Search

Purpose Standard frontline treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma currently includes sunitinib. A barrier to long-term treatment with sunitinib includes the development of significant adverse effects, including diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and fatigue. This trial assessed the effect of an alternate 2 weeks on, 1 week off (2/1) schedule of sunitinib on toxicity and efficacy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods Patients started with oral administration of 50 mg sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule and underwent schedule and dose alterations if toxicity developed. The primary end point was < 15% grade ≥ 3 fatigue, diarrhea, or HFS. With 60 patients, the upper bound of the CI would fall below the published 4/2 schedule grade ≥ 3 toxicity rate of 25% to 30%. Results Fifty-nine patients were treated between August 2014 and March 2016. Seventy-seven percent were intermediate or poor risk per Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. With a median follow-up of 17 months, 25% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, HFS, or diarrhea; 37% required a dose reduction, and 10% discontinued because of toxicity. The overall response rate was 57%, median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. At 12 weeks, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores dropped between 0% and 10% from baseline, with less reduction in patients who continued treatment longer. Conclusion The primary end point of decreased grade 3 toxicity was not met; however, treatment with a 2/1 sunitinib schedule is associated with a lack of grade 4 toxicity, a low patient discontinuation rate, and high efficacy.

Purpose The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor is inactivated in the majority of clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs), leading to inappropriate stabilization of hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α). PT2385 is a first-in-class HIF-2α antagonist. Objectives of this first-in-human study were to characterize the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy, and to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of PT2385. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic ccRCC that had progressed during one or more prior regimens that included a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. PT2385 was administered orally at twice-per-day doses of 100 to 1,800 mg, according to a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, followed by an expansion phase at the RP2D. Results The dose-escalation and expansion phases enrolled 26 and 25 patients, respectively. Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of four (range, one to seven) prior therapies. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any dose. On the basis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiling, the RP2D was defined as 800 mg twice per day. PT2385 was well tolerated, with anemia (grade 1 to 2, 35%; grade 3, 10%), peripheral edema (grade 1 to 2, 37%; grade 3, 2%), and fatigue (grade 1 to 2, 37%; no grade 3 or 4) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. No patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Complete response, partial response, and stable disease as best response were achieved by 2%, 12%, and 52% of patients, respectively. At data cutoff, eight patients remained in the study, with 13 patients in the study for ≥ 1 year. Conclusion PT2385 has a favorable safety profile and is active in patients with heavily pretreated ccRCC, validating direct HIF-2α antagonism for the treatment of patients with ccRCC.

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT 600mg ), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT 800mg ) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT 600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT 800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT 600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Purpose: Obesity is an established risk factor for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, some reports suggest that RCC developing in obese patients may be more indolent. We investigated the clinical and biologic effect of body mass index (BMI) on treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic RCC., Methods: The impact of BMI (high BMI: ≥ 25 kg/m 2 v low BMI: < 25 kg/m 2 ) on overall survival (OS) and treatment outcome with targeted therapy was investigated in 1,975 patients from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and in an external validation cohort of 4,657 patients. Gene expression profiling focusing on fatty acid metabolism pathway, in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set, and immunohistochemistry staining for fatty acid synthase (FASN) were also investigated. Cox regression was undertaken to estimate the association of BMI with OS, adjusted for the IMDC prognostic factors., Results: In the IMDC cohort, median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI, 23.2 to 28.6) in patients with high BMI versus 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.5 to 18.5) in patients with low BMI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95). In the validation cohort, high BMI was associated with improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.93; medians: 23.4 months [95% CI, 21.9 to 25.3 months] v 14.5 months [95% CI, 13.8 to 15.9 months], respectively). In The Cancer Genome Atlas data set (n = 61), FASN gene expression inversely correlated with BMI (P = .034), and OS was longer in the low FASN expression group (medians: 36.8 v 15.0 months; P = .002). FASN immunohistochemistry positivity was more frequently detected in IMDC poor (48%) and intermediate (34%) risk groups than in the favorable risk group (17%; P-trend = .015)., Conclusion: High BMI is a prognostic factor for improved survival and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC treated with targeted therapy. Underlying biology suggests a role for the FASN pathway.

Purpose: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted., Results: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

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., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To prospectively determine the efficacy of combination therapy with temsirolimus plus bevacizumab versus interferon alfa (IFN) plus bevacizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study, patients with previously untreated predominantly clear-cell mRCC were randomly assigned, stratified by prior nephrectomy and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group, to receive the combination of either temsirolimus (25 mg intravenously, weekly) or IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously thrice weekly) with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously, every 2 weeks). The primary end point was independently assessed progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Median PFS in patients treated with temsirolimus/bevacizumab (n = 400) versus IFN/bevacizumab (n = 391) was 9.1 and 9.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.3; P = .8). There were no significant differences in overall survival (25.8 ν 25.5 months; HR, 1.0; P = .6) or objective response rate (27.0% ν 27.4%) with temsirolimus/bevacizumab versus IFN/bevacizumab, respectively. Patients receiving temsirolimus/bevacizumab reported significantly higher overall mean scores in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) -15 and FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms subscale compared with IFN/bevacizumab (indicating improvement); however, no differences in global health outcome measures were observed. Treatment-emergent all-causality grade ≥ 3 adverse events more common (P < .001) with temsirolimus/bevacizumab were mucosal inflammation, stomatitis, hypophosphatemia, hyperglycemia, and hypercholesterolemia, whereas neutropenia was more common with IFN/bevacizumab. Incidence of pneumonitis with temsirolimus/bevacizumab was 4.8%, mostly grade 1 or 2., Conclusion: Temsirolimus/bevacizumab combination therapy was not superior to IFN/bevacizumab for first-line treatment in clear-cell mRCC.