Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

EV-301 long-term outcomes: 24-month findings from the phase III trial of enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory analysis evaluated efficacy and safety data for enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy over a median follow-up of ∼2 years from EV-301. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma with prior platinum-containing chemotherapy and disease progression during/after programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 inhibitor treatment were randomized to enfortumab vedotin or chemotherapy (docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinflunine). Endpoints were overall survival (primary), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 608 patients were included (enfortumab vedotin, n = 301; chemotherapy, n = 307). With a median follow-up of 23.75 months, 444 deaths had occurred (enfortumab vedotin, n = 207; chemotherapy, n = 237). Risk of death was reduced by 30% with enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.85); one-sided, log-rank P = 0.00015]; PFS improved with enfortumab vedotin [HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.53-0.76); one-sided, log-rank P < 0.00001]. Treatment-related adverse event rates were 93.9% for enfortumab vedotin and 91.8% for chemotherapy; grade ≥ 3 event rates were 52.4% and 50.5%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related decreased neutrophil count (14.1% versus 6.1%), decreased white blood cell count (7.2% versus 1.4%), and anemia (7.9% versus 2.7%) were more common with chemotherapy versus enfortumab vedotin; maculopapular rash (7.4% versus 0%), fatigue (6.8% versus 4.5%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5.1% versus 2.1%) were more common with enfortumab vedotin. Of special interest adverse events, treatment-related skin reactions occurred in 47.3% of patients receiving enfortumab vedotin and 15.8% of patients receiving chemotherapy; peripheral neuropathy occurred in 48.0% versus 31.6%, respectively, and hyperglycemia in 6.8% versus 0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of ∼2 years, enfortumab vedotin maintained clinically meaningful overall survival benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with findings from the EV-301 primary analysis; PFS and overall response benefit remained consistent. Adverse events were manageable; no new safety signals were observed.

Safety and efficacy of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with solid tumors: a phase II, open-label, multicenter, multicohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, their response rates are generally low. Preclinical and early phase clinical data suggest that MEK inhibition may sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors by upregulating tumor antigen expression, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and tumor T-cell infiltration. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors in the open-label, multicohort phase II COTEST study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis of the COTEST trial included patients from cohorts 1-4 [1-3: anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 treatment-naive patients; 4: patients with disease progression on anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatment] who received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for the first 21 days and intravenous infusions of atezolizumab 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate. RESULTS: Overall, 77 patients were enrolled in cohorts 1-4 (78% male; median age 62.8 years). Objective response rate was 20% in cohort 1 [squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)], 30% in cohort 2 (urothelial carcinoma), and 18% in cohort 3 (renal cell carcinoma); there were no responders among 20 patients in cohort 4 (SCCHN). The disease control rates in cohorts 1-4 were 50%, 40%, 24%, and 25%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.5, 3.4, 3.4, and 3.6 months in cohorts 1-4, respectively, and the median overall survival was 16.8, 18.7, 21.7, and 7.7 months, respectively. Most adverse events were of grade 1/2 and were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab had moderate activity in patients with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive SCCHN and urothelial carcinoma, and weak activity in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naive renal cell carcinoma, and no activity in checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients.

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results from KEYNOTE-045 and KEYNOTE-052 after up to 5 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a standard therapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm durability of response and identify further safety concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-045, patients with metastatic UC that progressed on platinum-containing chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab or investigator's choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival. In KEYNOTE-052, cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic UC received first-line pembrolizumab. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 by BICR. RESULTS: A total of 542 patients (pembrolizumab, n = 270; chemotherapy, n = 272) were randomly assigned in KEYNOTE-045. The median follow-up was 62.9 months (range 58.6-70.9 months; data cut-off 1 October 2020). At 48 months, overall survival rates were 16.7% for pembrolizumab and 10.1% for chemotherapy; progression-free survival rates were 9.5% and 2.7%, respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) was 29.7 months (range 1.6+ to 60.5+ months) for pembrolizumab and 4.4 months (range 1.4+ to 63.1+ months) for chemotherapy; 36-month DOR rates were 44.4% and 28.3%, respectively. A total of 370 patients were enrolled in KEYNOTE-052. The median follow-up was 56.3 months (range 51.2-65.3 months; data cut-off 26 September 2020). The confirmed objective response rate was 28.9% (95% confidence interval 24.3-33.8), and the median DOR was 33.4 months (range 1.4+ to 60.7+ months); the 36-month DOR rate was 44.8%. Most treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab in either study were grade 1 or 2 and manageable, which is consistent with prior reports. CONCLUSION: With ∼5 years of follow-up, pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to demonstrate durable efficacy with no new safety signals in patients with platinum-resistant metastatic UC and as first-line therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND ID: With ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02256436 (KEYNOTE-045); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02256436 and NCT02335424 (KEYNOTE-052); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02335424.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of renal cell carcinoma was published in 2019 with an update planned for 2021. It was therefore decided by both the ESMO and the Singapore Society of Oncology (SSO) to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in May 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2019 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of renal cell carcinomas in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate.

Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) and a distinct entity, although heterogenous, associated with poor outcomes. The treatment landscape of metastatic pRCC (mpRCC) relied so far on targeted therapies, mimicking previous developments in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. However, antiangiogenics as well as mTOR inhibitors retain only limited activity in mpRCC. As development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now underway in patients with mpRCC, we aimed at discussing early activity data and potential for future therapeutic strategies in monotherapy or combination. Expression of immune checkpoints such as PD-L1 and infiltrative immune cells in pRCC could provide insights into their potential immunogenicity, although this is currently poorly described. Based on retrospective and prospective data, efficacy of ICI as single agent remains limited. Combinations with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, notably with anti-MET inhibitors, harbor promising response rates and may enter the standard of care in untreated patients. Collaborative work is needed to refine the molecular and immune landscape of pRCC, and pursue efforts to set up predictive biomarker-driven clinical trials in these rare tumors.

Efficacy of chemotherapy and atezolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer receiving antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors: pooled post hoc analyses of the OAK and POPLAR trials.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data have shown that proton pump inhibitors (PPI) can modulate the microbiome, and single-arm studies suggested that antibiotics (ATB) may decrease the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), but randomized controlled trial data are lacking. This pooled analysis evaluated the effect of ATB and PPI on outcome in patients randomized between ICI and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis used pooled data from the phase II POPLAR (NCT01903993) and phase III OAK (NCT02008227) trials, which included 1512 patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab (n = 757) or docetaxel (n = 755). The main objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of ATB and PPI use on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 169 (22.3%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 202 (26.8%) in the docetaxel group received ATB, and 234 (30.9%) and 260 (34.4%), respectively, received PPI. Multivariate analysis in all patients revealed that ATB were associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.39], as was PPI (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.44). Within the atezolizumab population, OS was significantly shorter in patients who received ATB (8.5 versus 14.1 months, HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.63, P = 0.01) or PPI (9.6 versus 14.5 months, HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.20-1.75, P = 0.0001). PPI use was associated with shorter PFS in the atezolizumab population (1.9 versus 2.8 months, HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.53, P = 0.001). There was no association between ATB and PPI use and PFS or OS within the docetaxel population. CONCLUSION: In this unplanned analysis from two randomized trials, data suggest that ATB or PPI use in patients with metastatic NSCLC is associated with poor outcome and may influence the efficacy of ICI.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcome of patients treated with a multidisciplinary, algorithm-driven approach.

PURPOSE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents a significant and rising burden of disease, with rapidly evolving treatment modalities. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is controversial in this setting. As such, London Cancer has pursued a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach when assessing suitability for surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of treatment-naive synchronous mRCC patients, managed via a renal-specialist MDT, was conducted between January 2015 and December 2018. An MDT selection algorithm for CN-using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium score (IMDC), performance status and metastatic disease burden-was developed. RESULTS: 87 treatment-naive synchronous mRCC patients received either CN (n = 18), Systemic therapy (ST) alone (n = 43) or Best supportive care (BSC) (n = 26). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. 51% and 39% were IMDC intermediate and poor risk. Median PFS was 28.6 months and 4.5 months in the CN group and ST alone group, respectively, Hazard Ratio for death was 3.63 [(95% CI 1.68-7.83) p < 0.05]. OS remains immature for the CN group, but a median OS of 12.8 months was observed in the ST group and 5.0 months for BSC. 1-year OS rate for CN, ST and BSC groups was 77.8%, 55.8% and 23.10%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings describe outcomes of an unselected series of patients treated via an MDT-driven, protocolised treatment pathway. MDT pathway-based decision making may improve patient selection for CN. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of CN amongst a growing landscape of treatment strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapies. Multi-disciplinary team, pathway-based treatment strategy may improve patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on testicular cancer was held on 3-5 November 2016 in Paris, France. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 36 leading experts in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer (34 panel members attended the conference; an additional two panel members [CB and K-PD] participated in all preparatory work and subsequent manuscript development). The aim of the conference was to develop detailed recommendations on topics relating to testicular cancer that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and where the available level of evidence is insufficient. The main topics identified for discussion related to: (1) diagnostic work-up and patient assessment; (2) stage I disease; (3) stage II-III disease; (4) post-chemotherapy surgery, salvage chemotherapy, salvage and desperation surgery and special topics; and (5) survivorship and follow-up schemes. The experts addressed questions relating to one of the five topics within five working groups. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel. A consensus vote was obtained following whole-panel discussions, and the consensus recommendations were then further developed in post-meeting discussions in written form. This manuscript presents the results of the expert panel discussions, including the consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Impact of contemporary patterns of chemotherapy utilization on survival in patients with advanced cancer of the urinary tract: a Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC).

Background: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is the standard treatment of advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC), but 50% of patients are ineligible for cisplatin according to recently published criteria. We used a multinational database to study patterns of chemotherapy utilization in patients with aUTC and determine their impact on survival. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of patients with: UTC (bladder, renal pelvis, ureter or urethra); advanced disease (stages T4b and/or N+ and/or M+); urothelial, squamous or adenocarcinoma histology. Primary objective was overall survival (OS). Eligibility-for-cisplatin was defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, creatinine clearance ≥ 60 ml/min, no hearing loss, no neuropathy and no heart failure. Cox regression multivariate analyses were used to establish independent associations of cisplatin versus noncisplatin-based chemotherapy on OS. Results: 1794 patients treated between 2000 and 2013 at 29 centers were analyzed. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. About 1333 patients (74%) received first-line chemotherapy: the use of first-line chemotherapy was associated with longer OS: [hazard ratio (HR): 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.67-2.20]. Type of first-line chemotherapy received was: cisplatin-based 669 (50%), carboplatin-based 399 (30%) and other 265 (20%). Cisplatin use was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.35-1.77). This benefit was independent of baseline characteristics or comorbidities but was associated with eligibility-for-cisplatin: eligible patients treated with cisplatin lived longer than those who were not (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.36-2.21), while such benefit was not observed among ineligible patients. About 26% of patients who did not receive cisplatin were eligible for this agent. Median OS of ineligible patients was poor irrespective of the chemotherapy used. Conclusions: The importance of applying published criteria of eligibility-for-cisplatin was confirmed in a multinational, real-world setting in aUTC. The reasons for deviations from these criteria set targets to improve adherence. Effective therapies for cisplatin-ineligible patients are needed.