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.

TP53 Alterations Are Associated With Poor Survival in Patients With Primary Mediastinal Nonseminoma Germ Cell Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Primary mediastinal nonseminoma germ cell tumors (PMNSGCT) are a subgroup of nonseminoma germ cell tumors (GCT) with poor prognosis. In this study, PMNSGCT-specific genomic landscape was analyzed and correlated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: DNA was extracted and sequenced from 28 archival tumor tissue of patients with mediastinal GCT (3 seminoma and 25 nonseminoma). Overall survival (OS) and association with gene alterations were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox regression methods. RESULTS: Three patients (11%) had a karyotype XXY, 17/28 (61%) tumor samples presented chromosome 12p amplification. Somatic mutations were detected in 19/28 (68%) samples. The most frequently mutated genes were: TP53 (13/28; 46%), KIT (5/28; 18%), and KRAS (5/28; 18%). Deleterious TP53 alterations were associated with significantly reduced overall survival (HR: 7.16; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: TP53 alterations are common in PMNSGCT and are associated with reduced overall survival, potentially underlying the poor sensitivity to chemotherapy observed in these patients.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Patient selection for a developmental therapeutics program using whole genome and Transcriptome analysis.

Introduction Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the outcomes of early phase clinical trials, whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) can be used to optimize patient selection and study assignment. In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed the impact of this approach on one such program. Methods Patients with advanced malignancies underwent fresh tumor biopsies as part of our personalized medicine program (NCT02155621). Tumour molecular data were reviewed for potentially clinically actionable findings and patients were referred to the developmental therapeutics program. Outcomes were reviewed in all patients, including those where trial selection was driven by molecular data (matched) and those where there was no clear molecular rationale (unmatched). Results From January 2014 to January 2018, 28 patients underwent WGTA and enrolled in clinical trials, including 2 patients enrolled in two trials. Fifteen patients were matched to a treatment based on a molecular target. Five patients were matched to a trial based upon single-gene DNA changes, all supported by RNA data. Ten cases were matched on the basis of genome-wide data (n = 4) or RNA gene expression only (n = 6). With a median follow-up of 6.7 months, the median time on treatment was 8.2 weeks. Discussion When compared to single-gene DNA-based data alone, WGTA led to a 3-fold increase in treatment matching. In a setting where there is a high level of uncertainty around both the investigational agents and the biomarkers, more data are needed to fully evaluate the impact of routine use of WGTA.

Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide are both used for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine the best sequence in which to use both drugs, as well as their second-line efficacy. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial done in six cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly-diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without neuroendocrine differentiation and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated random number table to receive either abiraterone acetate 1000 mg orally once daily plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily until PSA progression followed by crossover to enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily (group A), or the opposite sequence (group B). Treatment was not masked to investigators or participants. Primary endpoints were time to second PSA progression and PSA response (≥30% decline from baseline) on second-line therapy, analysed by intention-to-treat in all randomly assigned patients and in patients who crossed over, respectively. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125357. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2014, and Dec 13, 2016, 202 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either group A (n=101) or group B (n=101). At the time of data cutoff, 73 (72%) patients in group A and 75 (74%) patients in group B had crossed over. Time to second PSA progression was longer in group A than in group B (median 19·3 months [95% CI 16·0-30·5] vs 15·2 months [95% CI 11·9-19·8] months; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·45-0·97, p=0·036), at a median follow-up of 22·8 months (IQR 10·3-33·4). PSA responses to second-line therapy were seen in 26 (36%) of 73 patients for enzalutamide and three (4%) of 75 for abiraterone (χ2 p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events throughout the trial were hypertension (27 [27%] of 101 patients in group A vs 18 [18%] of 101 patients in group B) and fatigue (six [10%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) of 101 patients in group A and 20 (20%) of 101 patients in group B. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide showed activity as a second-line novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, whereas abiraterone acetate did not, leading to a longer time to second PSA progression for the sequence of abiraterone followed by enzalutamide than with the opposite treatment sequence. Our data suggest that using a sequencing strategy of abiraterone acetate followed by enzalutamide provides the greatest clinical benefit. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Prostate Cancer Canada, Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, BC Cancer Foundation, Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Janssen, and Astellas.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Clinical effectiveness of docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer in a real-world population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has known efficacy, with an overall survival benefit in Phase III clinical trials. The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in the general patient population remains undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective review using the British Columbia Provincial Pharmacy Database. To be included, patients had to have castration-sensitive prostate cancer not previously treated (except in the adjuvant setting) and have received at least one cycle of docetaxel, with complete records available for review. Safety and clinical effectiveness were evaluated. RESULTS: From April 2015 to February 2017, we identified 183 cases; 156 met inclusion criteria. Most patients had high-volume disease (80%). All 6 planned docetaxel cycles were delivered in 126 cases (81%). Dose reductions and delays were required in 39% and 16% of cases. Grade 3-4 adverse events were noted in 40%, with no treatment-related deaths. The rate of febrile neutropenia was 18% and was significantly associated with the presence of high-volume disease (P = 0.038). PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/L was achieved in 27% of patients after 6 months of ADT and maintained in 16% after 12 months. Patients with over 20 bone metastases had worse time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and time to treatment for CRPC, and a trend toward worse overall survival. CRPC developed in 41% within 1 year, with a median time to CRPC of 14.4 months. Treatment for CRPC was given in 84 cases, with 90% receiving either abiraterone or enzalutamide in the first-line, with a PSA decline ≥50% occurring in 47%. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in a general population of patients with mCSPC was associated with poorer outcomes and high rates of toxicity compared to the published studies. Response rates to first-line treatment for mCRPC with abiraterone or enzalutamide appear similar to reported outcomes.

New treatments for stage I testicular cancer.

Clinical stage I represents the most frequent presentation of both seminoma and nonseminoma testicular cancer. Despite a survival rate of close to 100%, the management of patients with this disease stage is controversial. The recurrence rate is 10% to 20% for patients with stage I seminoma and 15% to 50% for those with stage I nonseminoma. A highly sensitive and specific biomarker of relapse that is applicable to both seminoma and nonseminoma, and able to drive a definitive risk-adapted management of the patients, still is not available. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the orchiectomy specimen has been used as a risk factor in patients with stage I nonseminoma. However, with a risk of recurrence of 50% for LVI-positive patients and 15% for LVI-negative patients, the discriminative power of LVI is modest at best. Various management options exist. In the absence of a predictive biomarker for recurrence, active surveillance avoids overtreatment in 50% to 85% of patients, with no risk of long-term side effects in nonrelapsing patients and a preserved overall survival of almost 100% after specific treatment for recurrent disease. However, although active surveillance has been accepted as the preferred option for stage I seminoma and low-risk stage I nonseminoma, its role in high-risk stage I nonseminoma remains controversial.

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.

Risk factors and model for predicting toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies are standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, toxicities can lead to drug discontinuation, which can affect patient outcomes. This study was aimed at identifying risk factors for toxicity and constructing the first model to predict toxicity-related treatment discontinuation (TrTD) in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS: The baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and toxicity data were collected for 936 mRCC patients receiving first-line VEGF-targeted therapy from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. A competing risk regression model was used to identify risk factors for TrTD, and it accounted for other causes as competing risks. RESULTS: Overall, 198 (23.8%) experienced TrTD. Sunitinib was the most common VEGF-targeted therapy (77%), and it was followed by sorafenib (18.4%). The median time on therapy was 7.1 months for all patients and 4.4 months for patients with TrTD. The most common toxicities leading to TrTD included fatigue, diarrhea, and mucositis. In a multivariate analysis, significant predictors for TrTD were a baseline age ≥60 years, a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , a single metastatic site, and a sodium level <135 mmol/L. A risk group model was developed that used the number of patient risk factors to predict the risk of TrTD. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series to date, age, GFR, number of metastatic sites, and baseline sodium level were found to be independent risk factors for TrTD in mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Based on the number of risk factors present, a model for predicting TrTD was built to be used as a tool for toxicity monitoring in clinical practice.

A phase I trial of ANG1/2-Tie2 inhibitor trebaninib (AMG386) and temsirolimus in advanced solid tumors (PJC008/NCI♯9041).

BACKGROUND: There is crosstalk between the ANG-Tie2 and the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Combined ANG1/2 and mTOR blockade may have additive anti-cancer activity. The combination of trebananib, an inhibitor of ANG1/2-Tie2 interaction, with temsirolimus was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: Patients were enrolled using 3 + 3 design, and were given intravenous trebananib and temsirolimus on Day 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during cycle 1. Peripheral blood was collected for evaluation of Tie2-expressing monocytes (TEMs) and thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Sparse pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling for trebananib drug levels was performed on Day 1 and 8 of cycle 2. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, 6 at dose level (DL) 1, 7 at DL -1, and 8 at DL -2. No effect of temsirolimus on trebananib PK was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were: fatigue (81 %), edema (62 %), anorexia (57 %), nausea (52 %), rash (43 %) and mucositis (43 %). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs included lymphopenia (28 %) and fatigue (28 %). The MTD was exceeded at DL-2. Of 18 response evaluable patients, 1 partial response was observed (ER+/HER2-/PIK3CA mutant breast cancer) and 4 patients had prolonged SD ≥ 24 weeks. No correlation with clinical benefit was observed with change in number TEMs or TP expression in TEMs with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was exceeded at trebananib 10 mg/kg weekly and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly, with frequent overlapping toxicities including fatigue, edema, and anorexia.

A randomized phase II study of cediranib alone versus cediranib in combination with dasatinib in docetaxel resistant, castration resistant prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the oncogenic Src pathway has been implicated in the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in preclinical models. Cediranib and dasatinib are multi-kinase inhibitors targeting VEGFR and Src respectively. Phase II studies of cediranib and dasatinib in CRPC have shown single agent activity. METHODS: Docetaxel-pretreated CRPC patients were randomized to arm A: cediranib alone (20 mg/day) versus arm B: cediranib (20 mg/day) plus dasatinib (100 mg/day) given orally on 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was 12-week progression-free survival (PFS) as per the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2). Patient reported outcomes were evaluated using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Present Pain Intensity (PPI) scales. Correlative studies of bone turnover markers (BTM), including bone alkaline phosphate (BAP) and serum beta-C telopeptide (B-CTx) were serially assayed. Results A total of 22 patients, 11 per arm, were enrolled. Baseline demographics were similar in both arms. Median number of cycles =4 in arm A (range 1-12) and 2 in arm B (range 1-9). Twelve-week PFS was 73 % in arm A versus 18 % in arm B (p = 0.03). Median PFS in months (arm A versus B) was: 5.2 versus 2.6 (95 % CI: 1.9-6.5 versus 1.4-not reached). Most common grade 3 toxicities were hypertension, anemia and thrombocytopenia in arm A and hypertension, diarrhea and fatigue in arm B. One treatment-related death (retroperitoneal hemorrhage) was seen in arm A. FACT-P and PPI scores did not significantly change in either arm. No correlation between BTM and PFS was seen in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small numbers, this randomized study showed that the combination of VEGFR and Src targeted therapy did not result in improved efficacy and may be associated with a worse outcome than VEGFR targeted therapy alone in patients with CRPC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01260688.

177Lu-PSMA-617 in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Evidence and Implications for Canadian Clinical Practice.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is highly expressed in prostate cancer and a therapeutic target. Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-PSMA-617 is the first radioligand therapy to be approved in Canada for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). As this treatment represents a new therapeutic class, guidance regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice is needed. This article aims to review the evidence from prospective phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and meta-analyses of observational studies on the use of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in prostate cancer and discuss how Canadian clinicians might best apply these data in practice. The selection of appropriate patients, the practicalities of treatment administration, including necessary facilities for treatment procedures, the assessment of treatment response, and the management of adverse events are considered. Survival benefits were observed in clinical trials of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with progressive, PSMA-positive mCRPC who were pretreated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxanes, as well as in taxane-naïve patients. However, the results of ongoing trials are awaited to clarify questions regarding the optimal sequencing of 177Lu-PSMA-617 with other therapies, as well as the implications of predictive biomarkers, personalized dosimetry, and combinations with other therapies.

Metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapy agents: characterization of survival outcome and application of the International mRCC Database Consortium criteria.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to apply the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic model in metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). In addition, the survival outcome of metastatic nccRCC patients was characterized. METHODS: Data on 2215 patients (1963 with clear-cell RCC [ccRCC] and 252 with nccRCC) treated with first-line VEGF- and mTOR-targeted therapies were collected from the IMDC. Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were compared in groups with favorable, intermediate, and poor prognoses according to IMDC prognostic criteria RESULTS: The median OS of the entire cohort was 20.9 months. nccRCC patients were younger (P < .0001) and more often presented with low hemoglobin (P = .014) and elevated neutrophils (P = .0001), but otherwise had clinicopathological features similar to those of ccRCC patients. OS (12.8 vs 22.3 months; P < .0001) and TTF (4.2 vs 7.8 months; P < .0001) were worse in nccRCC patients compared with ccRCC patients. The hazard ratio for death and TTF when adjusted for the prognostic factors was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.19-1.67; P < .0001) and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.33-1.79; P < .0001), respectively. The IMDC prognostic model reliably discriminated 3 risk groups to predict OS and TTF in nccRCC; the median OS of the favorable, intermediate, and poor prognosis groups was 31.4, 16.1, and 5.1 months, respectively (P < .0001), and the median TTF was 9.6, 4.9, and 2.1 months, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although targeted agents have significantly improved the outcome of patients with nccRCC, for the majority survival is still inferior compared with patients with ccRCC. The IMDC prognostic model reliably predicts OS and TTF in nccRCC and ccRCC patients.

The Use of Salvage Chemotherapy for Patients with Relapsed Testicular Germ Cell Tumor (GCT) in Canada: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Although metastatic germ cell tumor (GCT) is highly curable with initial cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT), 20-30% of patients relapse. Salvage CT options include conventional (CDCT) and high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), however definitive comparative data remain lacking. We aimed to characterize the contemporary practice patterns of salvage CT across Canada. METHODS: We conducted a 30-question online survey for Canadian medical and hematological oncologists with experience in treating GCT, assessing treatment availability, patient selection, and management strategies used for relapsed GCT patients. RESULTS: There were 30 respondents from 18 cancer centers across eight provinces. The most common CDCT regimens used were TIP (64%) and VIP (25%). HDCT was available in 13 centers (70%). The HDCT regimen used included carboplatin and etoposide for two cycles (76% in 7 centers), three cycles (6% in 2 centers), and the TICE protocol (11%, in 2 centers). "Bridging" CDCT was used by 65% of respondents. Post-HDCT treatments considered include surgical resection for residual disease (87.5%), maintenance etoposide (6.3%), and surveillance only (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: HDCT is the most commonly used GCT salvage strategy in Canada. Significant differences exist in the treatment availability, selection, and delivery of HDCT, highlighting the need for standardization of care for patients with relapsed testicular GCT.

Whole-genome and transcriptome analysis of advanced adrenocortical cancer highlights multiple alterations affecting epigenome and DNA repair pathways.

Adrenocortical cancer (ACC) is a rare cancer of the adrenal gland. Several driver mutations have been identified in both primary and metastatic ACCs, but the therapeutic options are still limited. We performed whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing on seven patients with metastatic ACC. Integrative analysis of mutations, RNA expression changes, mutation signature, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) analysis was performed. Mutations affecting CTNNB1 and TP53 and frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events were observed in our cohort. Alterations affecting genes involved in cell cycle (RB1, CDKN2A, CDKN2B), DNA repair pathways (MUTYH, BRCA2, ATM, RAD52, MLH1, MSH6), and telomere maintenance (TERF2 and TERT) consisting of somatic and germline mutations, structural variants, and expression outliers were also observed. HRDetect, which aggregates six HRD-associated mutation signatures, identified a subset of cases as HRD. Genomic alterations affecting genes involved in epigenetic regulation were also identified, including structural variants (SWI/SNF genes and histone methyltransferases), and copy gains and concurrent high expression of KDM5A, which may contribute to epigenomic deregulation. Findings from this study highlight HRD and epigenomic pathways as potential therapeutic targets and suggest a subgroup of patients may benefit from a diverse array of molecularly targeted therapies in ACC, a rare disease in urgent need of therapeutic strategies.

Comprehensive immune profiling of patients with advanced urothelial or renal cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are used in the treatment of urothelial and renal cell cancers. While some patients may have exceptional responses, better predictive biomarkers are needed. We profiled the circulating immune compartment of patients receiving ICI to identify possible immune markers associated with immunotherapy response or resistance. Peripheral blood samples were collected prior to, and 3 weeks after initiation of ICI. Using mass cytometry, 26 distinct immune populations were identified. Responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors had higher frequencies of naïve CD4+ T-cells, and lower frequencies of CD161+ Th17 cells and CCR4+ Th2 cells. Non-responders had a higher frequency of circulating PD1+ T-cells at baseline; there was a subsequent decrease in frequency with exposure to ICI with a concomitant increase in Ki67 expression. Flow cytometry for cytokines and chemokine receptors showed that CD4+ T cells of non-responder patients expressed less CXCR4 and CCR7. In addition, their PD1- CD4+ T cells had higher TNFα and higher CCR4 expression, while their PD1+ CD4+ T cells had higher interferon γ and lower CCR4 expression. The role of γ/δ T-cells was also explored. In responders, these cells had higher levels of interferon γ, TNFα and CCR5. One patient with a complete response had markedly higher frequency of γ/δ T-cells at baseline, and an expansion of these cells after treatment. This case was analyzed using single-cell gene expression profiling. The bulk of the γ/δ T cells consisted of a single clone of Vγ9/Vδ2 cells both before and after expansion, although the expansion was polyclonal. Gene expression analysis showed that exposure to an ICI led to a more activated phenotype of the γ/δ T cells. In this study, the circulating immune compartment was shown to have potential for biomarker discovery. Its dynamic changes during treatment may be used to assess response before radiographic changes are apparent, and these changes may help us delineate mechanisms that underpin both response and resistance to ICI. It also hypothesizes a potential role for γ/δ T cells as effector cells in some cases.

Utilization and Safety of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in a Real-World Cohort of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was associated with a survival benefit in a phase III clinical trial of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, mRCC patients from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab were analyzed to determine the safety and outcomes in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received ipilimumab plus nivolumab as first-line therapy for mRCC in CKCis, were identified, and the amount of treatment received, discontinuation rates, and reasons for discontinuing treatment were determined. Toxicity data, including type and grade, were collected. Efficacy outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The cohort included 195 patients, the majority with clear cell histology (74%). All 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab were administered in 124 patients (64%). Progressive disease (n = 87; 45%) and toxicity (n = 36; 18%) were the most common causes for discontinuing treatment. Several patients (n = 18) did not receive all 4 doses of ipilimumab but received single agent nivolumab. The estimated median OS was 54.5 months (95% CI, 17.7 - NE) and 12-month OS was 72.2% (95% CI, 65.0 - 79.3). Median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.3 - 10.2) and ORR was 42.5%. Patients who received all 4 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab had better ORR (50% vs. 28%) and a longer PFS and OS than those who received less than 4 cycles (P < .0001). Ninety-five AEs were documented in 72 patients who required dose reduction/change, with colitis being the most frequent. CONCLUSION: In this real-world cohort of treatment-naïve mRCC patients, outcomes, and safety were comparable to previously reported clinical trial data.

Outcomes of patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated impressive activity in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and have become standard treatment options for patients with advanced disease. Data supporting the effectiveness of ICI-based therapy in advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) is more limited. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to evaluate the outcomes of patients with advanced nccRCC. Patients were classified into three groups based on first-line therapy: ICI-based therapy (monotherapy or combination), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor monotherapy, or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor monotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare OS and TTF between treatment groups and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for prognostic covariates. RESULTS: We identified a total of 1145 patients with metastatic nccRCC. The most common subtype was papillary RCC (54.9%). For first-line therapy, 74.3% received VEGF monotherapy, 15% received mTOR monotherapy, and 10.7% received ICI-based therapy. Median OS in the ICI group was 28.6 months, versus 16.4 months in the VEGF group and 12.2 months in the mTOR group. Median TTF in the ICI group was 6.9 months, versus 5.0 months in the VEGF group and 3.9 months in the mTOR group. ORR was 27.2% in the ICI group, 14.5% in the VEGF group, and 9% in the mTOR group. After adjusting for the IMDC risk group, histological subtype, and age, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.42-0.78, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus VEGF and 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.71, p < 0.0001) for ICI versus mTOR. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced nccRCC, first-line ICI-based treatment appears to be associated with improved OS compared to VEGF and mTOR targeted therapy. These results should be confirmed in prospective randomised trials.