Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable. Objective: To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications. Results: Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

Plasma CD27, a Surrogate of the Intratumoral CD27-CD70 Interaction, Correlates with Immunotherapy Resistance in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: CD70 is a costimulatory molecule known to activate CD27-expressing T cells. CD27-CD70 interaction leads to the release of soluble CD27 (sCD27). Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) expresses the highest levels of CD70 among all solid tumors; however, the clinical consequences of CD70 expression remain unclear. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue from 25 patients with ccRCC was assessed for the expression of CD27 and CD70 in situ using multiplex immunofluorescence. CD27+ T-cell phenotypes in tumors were analyzed by flow cytometry and their gene expression profile were analyzed by single-cell RNA sequencing then confirmed with public data. Baseline sCD27 was measured in 81 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with immunotherapy (35 for training cohort and 46 for validation cohort). RESULTS: In the tumor microenvironment, CD27+ T cells interacted with CD70-expressing tumor cells. Compared with CD27- T cells, CD27+ T cells exhibited an apoptotic and dysfunctional signature. In patients with RCC, the intratumoral CD27-CD70 interaction was significantly correlated with the plasma sCD27 concentration. High sCD27 levels predicted poor overall survival in patients with RCC treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 in both the training and validation cohorts but not in patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we demonstrated that sCD27, a surrogate marker of T-cell dysfunction, is a predictive biomarker of resistance to immunotherapy in RCC. Given the frequent expression of CD70 and CD27 in solid tumors, our findings may be extended to other tumors.

Cabozantinib-nivolumab sequence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CABIR study.

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS2-3 and OS2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFSL3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.