Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Tissue based biomarkers in non-clear cell RCC: Correlative analysis from the ASPEN clinical trial.

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

Angiokines Associated with Targeted Therapy Outcomes in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

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.

Phase Ib/II Clinical Trial of Pembrolizumab With Bevacizumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: BTCRC-GU14-003.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that bevacizumab will potentiate activity of pembrolizumab. We conducted a phase Ib/II, single-arm, multisite clinical trial of the combination in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic clear cell RCC who experienced progression after at least one systemic therapy (phase Ib) or were treatment naïve (phase II) were enrolled. In phase Ib, pembrolizumab (200 mg) and bevacizumab (10 or 15 mg/kg) were given intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point for phase II was overall response rate (ORR). With an 80% statistical power and a type I error probability of 0.1, 48 patients were to be accrued to detect an ORR of 42%. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (ages 33-68 years; median, 55 years) were enrolled in the phase Ib study. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported. Pembrolizumab 200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg were chosen for phase II. Forty-eight patients (ages 42-84 years; median age, 61 years; 33 males) were accrued for the phase II study. The primary end point was met, with the ORR reaching 60.9% (95% CI, 45.4% to 74.9%), consisting of 1 complete response (CR), 2 CRs in target lesions, 25 partial responses, 18 responses of stable disease, 2 unevaluable responses. Median progression-free survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 27.4 months). Median overall survival was not reached at the median follow-up of 28.3 months. The most common treatment-related grade 3 toxicities were hypertension and proteinuria. There were two grade 4 toxicities: duodenal ulcer and hyponatremia. Presence of tumor-infiltrating T cells, but not programmed death-ligand 1 expression, in tumor tissue correlated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of 200 mg of pembrolizumab and a 15 mg/kg dose of bevacizumab given every 3 weeks is safe and active in metastatic RCC.

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.

NCI 8628: A randomized phase 2 study of ziv-aflibercept and high-dose interleukin 2 or high-dose interleukin 2 alone for inoperable stage III or IV melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2. METHODS: NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P<.001). No significant difference was noted with regard to overall survival, with a median of 26.9 months (95% CI, 14.4-63.6 months) for arm A and 24.2 months (95% CI, 11.3-36.4 months) for arm B. The response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) was 22% in arm A (4 complete responses [CRs] and 8 partial responses [PRs]) and 17% in arm B (1 CR and 4 PRs). Stable disease or PR or CR was noted in 65% of patients in arm A and 48% of patients in arm B. The combination was found to be superior to monotherapy in patients with high and low levels of serum VEGF and VEGF receptor 2. Adverse events were consistent with the expected profiles of monotherapy with IL-2 and ziv-aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 were found to significantly improve PFS compared with IL-2 alone, thereby meeting the primary endpoint of the current study. These findings support further study of immunotherapeutic combination strategies involving VEGF inhibitors.

A multi-center phase II study of high dose interleukin-2 sequenced with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF-V600 mutation positive metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that BRAF inhibitors enhance anti-tumor immunity and antigen presentation. Combination BRAF inhibition with immunotherapy is an appealing therapeutic approach. We sequenced vemurafenib with HD IL-2 in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma to improve long term outcomes. METHODS: Eligible patients were HD IL-2 eligible with metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma. Cohort 1 was treatment naïve and received vemurafenib 960 mg BID for 6 weeks before HD IL-2. Cohort 2 received vemurafenib for 7-18 weeks before enrollment. Both cohorts received HD IL-2 at 600,000 IU/kg every 8 h days 1-5 and days 15-19. The primary objective was to assess complete responses (CR) at 10 weeks ±3 (assessment 1) and 26 weeks ±3 (assessment 2) from the start of HD IL-2. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled, (cohort 1, n = 38; cohort 2, n = 15). Of these, 39 underwent assessment 1 and 15 assessment 2. The CR rate at assessment 1 was 10% (95% CI 3-24) for both cohorts combined, and 27% (95% CI 8-55) at assessment 2. Three-year survival was 30 and 27% for cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. No unexpected toxicities occurred. A shift in the melanoma treatment landscape during this trial adversely affected accrual, leading to early trial closure. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib in sequence with HD IL-2 did not change the known toxicity profile for either agent. Lower than expected response rates to vemurafenib were observed. Overall response rates and durability of responses appear similar to that observed with HD IL-2 alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCTN, NCT01683188. Registered 11 September 2012, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01683188.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Improved survival and tumor control with Interleukin-2 is associated with the development of immune-related adverse events: data from the PROCLAIMSM registry.

BACKGROUND: Immune related adverse events (irAEs) are associated with immunotherapy for cancer and while results suggest improvement in tumor control and overall survival in those experiencing irAEs, the long-term impact is debated. We evaluated irAE reports related to high dose interleukin-2 therapy (IL-2) documented in the PROCLAIMSM registry data base from 2008 to 2016 (NCT01415167, August 9, 2011). METHODS: Reports on 1535 patients, including 623 with metastatic melanoma (mM) and 919 with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) (7 patients had both diseases), were queried for irAEs. The timing of the event was categorized as occurring before, during or after IL-2 or related to any checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). mM patients and mRCC patients were analyzed separately. Tumor control [complete + partial response + stable disease (CR + PR + SD) was compared between those experiencing no irAE versus those with the development of irAEs. Survival was analyzed by tumor type related to timing of irAE and IL-2, and in those with or without exposure to CPI. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3.5+ years (range 1-8+ years), 152 irAEs were reported in 130 patients (8.4% of all PROCLAIMSM patients): 99 (16%) in mM and 53 (5.8%) in mRCC patients. 31 irAEs occurred prior to IL-2, 24 during IL-2, and 97 after IL-2 therapy. 74 irAEs were attributed to IL-2 only (during/ after IL-2). Of the 97 post IL-2 irAEs, 24 were attributed to CPI, and 15 could not be distinguished as caused by IL-2 or CPI. Tumor control was 71% for those experiencing irAE, and 56% for those with no irAE (p = 0.0008). Overall survival was significantly greater for those experiencing irAEs during/ after IL-2 therapy, compared to those with no irAE or irAE before IL-2 therapy, in mM patients, median 48 months vs 18 months (p < 0.0001), and in mRCC patients, median 60 months vs 40 months (p = 0.0302), independent of CPI-related irAEs. IL-2-related irAEs were primarily vitiligo and thyroid dysfunction (70% of IL-2 related irAEs), with limited further impact. CONCLUSIONS: irAEs following IL-2 therapy are associated with improved tumor control and overall survival. IrAEs resulting from IL-2 and from CPIs are qualitatively different, and likely reflect different mechanisms of action of immune activation and response.

Results from an Integrated Safety Analysis of Urelumab, an Agonist Anti-CD137 Monoclonal Antibody.

Purpose: Urelumab is an agonist antibody to CD137 with potential application as an immuno-oncology therapeutic. Data were analyzed to assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic activity of urelumab, including the dose selected for ongoing development in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma.Experimental Design: A total of 346 patients with advanced cancers who had progressed after standard treatment received at least one dose of urelumab in one of three dose-escalation, monotherapy studies. Urelumab was administered at doses ranging from 0.1 to 15 mg/kg. Safety analyses included treatment-related and serious adverse events (AEs), as well as treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation and death, with a focus on liver function test abnormalities and hepatic AEs.Results: Urelumab doses between 1 and 15 mg/kg given every 3 weeks resulted in a higher frequency of treatment-related AEs than 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Dose was the single most important factor contributing to transaminitis development, which was more frequent and severe at doses ≥1 mg/kg. At the MTD of 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks, urelumab was relatively well tolerated, with fatigue (16%) and nausea (13%) being the most common treatment-related AEs, and was associated with immunologic and pharmacodynamic activity demonstrated by the induction of IFN-inducible genes and cytokines.Conclusions: Integrated evaluation of urelumab safety data showed significant transaminitis was strongly associated with doses of ≥1 mg/kg. However, urelumab 0.1 mg/kg every 3 weeks was demonstrated to be safe, with pharmacodynamic activity supporting continued clinical evaluation of this dose as monotherapy and in combination with other immuno-oncology agents. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1929-36. ©2016 AACR.

Contemporary experience with high-dose interleukin-2 therapy and impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 1992 and for metastatic melanoma (mM) in 1998, in an era predating targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The PROCLAIMSM registry was established to collect and analyze data for patients treated with HD IL-2 in the current era. This analysis includes 170 patients with mM and 192 patients with mRCC treated between 2005 and 2012 with survival data current as of July 27, 2015. For patients with mM, complete response (CR) was observed in 5 %, partial response (PR) in 10 %, stable disease (SD) in 22 %, and 63 % had progressive disease (PD). The median overall survival (mOS) for these patients was 19.6 months, with a median follow-up of 43.1 months. The mOS was not reached for patients achieving CR or PR, and was 33.4 months for patients with SD. For patients with mRCC, 6 % achieved CR, 9 % had PR, 22 % had SD, and 62 % had PD. The mOS was 41 months, with a median follow-up of 46.6 months. The mOS for patients who had CR and PR was not reached and was 49.6 months for patients with SD. There were no treatment-related deaths among 362 patients. The duration of mOS for patients with mM and mRCC is longer than historically reported. These data support a continued role for IL-2 in the treatment of eligible patients with mM or mRCC and warrant further evaluation of HD IL-2 in combination or sequence with other therapeutic agents.

Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Survival with AGS-003, an autologous dendritic cell-based immunotherapy, in combination with sunitinib in unfavorable risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Phase 2 study results.

BACKGROUND: AGS-003 is an autologous immunotherapy prepared from fully matured and optimized monocyte-derived dendritic cells, which are co-electroporated with amplified tumor RNA plus synthetic CD40L RNA. AGS-003 was evaluated in combination with sunitinib in an open label phase 2 study in intermediate and poor risk, treatment naïve patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Twenty-one intermediate and poor risk patients were treated continuously with sunitinib (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off per 6 week cycle). After completion of the first cycle of sunitinib, patients were treated with AGS-003 every 3 weeks for 5 doses, then every 12 weeks until progression or end of study. The primary endpoint was to determine the complete response rate. Secondary endpoints included clinical benefit, safety, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immunologic response was also monitored. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (62%) experienced clinical benefit (9 partial responses, 4 with stable disease); however there were no complete responses in this group of intermediate and poor risk mRCC patients and enrollment was terminated early. Median PFS from registration was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.0, 19.4) and the median OS from registration was 30.2 months (95% CI 9.4, 57.1) for all patients. Seven (33%) patients survived for at least 4.5 years, while five (24%) survived for more than 5 years, including 2 patients who remain progression-free with durable responses for more than 5 years at the time of this report. AGS-003 was well tolerated with only mild injection-site reactions. The most common adverse events were related to expected toxicity from sunitinib therapy. In patients who had sequential samples available for immune monitoring, the magnitude of the increase in the absolute number of CD8(+) CD28(+) CD45RA(-) effector/memory T cells (CTLs) after 5 doses of AGS-003 relative to baseline, correlated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: AGS-003 in combination with sunitinib was well tolerated and yielded supportive immunologic responses coupled with extension of median and long-term survival in an unselected, intermediate and poor risk prognosis mRCC population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: #NCT00678119.

The high-dose aldesleukin "select" trial: a trial to prospectively validate predictive models of response to treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: High-dose aldesleukin (HD IL2) received FDA approval for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) in 1992, producing a 14% objective response rate (ORR) and durable remissions. Retrospective studies suggested that clinical and pathologic features could predict for benefit. The Cytokine Working Group conducted this prospective trial to validate proposed predictive markers of response to HD IL2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Standard HD IL2 was administered to prospectively evaluate whether the ORR of patients with mRCC with "good" predictive pathologic features based on an "integrated selection" model [ISM (e.g., clear-cell histology subclassification and carbonic anhydrase-9 (CA-9) IHC staining] was significantly higher than the ORR of a historical, unselected population. Archived tumor was collected for pathologic analysis including tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty eligible patients were enrolled between June 11 and September 7; 70% were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) intermediate risk, 96% had clear cell RCC, and 99% had prior nephrectomy. The independently assessed ORR was 25% (30/120, 95% CI, 17.5%-33.7%, P = 0.0014; 3 complete responses, 27 partial responses) and was higher than a historical ORR. Thirteen patients (11%) remained progression free at 3 years and the median overall survival was 42.8 months. ORR was not statistically different by ISM classification ("good-risk" 23% vs. "poor-risk" 30%; P = 0.39). ORR was positively associated with tumor PD-L1 expression (P = 0.01) by IHC. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, biomarker validation study, HD IL2 produced durable remissions and prolonged survival in both "good" and "poor-risk" patients. The proposed ISM was unable to improve the selection criteria. Novel markers (e.g., tumor PD L1 expression) appeared useful, but require independent validation.

Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting.

Discordancy in BRAF mutations among primary and metastatic melanoma lesions: clinical implications for targeted therapy.

Systemic targeted molecular therapy, in the form of a selective BRAF inhibitor with or without a MEK inhibitor, is a standard treatment for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma with unresectable stage III and IV disease. Patients with BRAF mutation-negative primary tumors may manifest BRAF mutation-positive metastatic disease. It is unclear whether all metastatic lesions carry the same BRAF mutation status found in the primary tumor and if discordancy exists, in what frequency it occurs. Primary and matched metastatic lesions in 25 melanoma patients were tested for the BRAF V600E/Ec, V600K, V600D, and V600R mutations using a BRAF RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Four patients (16%) had discrepancies between their primary and metastatic melanoma BRAF status. Of these patients, 2 (8%) had BRAF mutation-positive primary melanomas with BRAF mutation-negative metastatic lesions and 2 (8%) patient had BRAF mutation-negative melanoma with a BRAF mutation-positive metastatic lesion. In summary, discordancy of BRAF mutation status is not an infrequent finding between primary and metastatic melanoma. It may be prudent in previously negative patients to determine BRAF mutation status of new metastatic tumors for proper allocation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Discordant BRAF status may have a role in the varying patterns of response and inevitable resistance seen with BRAF inhibitor therapies.