis for efficacy and futility was planned at approximately 70% of 164 expected PFS events. RESULTS: The population (N = 248; brigatinib, n = 125; alectinib, n = 123) was notable for long median duration of prior crizotinib (16.0-16.8 mo) and low rate of ALK fusion in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA; 78 of 232 [34%]). Median blinded independent review committee-assessed PFS was 19.3 months with brigatinib and 19.2 months with alectinib (hazard ratio = 0.97 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.42], p = 0.8672]). The study met futility criterion. Overall survival was immature (41 events [17%]). Exploratory analyses pooled across the treatment groups revealed median PFS of 11.1 versus 22.5 months in patients with versus without ctDNA-detectable ALK fusion at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.71]). Treatment-related adverse events in more than 30% of patients (brigatinib, alectinib) were elevated levels of blood creatine phosphokinase (70%, 29%), aspartate aminotransferase (53%, 38%), and alanine aminotransferase (40%, 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Brigatinib was not superior to alectinib for PFS in crizotinib-pretreated ALK+ NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the well-established and unique profiles of each drug. The low proportion of patients with ctDNA-detectable ALK fusion may account for prolonged PFS with both drugs in ALTA-3.

MAP4K4 and cancer: ready for the main stage?

MAP4K4 is a serine/threonine kinase that belongs to the MAP kinase family and plays a critical role in embryogenesis and cellular migration. It contains approximately 1,200 amino acids and has a molecular mass of 140 kDa. MAP4K4 is expressed in most tissues where it has been examined and its knockout is embryonic lethal due to impaired somite development. Alterations in MAP4K4 function have a central role in the development of many metabolic diseases such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes, but have recently been implicated in the initiation and progression of cancer. For example, it has been shown that MAP4K4 can stimulate the proliferation and invasion of tumor cells by activating pro-proliferative pathways (such as the c-Jun N-terminal kinase [JNK] and mixed-lineage protein kinase 3 [MLK3] pathways), attenuate anti-tumor cytotoxic immune responses, and stimulate cell invasion and migration by altering cytoskeleton and actin function. Recent in vitro experiments using RNA interference-based knockdown (miR) techniques have shown that inhibition of MAP4K4 function reduces tumor proliferation, migration, and invasion, and may represent a promising therapeutic approach in many types of cancer such as pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and medulloblastoma, among others. Over the last few years, specific MAP4K4 inhibitors such as GNE-495 have been developed but have not yet been tested in cancer patients. However, these novel agents may be useful for cancer treatment in the future.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet combination for patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results from a discontinued arm of the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III CheckMate 9ER trial originally included a nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet arm, which was discontinued early due to the evolving treatment landscape for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report an exploratory analysis of patients randomised to the triplet regimen before enrolment discontinuation. METHODS: Patients with clear-cell aRCC received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) Q3W for four cycles with once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg), then nivolumab (240 mg) Q2W plus once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg). CheckMate 9ER primary (progression-free survival [PFS] by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and key secondary (overall survival [OS], objective response rate [ORR] by BICR, and safety) endpoints were applied, along with investigator-assessed PFS and ORR. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomised to the triplet regimen. After a median follow-up of 39.1 months (range, 33.4-44.5), median PFS (95% CI) was 9.9 (5.7-16.8) months by BICR and 13.9 (7.3-24.7) months by investigator; median OS (95% CI) was 37.0 (31.8-not estimable) months. ORR (95% CI) was 44.0% (30.0-58.7; complete response, 8.0%) by BICR and 48.0% (33.7-62.6; all partial responses) by investigator. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.0%, most commonly alanine aminotransferase increased (20.0%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (16.0%), and hepatotoxicity (16.0%). Grade 3-4 hepatic immune-mediated AEs occurred in 40.0%. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet combination has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated aRCC, although monitoring of overlapping toxicities will be important in future studies of this regimen. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT03141177.

Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma, finally a new standard?

Localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has the potential to be cured with surgery alone; however, some patients have a high risk of relapse and may benefit from additional treatment. Several efforts have been made to identify effective strategies, with mostly negative results. However, recent results with immune checkpoint inhibitors may change the current standard, and several ongoing trials are exploring new alternatives. In this perspective, we aim to provide an overview of previous adjuvant therapy efforts, current data supporting the use of checkpoint blockade, and a future outlook for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma.

Liquid biopsy to detect resistance mutations against anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of mortality worldwide, associated with a steadily growing prevalence. Notably, the identification of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations has markedly improved targeted CRC therapy by affording treatments directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and other anti-angiogenic therapies. However, the survival benefit conferred by these therapies remains variable and difficult to predict, owing to the high level of molecular heterogeneity among patients with CRC. Although classification into consensus molecular subtypes could optimize response prediction to targeted therapies, the acquisition of resistance mutations to targeted therapy is, in part, responsible for the lack of response in some patients. However, the acquisition of such mutations can induce challenges in clinical practice. The utility of liquid biopsy to detect resistance mutations against anti-EGFR therapy has recently been described. This approach may constitute a new standard in the decision algorithm for targeted CRC therapy.

Nivolumab plus rucaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the phase 2 CheckMate 9KD trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib. METHODS: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2-positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03338790.

Mechanisms of Resistance to First-Line Osimertinib in Hispanic Patients With EGFR Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (FRESTON-CLICaP).

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is a third generation EGFR-TKI inhibitor approved in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Additionally, it represents the treatment of choice in patients who present with T790M mutations and evidence of relapse of the disease. Effectiveness and safety of this drug have been studied in multiple clinical trials and observational studies, however, information regarding outcomes among Hispanic patients treated with Osimertinib is scarce. The objective of this study was to examine real-world effectiveness and safety of first-line Osimertinib in a cohort of Hispanic patients with NSCLC, emphasizing post-progression outcomes. METHODS: This is a multicenter, multinational, retrospective cohort study of Hispanic patients treated with Osimertinib as first-line for EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC who received Osimertinib (80mg/day until evidence of disease progression or presence of intolerable adverse effects) were identified and included. NGS was performed in tumor samples or liquid biopsies among patients who had disease progression. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, and the secondary outcome was post-progression survival. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients from Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, Colombia, Panama, Chile and the USA were included, with a median age of 59 years. Identified mutations included EGFR Exon 19 deletions and EGFR pL858R point mutations. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.4 months (95%CI 12.4-18.2 months). Lung/pleura and lymph nodes were the most common sites of progression. Median post-progression survival was 7.73 months (95%CI 4.07 months-Not reached). Factors which negatively affected PFS included presence of liver metastases at diagnosis and a tumor mutational burden > 5 mut/Mb. CONCLUSION: Treatment with first line osimertinib represents an effective and safe option for Hispanic patients with metastatic NSCLC. Liver metastases and a higher tumor mutation burden were associated with a lower PFS. Despite effectiveness, different mechanisms of resistance were identified among the patients in this cohort, including mutations which can be targeted by other therapeutic options.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 9ER): long-term follow-up results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death). INTERPRETATION: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

STK11 and KEAP1 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients: Descriptive analysis and prognostic value among Hispanics (STRIKE registry-CLICaP).

BACKGROUND: Mutations in STK11 (STK11Mut) and, frequently co-occurring, KEAP1 mutations (KEAP1Mut) are associated with poor survival in metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC) patients treated with immunotherapy. However, there are limited data regarding the prognostic or predictive significance of these genomic alterations among Hispanics. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed a cohort of Hispanic patients (N = 103) diagnosed with mNSCLC from the US and seven Latin American countries (LATAM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination as first-line (Cohort A). All cases were treated in routine care between January 2016 and December 2021. The main objectives were to determine the association of mutations in STK11 or KEAP1 in these patients' tumors with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), presence of KRAS mutations, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and other relevant clinical variables. To compare outcomes with a STK11Wt/KEAP1Wt population, historical data from a cohort of Hispanic patients (N = 101) treated with first-line ICI was used, matching both groups by country of origin, gender, and Programed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level (Cohort B). RESULTS: Most tumors had mutations only in STK11 or KEAP1 (45.6%) without KRAS co-mutation or any other genomic alteration. Besides, 35%, 8.7%, 6.8%, and 3.9% were KRASMut + STK11Mut, KRASMut + STK11Mut + KEAP1Mut, STK11Mut + KEAP1Mut, and KRASMut + KEAP1Mut, respectively. Based on KRAS status, STK11 alterations were associated with significantly lower PD-L1 expression among those with KRASWt (p = 0.023), whereas KEAP1 mutations were predominantly associated with lower PD-L1 expression among KRASMut cases (p = 0.047). Tumors with KRASMut + KEAP1Mut had significantly higher median TMB when compared to other tumors (p = 0.040). For Cohort A, median PFS was 4.9 months (95%CI 4.3-5.4), slightly longer in those with KEAP1mut 6.1 months versus STK11Mut 4.7 months (p = 0.38). In the same cohort, PD-L1 expression and TMB did not influence PFS. OS was significantly longer among patients with tumors with PD-L1 ≥ 50% (30.9 months), and different from those with PD-L1 1-49% (22.0 months), and PD-L1 < 1% (12.0 months) (p = 0.0001). When we compared the cohorts A and B, OS was significantly shorter for patients carrying STK1 [STK11Mut 14.2 months versus STK11Wt 27.0 months (p = 0.0001)] or KEAP1 [KEAP1Mut 12.0 months versus KEAP1Wt 24.4 months (p = 0.005)] mutations. PD-L1 expression significantly affected OS independently of the presence of mutations in STK11, KEAP1, or KRAS. TMB-H favored better OS. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large Hispanic cohort to study the impact of STK11 and KEAP1 mutations in NSCLC patient treated with ICI. Our data suggest that mutations in the above-mentioned genes are associated with PD-L1 expression levels and poor OS.

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.